JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
In Canada, it is amazing to see how our government turns a blind eye to all the towns become ghost towns with such depressing restrictions on business and companies applied every year and no idea what they are doing and yet have the nerve to say that everything is great and doing absolutely nothing to help fix the core problem. Politicians have such a huge disconnect to the fantasy that they push to real life…all for the sake of the stock market and following US policies.
110
Joe
Like this?
“It’s here! The consolidated Energy East application has arrived, all 38,885 pages of it”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/05/death-by-paperc.html
90
More than amazing but I can’t think of the real word to describe it.
Perhaps it’s on one of the almost 39,000 pages of print.
60
It’s a misleading artifice KK, the sort of abberation concocted by twisted individuals that fap to the horrors of contract language.
72
Yes, a bigger version of the naming by authority of the speed bumps installed on our access, “Traffic Calming Devices”. Collective punishment is alive and growing.
61
When you never experienced starvation, real poverty it is hard to relate. Both these I have experienced and I am very scared of.
Canadians, Oz, Americans never had that problem. Now that we all galloping toward that outcome and the physical pain is exerted, only then the general populous will take a note.
To this day I never thrown food away as I am scared to be hungry again.
181
Yes Dariusz, it is those sort of experiences that bring an understanding about what is important in life.
My parents generation understood it. Children of those who had been through the privations of the Great War ended up experiencing the Great Depression and the another world war with all its horrors. They knew you couldn’t spend money you didn’t have. They knew you couldn’t eat if you didn’t work. And they knew that they would strive to give their children a better outcome. By and large they did.
However, the lessons have been lost. They will only be relearnt by experiencing much the same thing. I suspect the next global depression is on its way helped along by the obscene economic and social policies of the socialists.
France, Spain, Europe as a whole is struggling. The USA GDP growth is spluttering. Australia Federal government debt will soon reach half a trillion dollars. The budget goes further into the red each and every year. Spending is out of control courtesy of some of the most irresponsible policies ever implemented by government. The leaders of both major political parties want to introduce an economy destroying Carbon tax or ETS. They are truly deluded.
What we need to do is develop our own personal survival strategies – financial, social and security – to ensure we and our families come out the other side in half reasonable condition.
150
Sam
I thought I had it planned by working hard, saving and investing wisely. 10 years ago I thought I could retire now, but the return on my investments is low now with money almost worthless as they keep on printing trillions.
The financial Armageddon that we foretasted in 2008 has never gone away. In fact we are in even a worse situation now. This will lead to revolutions and blood on the streets when people realise that they have lost everything overnight. Labor will destroy Australia and will push this country into the permanent banana or Argentina zone. We are just helpless passengers watching this crash in a slow motion.
This is the age of unabridged and naked theft from anyone that has anything. 100 years (1917) ago this began with the power of the gun, now they are doing it with the power of “social democracy”.
150
Dariusz, the people who are doing this to you now are reading from the same book as those who inflicted the hard times on you before.
The naked theft has been going on for a long time, as those who have worked and saved fund the benefits and retirement for those who did not.
30
While I have never thankfully experienced starvation or indeed abject poverty, I have learned through various life experiences the value of food and drink. I do not throw food away, and I cringe with revulsion when I watch people take part in food fights or eating contests, knowing that but a few heartbeats away there are those without. Wanton excess and vapid wastefulness is so utterly mindless.
90
I have worked for many of the last 15 years across many parts of SE Asia. Often the hotels I stayed in had a buffet breakfast included in the room tarif. I have been constantly amazed and equally shocked to see so many people (particularly young Asian women) heap their plates up with everything on the buffet, then pick at it and get up and leave the majority on their plates. If I tried that at home when I was a child in Scotland in the 1940’s after the war, my mother would clip me across the ear and say “remember the starving millions in China” and make me eat every last crumb of what would not have been a generous helping anyway, as food was rationed for many years after the war. These times may well be coming again for many in this mad world.
110
One only has to look at the various cooking-related “reality tv” shows, where people throw away loads of food based on some perceived visual imperfection, and then whatever is remaining, is judged by people who have likely never gone hungry in their lives. Not the only reason why I try to steer clear of such junk tv, but certainly part of it.
80
Hear hear to all these comments. Food wastage is appalling. So many youngsters don’t know the meaning of true poverty and starvation.
90
Very true, and now we also have this developed nation wastage called the green movement to contend with. Only the wealthy can afford to be “environmentally friendly”, everyone else is just trying to survive. The hypocrisy of the green movement is that if they would only promote reliable power supply in developing nations, those nations could afford to have much better (real) environmental standards. No need to poach gorillas when you can feed your family. Boot strapping poor nations will also appease the greens need for population control. As industry generates wealth people tend to reproduce less so its a win win situation (in the green context). But alas wealthy greens in the developed nations prefer to see the unfortunate masses without the benefits of modernisation and by some twisted logic think this is good.
91
Dariusz,
I’ve never been hungry enough to call it starvation or even close. At several points during my childhood my parents were struggling hard to survive but we always had a meal on the table 3 times a day.
Today is not the same as the past. The struggle now isn’t the same as the struggle then. We were not reckless then. But now it’s just spend and waste, spend and waste, spend even more and waste even more and I can read the handwriting on the wall. It scares me. I’ve never been afraid for the future before. But I am now.
50
Not only is it hard to relate, people who haven’t experienced it don’t believe it.
30
My thoughts on all the data tampering at GISS, NOAA, NASA, BOM, ect.. They no longer have any credibility. None. It doesn’t matter what they say. It doesn’t matter if they are right or wrong, or somewhere in between. They just can’t be trusted. When someone trots out some GISS graph or chart or a claim that it is the “hottest ever” by some fraction of a degree within the margin of error, my reaction is: ” So what? It’s meaningless.”
423
Dave I agree with you and recently was wondering where “Wood for Trees” get their data. Is their record effectively ruined as well now ?
82
I assumed Wood for Trees simply harvested the data from the sites which they present for graphing. Actually it lists them in the Credits page:
http://woodfortrees.org/credits
I have several issues with the concept of an average global temperature and the associated anomaly. Personally I believe the statistic is weak and close to meaningless. Even the satellite sets, which would be a lot more consistent than the dodgy thermometers, have their issues.
If one believes the average global temperature statistics are of little merit and highly inaccurate, all the models based upon such statistics are doubly meaningless. I keep thinking of the parallels with economics. It is very difficult to asses major statistics, such as GDP and inflation, in an economy, just as it is difficult to assess key statistics at a global climate level.
Both systems are subject to numerous influences and have millions upon millions of interacting sub-systems. I see them as intractable problems. Any wonder that economic models are complete bunk? Both types of models are highly sensitive to subtle changes in the parameter assumptions. The main difference is that a lot of economists will admit the field is fraught with problems. Economists will often argue the opposite point of view, and sometimes both will end up with Nobels 😀 in climate science one is not allowed to argue the sceptic point of view … it is verboten. Given a chance the AGWers would criminalise such speech.
… and people thought economists were bad :p
40
Does anybody have a light? Or where’s a guy with a match when you need one?
http://gizmodo.com/the-world-s-largest-solar-plant-just-torched-itself-1777767880
160
Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving subsidy farm!
When operating at full capacity, Ivanpah has the ability to slaughter several hundred birds a day. The workers euphemistically call them “Smokers”, as they leave a trail of smoke as they plunge burning from the sky, like little comets of death.
This recent attempt by the facility to commit suicide due to shame, appears to be a mirror alignment malfunction. But the avian assassinations were occurring when mirror tracking was working normally. Spokespersons for the subsidy farm claimed they couldn’t work it out. True, the obvious possibilities didn’t check out. Heat ripple in the air over the mirror array causing micro lensing (hot spots before the tower) wouldn’t be it as the mirrors actually keep the surface cooler than the surrounding desert. Flying too close to the tower wasn’t it, as the charred remains of the “unintended consequences” were falling well outside the nominal kill zone.
What could it be? The question remained active in my mind. Having studied the question of inner race bearing failure in bird blending wind turbines I know that subsidy farmers lie and lie and lie. If the problem is inherent to their failed design, they will demand millions to look elsewhere to “solve” it, never admitting the Holy Tri-Bladed Cross of Gaia is a flawed mechanical concept and will always have a maintenance cost per MWH greater than the wholesale cost of CCGT generation per MWH.
Ivanpah has a similar problem. I found it here. I was doing a tour of the heliostat system on the towers of Central Park 1. Tracking mirrors on the lower tower bounce sunlight into the fixed mirrors on the cantilever on the upper tower. This allows solar illumination of the resident’s sky-pool swimming facility and the public park behind that would be otherwise shadowed by the building structure. The system works well, but the accuracy need not be as high as Ivanpah should be.
The mirrors are high tech composite mirrors with nono-tech coatings that allow them to self clean. Their tracking system has IR targeting and self calibration. They have secondary “dumb” robust non-networked systems to safety override that can only be accessed at the individual mirror stem. (You can’t hack the system online and create a death ray). But the mirrors have a problem. They are not dead flat. They have slight ripples due to thermal expansion factors between support frame and mirror panel. An irrelevance for Central Park 1. But for Ivanpah it means micro lensing and hotspots occurring well before the tower.
The inherent aerodynamic problems with Tri-Bladed horizontal axis wind turbines mean megawatt class will suffer 70% catastrophic gearbox failure within 2 years of installation. The inherent optical problems with Ivanpah means guaranteed bird slaughter. Do the subsidy farmers know? You can be sure of it. But they won’t say. Their industry model is profit through lying.
281
The Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project which is smaller than Ivanpah roasted 130 birds during a two hour test run. https://youtu.be/jO3g5-UKxnk
20
Ivanpah has a contract to supply elctricity to the local grid and they have so far failed to achieve the required output. They were given an extension to improve their delivery. I think that expires in July.
With the current breakdown it seems virtually certain they will fail again. Will the supply contract then be voided? Sadly I doubt it.
70
Why don’t they go all the way and put gigantic mirrors in orbit. After all, the sci fi writers all agree that it can be done. And that way they could fricassee a whole city or two with their misaligned mirrors all at once and be done with it.
Coming soon to a city or town near you I’ve no doubt. 🙁
50
“Sci fi writers” of course are the various “experts”, talking heads and opportunists who push solar. No sensible science fiction writer would touch it — I hope.
60
Roy,
where you mentioned putting gigantic mirrors in orbit, well don’t laugh too loudly.
Back in 2008, when I started all this, I constructed a 55 part series on what it might take to lower CO2 emissions in the U.S. to comply with the (original) Kyoto Protocol.
A large part of that series was to find methods to replace large scale coal fired power, not that there are any, other than large scale Nuclear Power.
One of them was exactly that, mirrors in orbit, and this was back in May of 2008.
I mentioned it in the Post at this link.
Kyoto – A Perspective (Part 21)
Crackpot then, and crackpot now!
Tony.
70
Tony,
When I was a teenager all sorts of things seemed so glamorous and adventurous. If you’ve ever read Heinlein’s early stuff you’ll understand what I’m going to say. In those years I would have happily jumped aboard the space patrol’s rocket ships and run off through the solar system to save the earth or flown off to Mars to ice skate on the canals with two boys trying to save themselves from an angry government or whatever it was they had to fear — I don’t even remember the details anymore.
Now all I see is the terrible vulnerability when you’re in space. Apollo 13 brought home the reality that you’re not going to get bailed out if you make a mistake or something goes wrong.
That realization applies to satellites as we see one coming down every now and then and can’t tell for sure if it will all burn up in flight or if not, where it will hit. And even more so when they can do real harm to large swaths of the surface and everyone unfortunate enough to be there when something goes wrong.
I’m glad you dropped the idea. 🙂
20
I have a some questions.
Here in New Zealand we have an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). It was put place during the current Government’s first term, as far as I know. They are now in their third term. At the time I understood that the tax consisted of 4 cents per litre of fuel and 5% of your electricity bill – no idea about other forms of energy. This tax was to be doubled in 2013.
The money, allegedly, goes to owners of forests, such as farmers, Maori, overseas corporations, etc., and 10% goes to the UN, which allegedly distributes it to hard-done-by countries such as Zimbabwe to expiate our sins of possessing cheap (but getting more expensive) forms of energy generation.
I have since been unable to find anything out about this tax, and therefore conclude that it is a tax by stealth. Most people I speak to are unaware that the tax exists, indeed a contractor installing a smart meter at my place for my electricity supplier said, “ETS? Never heard of it, mate.”
My questions, therefore, are:
1. How much am I, the ordinary Joe Blogs New Zealander, paying towards the ETS per litre for my petrol and diesel?
2. How much am I paying per unit of electricity towards the ETS?
3. Where does this money go?
4. What is achieved by this tax?
I’d really be grateful if some bright spark among you could provide the answers.
220
Your helping the un-elected EU members with their huge pay and perks…
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm
Again it is a Tax scam to make you poorer and not for any environmental causes.
170
Thanks, Joe
Your link raises the question of just how much we are paying indirectly for all manner of things, and that my questions above will only touch the surface of costs imposed on the ordinary bloke in the name of CAGW.
Greenhouse gases and sectors included (in the EU ETS)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) from:
Power and heat generation
Energy-intensive industry sectors including oil refineries, steel works and production of iron, aluminium, metals, cement, lime, glass, ceramics, pulp, paper, cardboard, acids and bulk organic chemicals
Commercial aviation
70
It all looks like a complete waste of money to me. It does several things;
1. Raises prices, reduces purchase power. Reduces the amount of disposable income for the same wage, ultimately this reduces money in circulation hurting the economy like a compounding interest rate.
2. It boosts the ego of the politicians taking your money and giving it away to a “worthy” cause. Swelling their head and blinding them further.
3. Same as (2) for the UN entity.
4. I don’t know who they give the money to for said third-world countries. This is where the money disappears. If any good comes from it at all, I’m yet to see evidence of it.
40
Kia Ora, Dave
We do indeed have a emissions trading scheme. At least that is what we are told.
It was introduced as the Climate Change Response Act, in 2002, “To introduce a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme”. It has been amended several times since.
Like the Goods and Services Tax, it is essentially a tax on consumption. GST is fairly straight forward (if you ignore all the exemptions for special interest groups), but I have yet to find a tax accountant who can explain the ETS to me, in words of one syllable, without having to delve through the minutiae of the rules regarding when exceptions can be made.
It is my observation, that the wording in the “ETS rule book” reads like a UN document. It has a similar style to it. I have no doubt that the New Zealand ETS is actually a UN Tax, fronted by the the IRD.
I wonder what happened to Magna Carta, and the principle of, “No taxation without representation”.
Good question, Dave. I am sorry I can’t give a better answer.
190
Perhaps, just thinking here RW.
Maybe we need a movie to stir everyone into a state of awareness and incipient revolt.
“Magna Carta _ The Movie” ..
Staring Leaonardoh derCapreeoh.
Would he wake up to the idea that he was being used?
70
DiCaprio would do it, not because of the important message it would send but for his ego which (this is a big call) is the greatest in Hollywood.
The fact he can earnestly chastise humanity for it’s ‘carbon footprint’ while personally producing one of the biggest due to belonging to the privileged few that can afford to produce it, shows his complete detachment from the realities of everyday life of the majority, he envisions his monetary worth as power that will give intellectual weight to his beliefs to the extent that people have to accept his reasoning because of his importance regardless of facts.
A self styled providence of prosperity that would still have such hubris if his fortune was created from success in animal porn.
141
DiCaprio is a global warming NUTJOB……….
We refuse to view any of his movies.
40
After-thought:
GST is only calculated once in the supply chain. The end consumer ultimately pays it, but everybody up-stream of the end consumer pays it, and then claims it back.
I am not sure that happens with the ETS. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be a cumulative tax.
110
NZ GST was introduced as I recall it during 1985 and was part of major tax reforms that were included in major economic reforms that were also, over a much longer period, introduced in Australia.
NZ PM David Lange decided to adopt The Campbell Report recommendations for economic reform that was commissioned by Australian Fraser Coalition Government Treasurer and much later PM John Howard who had prepared the list with the then permanent head of Treasury John Stone. By the way, Stone recently condemned the latest Coalition Budget as a classic Labor content and praised former Coalition Government Treasurer Joe Hockey for his first 2014/15 financial year Budget measures aimed at addressing the many financial and economic problems created by Labor during their six years in office and notably in their deliberately badly flawed 2013/14 Budget.
The major economic reforms protected both countries from the impact of the northern hemisphere financial crisis and earlier from the Asian economic meltdown. And of course, in Australia our debt free position at the federal level and history of budgets in surplus under Coalition management also helped.
Worryingly the economic positions have changed in recent years with the NZ economy powering ahead while the Australian economy is sluggish and at a growth rate well below average. However, Australia would be in far better shape now without the substantial federal debt (plus off federal budget accounted NBNCo debt) and Labor operating only budgets in deficit from 2007 to 2013 and handing over a badly and deliberately flawed 2013/14 Budget with many unfunded budget items and therefore an under estimated budget deficit of over $25 billion. And, the small boost to debt liability required to pay for the lack of provision to pay for Labor Budget items.
Without any doubt there is a spending problem handicapping Australian government’s budgets at present and seemingly a lack of political will to continue at federal level the repair programme introduced by Hockey and Abbott.
However I shudder to think what would happen if Union controlled Labor got hold of the economic and financial levers again at this time.
90
Thanks, Rereke.
I am somewhat surprised that even you don’t have the answer at your finger tips!
I am still hopeful that someone will come forward with an answer suitably quantified so that we can estimate the everyday cost to the individual of the The Great Madness.
Appreciate your input.
80
Hey, everybody has a few blind-spots!
Dealing with taxes, is one of mine.
50
Looking at the millions of tonnes of pine logs on the NZ wharves for export, one would have to wonder why they need a carbon tax due the sequestration of carbon dioxide by their pine plantations. An approx. estimate is 5 tonnes of carbon per hectare annually.
20
FD, on the bill received from our NZ gas utility supplier, perhaps two years ago, the “carbon charge” component of the invoice (Carbon Charge per kg .03750 applied to a 45kg cylinder = $1.69) magically and quietly disappeared…but the total bill amount remained the same. A retrospective analysis and comparison with current invoices showed that the “carbon charge” has been buried in the gas charge.
Furthermore, and in my view quite outrageously, 15% GST is applied to the net invoice amount, so we have a tax on a tax, raising the Carbon Charge in this instance to $1.95 (0.43 per kg).
I have emailed the gas company with a number of questions. It will be interesting to learn their reply.
This skulduggery should be publicized widely.
(The Greens want a deterrent effect on immigration to New Zealand to allegedly reduce the pressure on the housing market and infrastructure).
120
Don’t email – write them a letter, and tell them a copy has been sent to your lawyer. Emails can get mysteriously “lost”.
Also, send a copy to the IRD asking them if the Gas Company is allowed to do what you describe.
When I was a kid, I used to enjoy poking sticks into ant hills, to see what happened. It is just as much fun to play the same game with bureaucrats.
120
I hope this doesn’t imply that all climate skeptics are the result of unresolved childhood issues.
Lewandowsky would have a field day with this. 😀
The ants were saving the world and then you distracted them from their task. We’ve found why CO2 started rising in 1960. Obviously the ants had PTSD from your stick attack and never recovered to their full sequestration capacity.
Make peace with the ants, throw them a party, for all our sakes. 😉
70
OK, I am sufficiently contrite. I will go and hug an ant.
100
RW, I strongly suggest you choose your species of ant very carefully. Some are not that cuddly !
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/2d/c6/32/2dc632641734c0710044c9a6a62ee47e.jpg
52
Nice dentures!
20
Ahah! Then the mystery of the Pink Panther has been solved.
You know the one.
Dead ant.
Dead ant.
Deadant deadant dedantdedantdedannnnnnt. Deadantdeadant.
30
I’ve been singing that the last few days. We have spiders, including at least one enormous huntsman, that keep dropping dead ants around the house. It’s a hopeless task keeping things looking tidy. This is despite the frequent removal of various-sized but numerous huntsman spiders to a distant part of the home paddock! White-tails are splattered without ceremony.
51
BTW, does anyone have a better idea than ant rid to deter the little blighters from coming into the house? I’ve tried the old borax and sugar method which used to work but this year’s ant mob don’t seem to be bothered by it. I don’t like using sprays and overt poisons as they make me feel ill; I prefer ants to poisons and don’t mind some spiders around but there are limits to house-based livestock!
50
Annie maybe try bribery or paying them off, start with an ant-tenner……….. 🙁
40
@Annie BTW.
Just a few tips:
1. make sure all shrubs, trees and other greenery is not touching your house (keep it all well clear);
2. Make sure if you use antrid type products that their use by date has not expired (a random check in a couple of my local supermarkets show expired use by dates on most ant ridding products – dead antrid doesn’t deliver dead ants.
3. If you use the antrid type product you need to work at it. Use both the liquid and the solid baits inside and outside (under shelter) and replace regularly.
4. If ants are a problem are you sure that termites aren’t? Termite control fixes ants good and proper. Termidor or its generic. That’s the “Nuclear” option.
50
Annie, talcum power or similar fine powder pulls them up for a little while.
A product called driacide, which is made from a type of diatomacious earth, works well by desiccating insects generally and is non toxic(by and large).
30
I have always found a 12-gauge shotgun to be effective against most spiders. I doesn’t do much to improve the curtains though – collateral damage and all that.
70
Thanks Sceptical Sam. No shrubs near the house which is new and got termite defences, Termimesh-type stuff. RobK, I will try the talcum powder ruse, though I’ll have to buy some as I don’t keep the stuff. I dislike the feel of it, it puts my teeth on edge and I don’t like breathing it in either. The ‘nuclear’ option would have to be the very last resort, or maybe Rereke’s shotgun!
The ants in this area have been a nightmare this year and not just for us; there are nests everywhere. We had invasions of blow flies from NSW too; swarms and swarms of the little nightmares. Gee whizz, why ever didn’t we stay in England!!!
20
Blowies from NSW eh?
Who’d have ever guessed? 🙂
30
Annie.
I’ve had an infestation of ants in my kitchen since Christmas. I’ve done everything I could do to get rid of them. I had so many that after I sprayed them with fly spray I would have to sweep them up with dustpan and brush, and throw out three full duspans of dead ants.
Ant rid doesn’t kill the nest. They just get fatter and die all over the floor.
Fly spray kills the ones you spray, but does nothing to the nest.
After much frustration I started sealing holes where they going. Silicon glue is your friend.
Follow them to a hole. I had the smallest hole under the window ledge. Glue that up. I found three holes around the front window in front of the kitchen by following the ant trail. Finally the main culprit was at the front door. I have an indented entry way. The main house is brick with the entry way being weather board. Age and temperature had caused the seal between these two to break, so I siliconed up the gap from top to bottom. Ants suddenly stopped. I’ve got some refugees still alive inside, but the nest is over.
30
Thanks Greg. I think that’s part of the trouble for us. It’s a new post and beam construction with Timbercrete blocks and there are still some gaps. In theory we like some gaps as we dislike totally sealed buildings but there are limits! The posts are huge cypress pine ones, supposedly termite resistant but the ants happily run up and down them!
00
Annie, I use Amdro, granules sprinkled around the house is taken by the ants into their nests to kill every ant there. It’s good for between 6-12 months before other ants move into the empty space underground, I usually retreat every 12 months. It’s safe to use, but I did notice that cockroaches also seemed to disappear at the time.
20
Thanks Tom. I will make a note of that. I’ve never heard of it before.
00
Erratum: Carbon charge + GST@15% = 0.043kg^-1
I’ll do that.
20
NZ Climate Change Minister Paula Bennett says dubious carbon credits have been bought in the past, but that’s not happening now.
APRIL 26, 2016: Bennett ‘taking advice’ on cancelling ‘dodgy’ carbon credits
youtube, 2009: Organized Crime in Charge of EU Carbon Trade, Europe Says
. . .
How is it that a politician in 2016 has not seen a 7 year old video warning of the crime?
60
It’s probably being used to pitch Helen Clark as the next Secretary General of the UN
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/helen-clark-former-new-zealand-prime-minister-confirms-bid-for-united-nations-top-job
40
Scrap that theory …
A stone knife, mastodon bones and fossilized dung found in an underwater sinkhole show that humans lived in north Florida about 14,500 years ago, according to new research that suggests the colonization of the Americas was far more complex than originally believed.
At the Florida site, the researchers analyzed twigs in fossilized mastodon dung to date the bones and artifacts, finding them to be about 14,550 years old.
The timing casts the Bering Strait theory into doubt, Halligan said: the ice-free land bridge was only open for a few thousand years.
“So the ice-free corridor is not our answer for how the Americas were initially colonized,” she told the Smithsonian.
“The logical way people could have come to Florida by 14,600 years ago is if their ancestors entered the Americas by boat along the Pacific Coast,”
~ ~ ~
Also in the Americas …
It took nearly 85 years for archaeologists to figure it out, but an inscribed cliff face in Arizona‘s Wupatki National Monument turns out to be a kind of 800-year-old timepiece, whose only moving parts are the orbit of the Earth and the wheeling of the sun through the sky.
Photos: Watch the ‘Shadow Dagger’ Solar Calendar Mark the Equinox
80
The “Journey of Mankind”, available on the link below, suggests that two separate migrations into North America have been recognised. One migration made it all the way to Meadowcroft Pennsylvania via the ice bridge about 20,000 years ago, before the Last Glacial Maximum.
http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/
The Journey of Mankind suggests that this group continued migrating along a coastal path, and by 15,000 years ago, mankind had made its way via Central America to South America. Not sure what theory needs to be scrapped, but this view of mankind’s migration is based on the work of Prof Stephen Oppenheimer.
The Wikipedia page on Meadowcroft indicates that there is general support of the earlier dating of artifacts at this site:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadowcroft_Rockshelter
The unique nature of some of the artifacts found in this region have also been linked to other artifacts found in Florida:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page-Ladson_prehistory_site
Interestingly, this Wiki page was only updated on 13 May 2016, at Reference 16. That reference has a link to a separate article on the latest findings, from the same two researchers, but makes no mention of a boat journey along the Pacific Coast, or an earlier crossing from Mexico. Plenty of food for thought!
40
Where does the Clovis culture fit in?
‘The general hypothesis states that about 12,900 BP calibrated (10,900 14C uncalibrated) years ago, air burst(s) or impact(s) from a near-Earth object(s) set areas of the North American continent on fire, disrupted climate and caused the Quaternary extinction event in North America.
‘This resulted in the extinction of most of the megafauna, and the rapid demise of the North American Clovis culture.[4] The Younger Dryas ice age lasted for about 1,200 years before the climate warmed again. These events are also seen as part of the Holocene extinction phenomenon.’
wiki
40
handjive:
A recent find of an ancient mud tablet throws some light on this. Apparently some of the tribe became infected with pole cat ticks which annoyed the rest of the people. Some young hoodlums used the stone knives to cut off the top of the head of the infected, removed their brains and replaced them with lumps of fossilized dung.
The E Pluribus (translated as Gods?) were annoyed and decreed that the dung brains be sent to The Washing Place to relieve their ticks, and the people would supply them with food and simple shiny toys to amuse them, such as gold and diamonds. With time the dung brains became more numerous and expensive and the people were annoyed but the Gods wouldn’t relent. Then a great ogre called The Donald appeared and started hitting the dung brains over the head one by one, while the people cheered because the less dung brains the less they had to pay.
The tablet is broken at that point so we may never know the ending. We do know that some of them survived because recently both our Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have promised funding for a solar tower in Port Augusta, and only those with a lump of petrified dung for brains would do that.
180
From this Bloomberg graph http://about.bnef.com/content/uploads/sites/4/2016/01/annual-investment-2015.png
Between 2004 and 2015, $2672 Billion has been spent on renewables. !!
I wonder what the clean-up cost will be !!!!!!!!!
143
What is to show for it in terms of progress ? Nothing or very little at best.
131
It must be the highest price ever paid for anything in return for so litte.
100
Andy
Is that $2.672 Trillion US dollars
At say $10 billion per Nuclear power plant – that’s 267 power plants built?
Why would anyone spend that amount of money on:
1 Wind Mill things that fall down, or fling blades off etc
2 Solar Panels that last 15 years max
3 Solar Thermal that fries itself
4 Geothermal that Tim promotes
5 Wave energy things that become anchors?
The world has gone mad!
150
AndyG55,
Does Bloomberg provide a breakdown by country for this “investment”? I wonder what ROI this is producing?
61
from here..
http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/clean-energy-defies-fossil-fuel-price-crash-to-attract-record-329bn-global-investment-in-2015/
I haven’t followed any further.
82
I’m feeling a bit masochistic and offer no apologies for those that view International Day for Biological Diversity 22 May 2016.
61
What on earth is a “cross-cutting issue”. Do they mean that it is going against the grain?
50
If you’ll indulge me for a few seconds, I’d like to close off an old Weekend Unthreaded loose-end.
I’ve only just noticed today that the Canberra Ball Lightning video which hit headlines in January and which I called fake was actually admitted to be faked by the hoaxer about a week after I posted. It was so obviously fake that it is surprising the hoax got as far as it did. The hoaxer was similarly surprised at the media’s credulity. The Canberra Times, the national ABC, and National Nine News all carried it. By the time it was all over, even an ANU astronomer and a Senior BoM meteorologist were feeling a bit sheepish.
Let’s hope there will be more experts from the BoM feeling sheepish in the future… if you know what I mean.
90
Anyone up for an Oprah-Trump interview from 20 years ago. !
https://www.youtube.com/embed/MOKi5YeNtRI
82
Interesting Andy –he hasn’t really changed his overall view overtime, so all those who say he’s a populist and making up as he goes, have got it all wrong.
70
I wonder what the clean-up cost will be !!!!!!!!!
Going on usual costs, this would probably end up
at LEAST double….and up to five times more…
Gotta love the greenies…
30
This was in reply to Item 6.
Sorry….
20
Every healthy human being should eat greens daily.
40
With some Fava beans and a nice chianti fuh fuh fuh fuh fuh fuh fuh!
40
The last Green I saw was sort of rather hairy and very smelly… No thanks.
Maybe you are more used to the ones from the inner city elite areas.
82
Mind you, I don’t mind chomping on a piece of watermelon occasionally.
72
I always boil my greens, unless you want the full Limburger hit….
71
Most car mechanics over-torque wheel nuts by tightening them as hard as they can. This is wrong. Wheel nuts (also known as lug nuts) aren’t designed for such high torques and over-tightening them can stretch the studs or even cause catastrophic failure while the car is in motion. The wheel nuts will not come undone (by the process of “hypocyclic fretting precession”) when tightened to the manufacturer’s recommendation.
40
A couple of extra points: Recently I had the misfortune to need to change a wheel at a remote country location and could not undo the wheel nuts. I tried the vehicle tool and a larger four branch wheel brace. I was able to contact road service and waited a couple of hours. To my embarrassment on a couple of the nuts were too tight to turn and the others I ignored were little more than finger tight.
The alloy wheel needs to sit firmly with the hub into a groove in the wheel hub. The patrolman and later the tyre service that had carried out front and rear alignment and wheel balancing agreed that the fitter had not made sure that the wheel was seated correctly before and while tightening with an air operated tool.
So now I have a long socket wrench and carefully selected socket to suit each one my vehicles.
Truck drivers often carry a section of water pipe to fit over their socket wrench if needed.
Absolutely agree about being careful not to over tighten wheel nuts.
40
People would be shocked to know how little pressure is needed to torque nuts and bolts on vehicles, the wheel/lug nuts on VT to VZ Commodores are specified at 110 Nm or 81 ft lbs, think of a tyre lever 1 ft long and an 81 lb or 50 kg person placing all their weight on the end of the lever until it stops moving, that’s all it takes yet many people will bounce, stomp or wrestle the lever to almost double the torque, I think it’s a testament to vehicle engineers to predict such behaviour and design wheel stubs with the tensile strength to exceed these pressures when temperatures rise and fall during operation.
70
Furthermore, nuts, studs and wheel mating surface should be clean and oiled or greased. I they are dry or rusty they can bind when tightened and fret loose in service.
10
A happy discovery, while on our recent visit to Cyprus, was the Troodos Geopark. It is based at Amiandos (‘asbestos’) where the huge old asbestos mine is situated. The area is being revegetated, some of that started many years ago, and the Geopark and a botanic park also have been established. We were absolutely fascinated by the exhibits at the Geopark and the amazing rock samples both inside and outside the building. We’ve loved the area for many years and always been intrigued by the geology of Troodos as well as the island as a whole.
30
Annie have you experience blue asbestos as it was mined in the New England area of New South Wales?
I visited that mine a few times before it closed down and I am now horrified to think that I visited their crusher plant where the sunlight exposed the air full of particles of asbestos fibre floating around.
However, what fascinated me was that the rocks felt like stroking cat fur, velvet like to touch.
40
No, not blue asbestos. The only asbestos mine I’ve been near is that one in Cyprus. I first drove through there 50 years ago when they were constructing the ‘new’ road. The air was full of dust! I was unaware of a lot of things 50 years ago and just intent on getting up to Troodos and Mt Olympus!
20
Their web site doesn’t say anything about the geopark, but the first of the “garden” photos seems to have a rock conveniently sliced in half…
http://www.amiandos.eu/en/amiandos-mine-en/botanical-garden-gr.html
20
Hi Andrew:
Maybe outdated with the updated security stuff, but I have this on their booklet:
http://www.troodos-geo.org/
I haven’t tried it yet but will now. It’s on Twitter also:
Troodos Geopark(UnG)@Troodos-Geopark
and Facebook:
Troodos Unesco Global Geopark
As I use neither Facebook nor Twitter I couldn’t say how these work!
30
I gave it a go Andrew and you can change from Greek to English. I’m disappointed there aren’t more photos and details of the displays.
30
I want you to look at the mindset here.
I’ve spent the last week writing a submission for the Queensland 50% renewables by 2030 Panel, and so far it’s taken me 16 hours or more.
Okay then, the mindset.
Why would a Government set up a Panel here in the first place if that panel will not then give them the desired result. eg, don’t do it in the first place unless the answer is assured, and is what you want to hear ….. from a political point of view?
The panel will work at this for almost 10 Months, so pity help the Panel if they come out with a report that the Government does not want to hear, so in my opinion, the result is already assured, so anything I have to offer will not be even addressed.
It seems that they are proceeding under the proviso that a 50/50 split for Renewables is achievable, something patently untrue, and the whole process is basically about the funding and some ancillary matters.
Here’s the link to the Issues Paper Intro, with the link to the pdf document itself in the upper right link under the title Document Library, and it’s a 47 page pdf document.
Under the intro from the Panel Chair is details of how to make a Submission, and they are pretty tight there. I had to be artful to find a way to explain my submission with respect to the consultation questions, (pdf one page) but luckily, what I address is covered in the Issues paper under Section 4.2 – Is 50% renewable energy technically feasible?
I’ll make my Submission, but it pretty obvious it’s not what they want to hear. What I have done is just to lay out the facts and build the case that something like this is NOT feasible, and will be all but impossible to implement, even if they do actually attempt to do it.
I’m not sure about Submissions and whether they are actually bound to publish them, or if they can just be ignored away if it’s not what they want to hear.
Doing the whole exercise was enlightening really. It was involved and technical, and where possible I used their own information that they included in that Issues Paper.
Needless to say, this is something which will never be achieved, no matter how much they do.
I envisage that what I have in my submission will be totally ignored, because why set this thing up in the first place if the end result is not going to be exactly what you want to hear from a political point of view.
Luckily, if my submission doesn’t make it, I have it all here, not that I’m actually certain what can be done about it.
Also, you have to actually register if you wish to attend any of the public meetings, so it looks like ‘invite only’ here. There will be a meeting here in Rockhampton, but again, I’m certain they won’t want to hear what I have to say. They’ll have my Submission, see that I’m registered to attend, and I feel sure that meeting will be pretty well controlled as to what they want to hear from the public.
Either way, I’ll keep you all informed here, and if there’s another way to place my submission where it does get seen, I’d like to know about that, if any of you have any ideas.
Tony.
231
Good on you Tony, I’m sure the whole thing will have a 97% survey taint to it but you never know who’ll take notice of your submission, if not now sometimes these pearls of reason can emerge in the future as “new evidence to support what has always worked” when one government want to knife another over a dismal performance of energy policy.
Just don’t expect to get credited for the idea. 🙂 but we will know.
80
I actually think my Submission will sink without trace, but for the sake of posterity, I was wondering where I could place something like this where it will get noticed, so people can actually get the non Government sponsored spin real truth about it.
I mean, the target is 2030, and by then, I’ll be in my late 70’s, and will have probably forgotten all about it by then, not that I’d ever resort to the most redundant of sayings, “I told you so!” but it would be a point of reference for some to mention that this was predicted back when all this first started, because trust me on this.
This is something which will NEVER be achieved, and I can’t stress that word never enough.
Tony.
60
Tony:
Have you thought of submitting it to euanmearns.com?
The site is (mostly) about energy/electricity/renewables and does have guest articles. They often generate many comments, a lot of them from people in or have been in the power business. You may get some feedback and if it is published it will be preserved on the Internet for years.
Regards
70
Tony, in NZ a written submission to a parliamentary panel usually invokes the option of making a verbal submission in person. Such verbal submissions presumably give more weight to the submission and give the submitter a chance to elaborate and field questions from the panel. Minuted proceedings and all. Just a thought.
Your musings regarding the ignoring of a carefully worded and researched submission within the framework are counterproductive. Have a cuppa and carry on!
60
Mike,
thanks for that, and my intentions are similar here.
I want to attend the meeting here in Rockhampton, if only to ask one question.
“Could I have a show of hands from those of you out the front who have actually read my Submission.”
I really need to say nothing else, and in effect, that’s all I really need to say, as I feel sure that there will be a media presence, and from there, they will probably want to see that Submission.
If there are any questions from the Panel directed back to me, I’m absolutely confident of my ability to explain them on the spot without reference to anything, and that will also work in my favour, someone who actually knows what they are talking about.
However, the prospect of being an Invitation Only meeting worries me that, knowing the explosive nature of my Submission, I have this inkling that I won’t get one of those invitations.
Wait and see I suppose.
Tony.
100
Keep up the good work Tony. The process is often not perfect. If you are not satisfied with the meeting the usual route of Pollies then the press can work. You generally get a good hearing here..let them hear what they need to hear. If it still doesn’t have effect: well, you tried and there’s a good chance someone will be enlightened. Conversely, if you say nothing, there will be no contrary views so no one can complain later.
Don’t be disheartened. Best wishes.
50
They will know who you are TonyfromOz. Better shave of the mo or wear a toupee or you’ll never get hold of the microphone.
31
Tony,
No. Don’t under any circumstance say that. You would immediately undermine yourself and the very professional and insightful work you’ve put into your submission.
You’ll have enough people on the panel undermining you without giving them a free-kick.
The best approach is to thank the Chairman for providing you with the opportunity to make your presentation, then make an opening statement and briefly stress all the essential points in your submission – one by one. Then ask the panel – though the Chairman – if they would like you to clarify any points before you go into a “little more detail”. And again at the end ask them whether they have any questions.
I apologize if this sounds patronizing but I’ve been on both sides and I know what brings good submissions undone.
100
Sceptical Sam,
thanks for this insight. What a great way to go about it. There’s no way I was going to rant at something like this, because, as you mentioned, it undermines the intent.
I was actually already thinking along the lines of asking if the panel had any questions about my Submission, but was not sure of quite how to proceed, and stay rational, if you can see that.
I can definitely envisage a representation of local Pollies there, because in the main, those from around here at a State level are all Labor, so supporting the ‘lady’ at the top.
Tony.
60
I want to endorse what Sam says. His approach is exactly what you should do.
Always assume that they have read your submission with much interest, and keep asking if your verbal submission has raised any additional questions, in regard to the generally accepted technical facts presented in your submission.
If they ask who, “generally accepts the facts”, the answer should be , “to the best of my knowledge, the vast majority of electrical engineers, who work in power generation”.
Appeals to authority work both ways.
100
Thanks Rereke,
That phrase will now be memorised, and used, given the chance.
Tony.
40
Great advice there Tony, try to pick a brain not a fight, we could all heed such sage advice.
30
Good effort, Tony.
If their Panel is anything like the public consultation on the Clean Energy Future bill in 2011 then unfortunately this is the likely result.
Still, they can’t read it if you don’t send it in. Got to be in it to win it.
If I put in a report of my own, it will only be to tell them to read yours.
>> “What capabilities should be considered as requirements for new renewable generators of different technologies?”
Uh… 24/364.99 delivery of nameplate capacity at a cost competitive to coal.
That can’t be too much to ask, the USA DoE says they’re 70% of the way there already.
70
Sorry Tony for sounding ignorant
But “Queensland 50% renewables by 2030”
Does this only mean:
Nameplate installed for electricity gteneration (not what they actually produce)
Or also for fuel in transport etc?
Nothing is simple anymore!
50
Dave,
This is definitely not meant to sound derogatory or condescending, but see what you’ve done there? You have struck exactly the same chord that virtually everyone in the public would do, Nameplate for Nameplate for a 50/50 split.
Go to that long pdf document I linked to (this link) and look directly at their own image they put up there, and in fact, what the Committee Chair mentioned. That image is Figure 8 on page 9.
It shows both, Nameplate and Actual generation, and that is the basis of my whole argument, and mentioned by the Panel Chair himself.
Note that coal fired power provides 73% of total Generation from only 57% of Nameplate, and fossil fuel generation totals 93%.
For there to be a 50/50 split, they need to reduce that fossil fuel area back to 50% ….. of actual GENERATION, so that’s a huge 43% reduction of the coal fired element, from 73% back to 30%.
I explain both areas here, what that cutback means, and what construction of renewables they need to replace that, and here, you’re talking 27TWH, (27,000,000MWH) a monumentally huge amount of power to take out of the State, and then to cinstruct in such a short space of time, by 2030.
The figures actually astonished me in fact. I had to go back and check often, because it was just so huge.
Tony.
80
The 27,000,000 GWh / yr. means about 3100 MW of 24/7 generation, 3 or 4 new coal stations, or 12,400 MW of installed windfarm, or approx. 4100 x 3 MW turbines and 5,800 sq. km. of suitable land somewhere. It’s
only a thought bubble really. Apart from the problems of suitable land and objections from neighbours, bird kill etc. where in earth would one buy 4000 turbines from, and install them all in 14 years? The other problem is what back-up generation needs to be installed as well for those windless days.
70
This is EXACTLY why I put up 2 sets of posts with links to all the portions of the Queensland Renewable Energy Panel website. The panel assumes Queenslanders want 50% renewable electricity generation and only need to discuss how to make it happen and fund it.
Tony should not be the only one here putting in a submission nor the only one attending a local public forum. ALL Queenslanders here should be making a submission, however brief or involved as they feel capable, and/or attending their local public forum to say that not only do they oppose the proposal but why it is not realistic on multiple fronts.
I have found that you can register on the engagement hub, even if you aren’t living in Queensland or even in Australia. Given this, I have registered and will submit my objection – if nothing else, it’s good practice in case the Victorian government comes out with a similar proposal. Plus it gives me the right to say “I told them so” if Queensland goes ahead and tries to implement 50% renewable electricity
http://www.qldrepanel.com.au/users/sign_up
40
Sorry, that should have been practise, not practice.
BTW, there is a short survey on renewable energy that you can take once registered and the questions in there are strongly biased towards RE being a GOOD THING. I responded as negatively as the questions allowed but it confirms the purpose of the panel assumes that the general population approves of the proposal for 50% (or more) renewable electricity generation.
40
The predicaments of Bishop Hill and Anthony Watts are of major concern.
Both sites have been magnificent in attempting to combat the left wing climate behemoth.
90
They are both about 10 years old. Help with moderation load if you can. Make suggestions as to how the individual load can be decreased. They both have a huge following.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/05/21/wuwt-housekeeping-ongoing-issues-updates-fixes-and-polls/
51
If they cut off comments at Watts then we might expect increasing traffic here.
30
Y’all know how far-lefties like Huffington Post are always on about “diversity”…
https://twitter.com/lheron/status/733758898855940098
Look the car park comment some way down the page ( apologies to Jo 😉 )
92
MOD:
This is a rant to get something of my chest. Feel free to delete it if you want.
I’ve come to the conclusion that we need a solid wall around Canberra, at least 2 metres high and topped with spikes, broken glass and some razor wire as well. [SNIP. A bit too colorful. – Jo] That seems the only way to protect Australia from the plaque of economic idiocy currently rampant in a most virulent form.
The decision by both ‘leaders’ to commit money to building a solar tower at Port Augusta shows that such drastic action is necessary. Obviously they are infected by some parasitic fungus which has seized control of what little brain they have left and is driving them into such behaviour. That no-one in the Public Service has been able to advise them against this must be proof that the deadly infection is already wide spread.
Symptoms of this irrational behaviour include wishful thinking, a failure of logic, a blindness to reality and delusions of adequacy.
The cost is claimed will be $561 million. As Morocco has just started the same size Noor No.1 solar heat tower at a cost of $900 million confirms wishful thinking.
It is true that the moroccan unit will only operate during daytime but it is the same design and equipment, including the gas turbine.
The Augusta folly is to be 110MW capacity, the same as the Noor No.1 but will supposedly run for 24 hours on heat stored in the molten salt medium.
That it can supply the 110MW full capacity throughout the night is based on the unspoken belief of some politicians that the sun shines 24 hours a day from their backside, for that is what it would need. Instead it must reduce the output during the sunny period so the rest can be stored for use when the sun is not shining, but no modern politician seems to grasp that if you have 4 units and take away 2, that there are only 2 left. Most expect 4 remain and some guess even more. Logic fail.
The Moroccan plant (and following ones) are being built with donated money, so the Moroccans don’t need to operate the plant in a normal commercial manner, which delights them as they would have to charge $275 per MWh in that case. (compare that with coal fired at $30). Indeed they cheerfully write the truth, including about the essential gas turbine plant. Since the molten salt loses heat during the night (faster if being used) by dawn it has cooled down to a viscous fluid not easily pumped. In the early morning the sun is low and near the horizon so more energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, compounding the lack of generation during the early morning peak demand time. This is overcome by firing up the gas turbine to generate electricity and warm the molten salt with the exhaust. So ALL these units use gas and have CO2 emissions for 2-3 hours every day. On overcast days the gas firing has to continue if electricity is required and in any case to keep the molten salt fluid for the next day. A prolonged cloudy period will involve a lot of gas and CO2 emissions. Indeed many Spanish towers shut down for the 3 months of winter because the cost of the gas would be too much, and the supply of electricity has to come from conventional generation (backup), meaning more emissions. So the claim that these units “don’t have emissions” is another emission usually seen near the back of a male bovine. Truly a blindness to reality.
This unit will go towards our contribution in cutting world emissions! The output (including that from the gas turbine) amounts to no more than 2% of SA’s consumption, which in turn is about 6.5% of Australia’s electricity market. Since electricity is about 32% of our total energy use which in turn constitutes about 1.3% of World emissions, the actual reduction involves a lot of zeros after the decimal point. Indeed to describe it as appearing as big as a pimple on the backside of an elephant would be an exaggeration, and very real delusions of adequacy.
The only “100% renewables” in this scheme would be Australia’s supply of village idiots.
80
Where did former PM Rudd get his advice on the greatest threat to humanity and took a hundred odd of them to Copenhagen on the taxpayer; the public service, universities, lobbyists, and political advisors if I remember correctly.
40
When the wall is complete, please fill it with water.
20
why Canberra when much of what you are ranting about are state and council level issues and business decisions based on global financial factors. You want Canberra to actively legislate to inhibit and oppose. Sounds a bit like you might want to move to Cuba.
01
What!
Only $561 Million.
There is not one CSP plant on Planet Earth which can deliver 24 hour power on the scale claimed here. The best is a 20MW plant, with 15 hours heat diversion, the only one with this scale of heat diversion, as the average is only 7.5 hours, and that 20MW plant (Gemasolar) only did that for 38 days in Mid Summer. If it is to have heat diversion, for operation outside of daylight hours, then the Nameplate Capacity comes down pretty dramatically. Those CSP plants larger than 50MW with heat diversion have very low power delivery capability, and no plant with a generator greater than 50MW has heat diversion, because it would never even begin to turn over, let alone deliver power constantly.
This proposed
thought bubble,dream, plant will be on a similar scale to Ivanpah and a similar second plant, and both are beset with problems, and this plant will be no different just because it will be here in South Australia.As to actual power delivery, if it actually proceeds and then does get up and running, (and believe me here, that $561 Million is the lowest possible dream they can get, because it will be up to 4 times that) then the power it will deliver across a full year is the same as will be delivered by Bayswater in, umm, THREE DAYS AND EIGHTEEN HOURS, with all four Bayswater units in operation.
In fact, this proposed CSP plant will have a life span of perhaps 25 years at best, and if everything works perfectly for those 25 years, then the total delivered power from this Solar Plant will be the same as delivered by Bayswater, under normal yearly operation, in, umm, dare I even say it, ….. 125 DAYS.
Hmm! Sounds like a real bargain to me.
I can envisage politicians falling all over each other to get this up and running.
Oh, please! What have we become?
Tony.
CSP is Concentrating Solar Power, commonly referred to as Solar Thermal Power.
20
A downpour in South China of this magnitude is rare, they have seen nothing like it in 200 years.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2016-05/22/content_25406612.htm
Cool wet summers could be a portent of things to come, or it may only be a coincidental weather event.
30
Hi folks,
I’m new to this environment and I have a few questions. I was made aware of this website yesterday by my friend. I haven’t given climate change that much thought before this.
It’s something I always hear in passing, maybe a footnote here in an article, or as a slick comment in a TV show, but it never struck me as that relevant because, well, at least to my own senses, nothing has changed as far as I can tell.
But I know personal senses aren’t that accurate in terms of global averages, and I want to give this debate an honest assessment. I’ve been trying to look into the arguments that both sides present, but I’m hitting a wall because I feel out of my depth when it boils down to the hard science. I’m not versed on how a scientific study would be published in climate science, its format, I don’t know that much about statistics, creating graphs from datasets, or forming computer models and how the IPCC runs them. Or does the IPCC even run them? They only summarize existing science, right?
Who even runs the models? Are any of them accurate?
There are many questions. So many I can’t even think of what to say right now. Most of the counterarguments I’ve heard from other friends have pointed me to the skeptical science website, and honestly all the information and charts there seems rather compelling. But then I read some related points here, see different charts and I get a bit confused because there seems to be so much weighted and official support on the side that is making the claim that we need to act now to stop this changing climate.
How can I possibly argue with NASA? NOAA? The IPCC? 97% of scientists? Are all of these people wrong? How can I even claim that to be a possibility when they are so far smarter than I am?
I’m overwhelmed, and I feel like I’m not smart enough to have an informed opinion either way. It’s very strange to feel so underwater on a topic that appears to becoming more and more political.
The more I look into this, the more I get the sense that it would take me years of formal education in climate science, physics, math, statistics and so on, before I could actually get to the very root of the science and genuinely know who is right.
100
Paul,
Good on you for reading both sides. Keep at it. A pattern will appear.
One side hides their data, their emails, and does what they can to denigrate and silence their opponents. They won’t debate in public. They repeat fallacies known since Aristotle, ad hom and argument from authority. Instead of pointing at observations of Earth they discuss observations of sociology: like “there’s a consensus”.
Witchdoctors have always told us that they can stop the storms, and only they can control the weather. We must “Trust the experts”. It will cost $89 Trillion, but they can fix it.
The other side are disorganised rabble who are almost all unpaid, answer to no boss, and say what they think. They keep asking questions the others will not properly answer.
172
Thank you for the response.
I’m reading the Skeptic’s handbook that Roy recommended. Just in the hot spot segment, I’m amazed at how compelling this is. This “Hot spot” is completely missing is it?
More shocking, I noticed the scales were off! The first image shows a range of 0 to 1.2 C being the deepest shade of hot, the second image shows a scale of 0 to 0.6c. And even with that diminished range it’s only in the yellow! If they used the same scale for both, it would be light green. How do they get away with doing that? Are they actually using these images to compare, officially?
As far as the other side’s explanations, using wind shear there is a hot spot detected? How do you even measure temperature with wind? That doesn’t make sense to a non-scientist.
The arguments I find here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm
Seems to argue that the hot spot isn’t related to CO2 emissions, that regardless of what was warming the planet, there should be a hotspot. Does this mean if we can’t find a hotspot, that the planet isn’t actually warming? Are our measuring instruments somehow off? This one seems rather difficult to accept. I’ve been looking into it, apparently we have a hell of a lot of datasets from satellites (UAH and RSS) to ground based stations. Weather Balloons too but I don’t know much about them. Although this is curious, how does a hot spot directly tie to CO2 warming, if any heating would cause it? Is it because CO2 would cause more warming specifically in the tropics?
Also, there’s this quote on that page “As the hot spot is well observed over short timescales (Trenberth 2006, Santer 2005)” what does that mean exactly? There is observation of the hot spot in short terms? It’s cyclical?
40
Paul,
When you read skeptical science, be aware that it’s anything but skeptical and basically out to mislead you into believing there is a real problem with global warming (climate change). Jo has called it an ambush site. It’s a regular topic of discussion here.
Don’t be afraid to go there if you want to. But be aware of the fact that it is basically a trap for the unwary.
51
Paul, you are remarkably apt at getting to the heart of it.
1. Yes the hot spot is completely missing.
2. Yes the scales are different — ask why the IPCC did not provide graphs of the predictions and observations of the single most important feedback amplifier with equivalent scales and side by side? The future of the planet depends on it. 😉
3. The Global Worriers called the Hotspot a “fingerprint” of greenhouse gas warming 74 times in 2005. But when it failed to appear they explained it would appear with any form of warming (which is consistent with their basic theory, but not consistent with their past claims). So Yes, it ought to appear with any form of warming, no matter what the cause. Anything that heats the ocean surface.
4. Water vapor (humidity) is the most important greenhouse gas. If the Earth warms, humidity increases, at least near the surface, but that extra humidity doesn’t trap more heat as low-layer humidity is already blocking all it can at the relevant wavelengths. What matters is high level humidity. Up at 10km extra humidity would cause a hot spot (it would thicken the blanket). But the extra humidity could form clouds or rains out at a lower altitude. An increase at 1km, does not necessarily mean an increase at 10km high where it matters. Their models assume that occurs. Weather balloons say otherwise.
5. The missing hot spot can be explained — CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and does slow the escape of heat up at 10km, BUT if that heat is transferred to water molecules (through kinetic collisions) then the heat can reroute to space via emissions from water vapor. That’s a theory we are working on here. The energy is flowing to cold space, and it just finds a different path.
30
Thank you so much for the response as I try to make sense of all of this. It will take a lot of time. The only thing I am certain of so far, the skeptical community is dramatically more open in general. I’ve been trying to have a discussion in the reddit climate subreddit and it isn’t very welcoming to anyone who doesn’t already subscribe to the hypothesis proposed. (The mere choice of using the word “hypothesis” seems to have enraged a lot of people there).
For a scientific topic, there is an alarming lack of desire to debate. I’m definitely not a scientist, but I thought that was the point of science, to continuously and vigorously test out a hypothesis, shining as bright a light on it as you can to find absolutely any flaws that might exist.
I’m still kind of in disbelief that they used different scales in that demonstration. I mean what else can you call that besides a deliberate attempt at deception?
It’s awesome to be able to talk to people without insults flying around left and right.
10
Paul. Imagine that you’ve convinced yourself that the world is rapidly coming to an end and by taking action “X” you can slow down its demise. Somebody comes along and says, I don’t believe you; and furthermore I’m not going to do “X”–in fact, I think I’ll do more of “Not-X.” You’d be someone very special if you didn’t get angry with that “somebody.” After all, in your mind he/she is hastening the end of the world.
In my opinion, that is the attitude of most AGWers. The problem, and they either can’t see it or they see it but are so personally invested that it’s to their detriment to admit it, is that they might be wrong. Just like we skeptics–we too might be wrong. Most skeptics say: “Before taking drastic action (and in my opinion, changing the way mankind generates energy is drastic action) let’s debate the issues.” Most AGWers say: “The science is settled, the debate is over, and it’s time for action.” In addition to being unwilling to debate the scientific issues, many if not most AGWers don’t even want to address the question: “Is the action “X” that I want to take on balance more harmful to mankind than global warming?”
Interesting times, no?
01
Paul , you may find this helpful.
MASSIVE warming in the early 20th century.. low and flat CO2
http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/22/1959-paper-shows-most-warming-before-1945-arctic-warmed-7-7c-sea-level-rose-8-mmyr/#sthash.jlP1Wjnu.dpbs
A lot of this warming has been “ironed out” by adjustments that disappear the 1940’s peak, as per Tom Wigley’s suggestions.
53
Also, using UAH satellite and other data, I can provide proof for each statement below
1. No warming in the UAH satellite record before the 1998 El Nino
2. No warming between the end of that El Nino in 2001 and the start of the current El Nino at the beginning of 2015.
3. No warming in the southern polar region for the whole 38 years of the satellite record.
4. No warming in the southern ex-tropicals for 20 years.
5. No warming in Australia for 20 years, cooling since 2002
6. No warming in Japan for 20 years
7. No warming in the USA since 2005 when a non-corrupted system was installed, until the beginning of the current El Nino.
8. UAH Global Land shows no warming from 1979 – 1997, the no warming from 2001 – 2015
9. Iceland essentially the same temperature as in the late 1930’s as now, maybe slightly lower.
10. Southern Sea temperatures not warming from 1982 – 2005, then cooling …
11. Even UAH NoPol shows no warming this century until the large spike in January 2016
—————-
There is only one conclusion for these facts, .. and that is that CO2 has basically ZERO warming effect, and all the recent slight warming we have had, has come from El Nino ocean releases, and the fluctuations of ocean currents.
74
AndyG
I’m reluctant to use the “climate hasn’t warmed” point.
We don’t really know why it stopped warming late 90s and we (non green house) will be stuck if it starts up again. We need to concentrate on the science.
Doug
20
And the AGW bletheren will be mightily stuck if the current toward AMO, The incoming La Nino, and the sleepy sun produce the cooling trend that many real scientists think it will.
The fact remains, that the only real warming during the whole of the satellite era has come from El Nino events and ocean oscillations.
00
errata, first line
….the current downward AMO
00
Hi Paul,
The ‘Hot Spot’ is seen as important because it was predicted that assuming the theory that atmospheric CO2 was a major determinant in global warming, then there should be a ‘hot spot’ appearing in the upper troposphere of the tropics and subtropics. This is largely to do with where the greatest amount of sun shines on the earth, and the greatest amount of heat reflected back off the earth should be trapped by the CO2 molecules if the theory is correct. The hot spot was confidently predicted as a proof of man made global warming.
Jo wrote a good post on the ‘wind shear’ paper here: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/
Other good posts on the missing and manufactured hot spots are:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-17-solving-the-mystery-of-the-missing-hotspot/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/sherwoods-devout-unscientific-faith-in-climate-change-and-the-hot-spot/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/new-satellite-analysis-fails-to-find-the-hot-spot-agrees-with-millions-of-weather-balloons/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/04/ipcc-plays-hot-spot-hidey-games-in-ar5-denies-28-million-weather-balloons-work-properly/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/12/fasulo-and-trenberth-find-spurious-success-make-headlines-but-still-the-models-crash/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/models-get-the-core-assumptions-wrong-the-hot-spot-is-missing/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/04/so-is-the-hotspot-a-fingerprint-or-signature-is-it-unique/
00
Jo, Andy & all the rest of the top (helpful) posters – I am probably being a ‘nark’ and am being grossly unfair – I see Paul as ‘taking the mickey’ out of all of you. I sincerely hope I am wrong, but the style of writing he uses stands out (to me) like the dangly bits between a dog’s rear end.
For a ‘beginner’, he seems (again, to me) to have a remarkably good grasp of the subject matter.
To Paul – if I have misjudged you, I unreservedly apologise in advance, as I do to all others on here.
But my alarm had started ringing before I was even half way through the original piece… a carry-over from times past.
BL (not all that far from Tony of Oz, as the crow flies – he’s on the other side of the watery bit that has large lizards swimming delightedly).
00
BL. It’s cool. Is it likely a ” self-employed commercial cleaner.” would jump straight into the climate debate asking and understanding the “hot spot”? Not at all. But is it possible? Yes. Sometimes the brightest “fall through the net”. These wild cards do turn up in the climate debate.
There are plenty of red flags here. But comments are often a theatre — I don’t need to know if someone is genuine to judge if it’s worth my time. In this case, if Paul is a troll (something I was half expecting to unfold with each comment) his approach was novel and didn’t waste my time. The exchange would have been interesting for some onlookers.
00
I never had many opportunities to study formally after high school, but I love science. Always have. I’ve been a huge space-nerd since the beginning of time. I tend to dive into a subject that interests me with little reservation. I’ve been reading a lot on this subject of climate because of that zeal for learning, also watching many presentations on youtube. The hotspot just came up in Jo’s “skeptic handbook” so it didn’t take long.
There’s no way I can prove that I am genuine, it’s just the nature of the internet I suppose. But I’ll keep reading and trying to learn. If preferred I can stop commenting, that’s okay. You’ve all been very helpful already and I appreciate it!
00
BL,
Let’s give Paul the benefit of the doubt. He’ll prove himself to be whatever he is eventually.
In the meantime, it’s refreshing to see someone come here and start asking good questions.
00
I tried, Roy [at #19.1.2.3] – really, I did!
See #19.7 below (that is, if you haven’t already seen it).
Dunno how my comment finished up in the wrong position… and, to make matters worse (in my mind), I had missed our hosts gentle ministrations with her fleecy lined velvet glove, prior to that post.
Still trying to get that smelly egg smell to dissipate.
I am suitably chastised – but remain irrepressibly insouciant in my old age.
Now to wander off to read the latest offerings to keep the ever diminishing grey matter in a state of constant flux.
BL.
00
Paul,
Taking note as you have, that nothing has changed, is a good starting place. But it’s not the whole picture. A lot of claims have been made that have not come true. It may take you some time to get up to speed on everything you’ll need to understand but you’ll get there. I started reading this blog much as you have, skeptical about any problem but wondering if there really was something to it, and I fairly quickly learned what was important and what was not, what was right and what was not. So welcome to Jo Nova and don’t be afraid to ask questions.
I started reading Jo Nova after I was sent a copy of Jo’s, The Skeptics Handbook. It’s available to download and is a good starting place to understand the basic skeptical argument and how to use it. Just click the link.
61
Hey, Jo. I noticed that you didn’t recommend The Skeptic’s handbook. Don’t be afraid to toot your own horn a bit. It’s still the basic text on understanding the problem. And if I had not seen it I might never have come here and started reading.
61
Me shy Roy? It was only a few days ago I said this:
No false modesty there. :- )
(Paul, I am happy to suggest you read their best criticism of me, with my reply because it’s a rare example of public debate. The Global Worriers depend on hiding their critics arguments… “don’t publish / don’t interview / don’t debate the deniers”.)
30
Indeed you are not and indeed you did. I was simply surprised that you didn’t recommend it to Paul.
00
$36 they want for that piece of crap!
In 1970 the nadir observing spectro-radiomiters were corrected to indicate psudo-surface radiance (the dotted line, a mono-thermal blackbody) by 1999 the instruments were good enough to detail from what altitude the measured radiance originated! In that CO2 band the radiance and altitude do not vary between atmospheric CO2 amounts from 100 ppmv to 2000ppmv! Perhaps the methane band indicates the same thing.
All the best! -will-
00
Paul May 22, 2016 at 6:09 pm
“Hi folks, I’m new to this environment and I have a few questions. I was made aware of this website yesterday by my friend. I haven’t given climate change that much thought before this.”
Can you give some idea of your background? What are ‘you’ good at? Many folk post here, most with an engineering, physics, chemistry background. Many do
know the language of other trades. Very few have something to sell you. And none claim they publish with peer review on prestigious journals! Most are just to busy. OTOH new questions and point of view are welcome. Sometimes this subject is defeated by the attitude that “well everyone knows that”, on this climate change, CAGW, must do it yesterday,unfortunately there there are at least four opposing views of what everyone knows!
“Who even runs the models? Are any of them accurate?”
Two good questions! In the US NASA Goddard has the GISS model! NOAA has the GFDL model, and NCAR/UCAR have others. None of them give results that approach what is observed about this Earth’s atmosphere. They have been total failures for the last 35 years! They started out with wrong assumptions and after this long, and the obscene cost, no one can even consider that there may be an error!
My own POV is akin to the booths at the state fair selling knives that never get dull! 🙂
All the best! -will-
42
This will be overwhelmingly underwhelming. I am a… high school graduate! And I’m a self-employed commercial cleaner. I’m 25.
Yeah, eat those academic credentials! lmao. No but really, I’m not expertly educated in any significant formal sense, which is why I feel I’m starting from a very low platform in trying to genuinely understand this. I do enjoy learning though, so in time I think I’ll come to terms with it. If it takes months or years… seems like a full-time job.
So, doing a cursory search into this, it appears the IPCC uses a mishmash of different models bundled together, called CMIP5. Is this correct and if so, is this the “gold standard” of modeling? Is it worth looking into the other models as well? Also, not that I could understand it, but is the code available for these models, so they can be independently verified and tested? Do they require supercomputers to run?
Parsing through the AR5 report by the IPCC specifically on climate models, god damn are there are lot of graphs and words I don’t appreciate the meaning of. But I came across this image, http://www.realclimate.org/images/IPCC_Fig_9_8a.jpg
It appears that the mean of the models used is far higher than observed temperatures, but there are a few models near the bottom that seem to match fairly well. Although then the question is, what do those models predict in the long-run?
Sorry for all the questions and thanks.
60
Paul:
Don’t think you can’t use this site because you haven’t got the right piece of paper. Common sense is all you need, and you show that, and nobody is really concerned whether you have anything else. I have said for many years that I had only met 2 people who could never tell you the day of the week, and one of them was doing a PhD in Mathematical Physics!
I started checking on global warming when I retired and went through much the same process. What confirmed me as a sceptic was an article in Skeptical Science “proving” that the Medieval warm period hadn’t existed. It was very cleverly put together, fortunately I knew quite a bit about the historical aspect and could see where they had changed or omitted things that didn’t agree with their claims.
As for your questions:
Has it warmed? Since the Little Ice Age (approx. 1400-1700) Yes, in cycles but Europe still isn’t as warm as it was around 1100AD. Note “Climate Science” claims warming started in 1850 to fit their claim it is all due to man. Try Google etc. Glacier Bay map soundwaves.usgs.gov which shows melting history.
If 97% of scientists agree? This was a fabricated figure. The survey started with over 3000 and carefully whittled it down to 79 of whom 77 agreed. There are about 250 scientists who are invited by the IPCC and not all of them agree either, but that is editted out.
Which set of data should you rely on? None of them (that will get me in trouble). NASA, etc. are based on thermometer readings which are then changed to fit the theory. The 2 satellite figures are more reliable (and show much less change) but don’t cover the whole planet so their Temperature of the Earth is just as meaningless. Curiously both of the leaders believe CO2 is causing warming but don’t fiddle the figures which is why they get sceptical respect.
So welcome to here and don’t be afraid to ask questions, there is usually someone with an answer, and someone else with a different one (and the discussion can be interesting). Unlike AGW believers we don’t have a Dogma that you have to stick to.
71
Paul, I fully agree with what Graeme No.3 has said.
I would also add that you will find that amongst sceptics, there is a fair amount of disagreement as to whether CO2 has any effect on global warming or if there is any global warming at all – just about every sceptic agrees that there is climate change, however, but also believe it is due (or almost entirely due) to natural causes. The CAGW side sees this as further proof that they are correct since the sceptics do not fully agree.
This is fully in contrast to the “consensus” (97% is the magic number you’ll see again and again) for CAGW that the advocates portray. What they somehow fail to see is that science is not a democracy – nature does not care a damn if “97%” believe something that defies observations and measurements. And as you have found yourself, their models are not in full agreement, either – the variations in predicted temperature change is enormous relative to the changes that claim as the basis for CAGW.
In no way is there any truth in “The science is settled”. This is, in fact, one of the most unscientific statements you will ever see.
You have demonstrated that you are capable of independent observation and inquiry. Keep asking questions and look out for excuses, distractions and outright lies. They are present on both sides but you will (have alreeady?) quickly find which side uses these tactics more often and are therefore less deserving of your trust. Don’t let someone with a string of qualifications intimidate you – most of these people have never done any real world work and live in the academia and the realm of modelling.
31
All best wishes in your search Paul. You have an enquiring mind and are using it. Annie.
30
Paul,
This is my own opinion for the most part but if you don’t hear this said by someone sooner or later I’ll be surprised, so I will say it and get it out on the table for you to consider. The IPCC is working to “prove” a preconceived result. They are not interested in the science although there are scientists on that panel. But consider, many of the supposed scientist contributors to their reports are activists and must be presumed to be biased for that reason. The chairman of the IPCC is a railroad engineer (is that a qualification for the IPCC?). Faced with failure of their predictions and having had their mistakes pointed out, they have been forced to revise their estimates of warming downward.
At one point in the past members of the IPPC were polled to see what their answers to some simple questions would be. One question was, what is the ideal temperature for the Earth? Not very many responded and of those who did, not one could state an ideal temperature. Now if they don’t know what the temperature should be, how can they be telling anyone it’s too warm, too cold or that there’s a temperature problem, now or in the future? Yet they continue to issue policy guides for policy makers that emphasize reductions in CO2 output as being critical. I keep asking, critical to what? But there’s no answer I can find… You can look at who they work for, the United Nations, for some clue about that.
Others may disagree with me so remember, this is just Roy Hogue’s position on the IPCC.
01
Paul, I’m a never-papered sometime-college-student, mostly a clerical worker, with a very curious mind. With some effort, and polite questions, the “skeptics” will help you nderstand the hard stuff – dum er down”, in a way. Read the back-posts, the older material. Visit several sites, even the “hard” ones, and read the comments as well as the main articles. Even read the reports by the CAGWers, and the comments there.
That’s what I started doing, and still do, and while I can’t work out the physics, I can get the gist, and a bit more. And what I have found is this – there isn’t evidence, just models. The CAGWers get huge sums of money, private and government. Universities throw money at the CAGWer researchers – and keep on doing it as long as the party line/religious dogma is followed.
The tech doesn’t work as described. If you bought a car with the same sort of pitch, and result, you’d be suing the cr*p out of the dealer, the manufacturer, the advertisers. You’d pay for a brand new Mercedes and get a 1972 Pinto with 300k miles on it, no tires, and no brakes. So building all these nice fancy pretty shiny mirrors and wind mills gets a lot of press, and comes, ultimately, from all our pockets, but doesn’t do much more than kill birds, bats, insects (pollinating insects too) and a few people, and then need to suck up more money for repairs and maintenance.
I love clean air, clean water, good soil. We have (the world in this we) the tech to burn fossil fuels cleanly for power, electricity. We have the tech to get better gas mileage on our cars with fewer emissions. It might raise the cost of a car a bit, but no where near what we are paying for tech that doesn’t work.
Sorry, rant got me.
Read. Read a lot. Look at financials, look at the “social sciences” of the IPCC and the followers, look at how they look at the Average Joe. Ask yourself – if I lived in a third world country, would I want 10 hours of power a week – or would I want power 24/7? Not what you think -they- might want, or settle for, but what YOU would want. Because, that IS what they want. Just the same as us.
00
For the IPCC to claim some sort of credibility because two or three of the models they use to make their mean predictions were close to actual is ridiculous. It still means more than 100 of their models were wrong, and that the mean projection they use cannot be relied upon. The primary problem with all of the IPCC approved models is that they assign a high sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 which has no scientific basis, and totally disregards so many variables which can impact global temperature, and negative feedbacks. If the UN IPCC models were the equivalent of a car, they effectively have no engine and no steering wheel.
The Problem with climate models is covered here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/05/another-climate-model-paper-in-nature-misses-a-whole-class-of-feedbacks/
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/05/monckton-ipcc-climate-models-speeding-out-of-control-compared-to-real-world/
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/03/climate-numerology-man-made-co2-caused-heatwaves-in-1930s40s-80s-and-90s/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-19-the-invisible-nameless-model-that-controls-the-whole-field-of-climate-science/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-16-building-the-alternative-model-and-why-it-solves-so-many-major-problems/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-7-rerouting-feedback-in-climate-models/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-5-error-2-model-architecture-means-all-feedbacks-work-through-the-surface-temperature/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-3-the-conventional-basic-climate-model-in-full/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-2-the-conventional-basic-climate-model-the-engine-of-certain-warming/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/09/new-science-1-pushing-the-edge-of-climate-research-back-to-the-new-old-way-of-doing-science/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/whats-really-warming-the-world-nasa-has-no-idea-not-the-sun-never-the-sun/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/shrinking-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/maurice-newman-knows-more-about-climate-models-than-the-boms-dr-rob-vertessy/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/new-telescopes-see-magnetic-flux-ropes-on-sun-which-cant-possibly-affect-earths-climate/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/02/2013-heatwave-virtually-impossible-without-logical-errors-and-broken-climate-models/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/10/imaginary-hottest-fingerprints-found-with-broken-models-in-extreme-weather/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/scientists-invent-time-travelling-models-that-might-have-worked/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ipcc-spin-translated-between-the-lines-in-their-leaked-synopsis-97-of-models-fail/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/scafetta-2013-simple-solar-astronomical-model-beats-ipcc-climate-models/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/climate-models-cannot-explain-why-global-warming-has-slowed/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/
That’s enough!
00
Hi Paul,
I guess, like most people, you look at the big picture, and see something strange and worrying.
But if you just delve under the surface of the big picture, and start looking at the individual facts, you realise that the big picture is not consistent, and in fact, is a mishmash of factoids that are presented in such a way as to lead people towards a political imperative.
The epiphany for me, was a graph that showed a fairly consistent warning trend, with a slope of about 40 degrees. Frightening stuff. But then, I noticed that the units of measurement used to construct that graph were weird. They were expressed in thousandths of a degree per decade! Say what?
Who measures anything to do with time, on such a time scale, apart from politicians? And that was when the penny dropped.
The graph showed (quite honestly, I assume) that temperatures were rising at the rate of 0.067 degrees celsius per decade. Sixty seven thousandths, of one degree, every ten years. Or, as I said in my comment at the time, “two thirds of one degree per century”.
We cannot distinguish temperature changes of a single degree – is it 19 or 20 degrees celsius at the beach? Who cares?
Once you see one “trick” (a term used by climate scientists), and understand how it is done, then you can start to understand what is going on. Climate Scientists don’t lie, but they are often economical with the truth, and the truth they do express is presented in strange ways. It is good intellectual sport to try and see how “the trick” is done.
Why do the scientists do it? Because their political masters (they all work for government agencies), direct them to do it. Your guess at why the Politicians are trying to scare people into paying more taxes, will be as good as mine.
Jo has some interesting views on that subject.
81
Which scientists?
It was more than a penny dropped for me, before the AGW scam got away, when the Hawke government in 1986 installed a partisan management for the absolutely marvellous CSIRO. Bells started ringing.
Then we saw a full front page headline: “Cows Australia’s biggest source of greenhouse gases”. A CSIRO scientist named Galbally, working in Tasmania, had discovered this.
I don’t believe that Mr Galbally or any other scientist said any such thing. This was the CSIRO’s partisan publicity machine at work. They took a bit of Mr Galbally’s work, extrapolated it to suit themselves, and published this monstrous lie.
I, a farmer, knew it was a lie, because so little research had been done that it wasn’t possible to draw such a conclusion. And that was just another of their tricks. So little research had been done that nobody could produce evidence to refute the lie. The lie stood for years, and was taught in our schools and universities.
Why? Because Agriculture was the last sector of the Australian economy still dominated by small business capitalism. The last sector where the owners were the managers. The ALP/Greens policy was and is to abolish private management of industry, and to abolish private ownership of land. The original proposal for an ETS, which studiously insisted on taxing agriculture’s recycled emissions on the same basis as fossil emissions, would have bankrupted Australia’s grazing industries within two years, rendering that 60% of Australia’s land area which is used for grazing of no commercial value. And that was just another of their tricks.
After much uproar they put agriculture in the too hard basket, but Gillard’s carbon tax was a Trojan Horse by which those provisions could and would have been reinstated.
Agriculture, including cows, eventually fell a long way down the list of emitters.
10
Paul, Welcome. Although Joanne’s blog is not the most widely read “skeptical” blog (that honor goes to What’s Up With That [WUWT]), in my opinion Joanne’s blog is the best, because I believe WUWT has taken a position to limit comments that argue against the so called Greenhouse Effect, whereas as far as I can tell, Joanne’s blog has not. By the way, as you delve into the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), you’ll come across the phrases “Greenhouse Effect” and “Greenhouse Gases.” The Greenhouse Effect is pretty much what you would expect: A Greenhouse is hotter than its immediately surrounding environment, and a Greenhouse Effect is the condition that the Earth’s surface is hotter than it would be without the “whatever” is causing the warming. The AGW community labels many of the gases in the Earth’s atmosphere as “Greenhouse Gases”–e.g., water vapor, CO2, methane, etc. It would seem to follow that Greenhouse Gases in the Earth’s atmosphere would lead to a Greenhouse Effect–i.e., an increase in the Earth surface temperature. The problem with this logic is that the generally accepted definition of a Greenhouse Gas is a gas that absorbs and radiates electromagnetic radiation in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band. [Visible light is a form of electromagnetic radiation, just not in the IR band.] It is well known that water vapor, CO2, methane, etc. do absorb and radiate electromagnetic radiation in sub-bands of the IR band. As such, water vapor, CO2, methane, etc. qualify as “Greenhouse Gases” under the foregoing definition. However, the foregoing definition of a Greenhouse Gas contains nothing that directly implies an ability to warm the surface of the Earth. Now if the definition of a “Greenhouse Gas” is a gas in the atmosphere that warms the surface of the Earth, then by definition atmospheric Greenhouse Gases would warm the surface of the Earth. But then someone would have to demonstrate that water vapor, CO2, methane etc. in the Earth’s atmosphere actually warm the Earth’s surface. It is well known that it takes a considerable amount of energy to convert one gram of water into one gram of water vapor. When water evaporates that energy comes from the water. This principle is used by almost all evaporative air conditioners. If you live in the desert, you’ll see many houses with evaporative air conditioners. As a consequence, many people argue that the net effect of the water cycle (evaporation from the oceans, movement to altitudes above the Earth’s surface, condensation of the water vapor back to a liquid, and the return of that liquid to the Earth’s surface via rain/hail/snow/etc.) has a net cooling effect on the Earth’s surface temperature. Since atmospheric CO2 does not undergo a similar cycle, water vapor and CO2 will have demonstrably different effects on the Earth’s surface temperature. It is entirely possible that the “Greenhouse Gas” water vapor acts to cool the Earth’s surface and the “Greenhouse Gas” CO2 acts to warm the Earth’s surface. So much for lumping all “Greenhouse Gases” under the same umbrella.
For your information, I am strongly in the skeptic camp. Not as strong as many because I just don’t know whether CO2 will have a net warming or cooling effect. It’s a very complicated issue. What I do know, and although my 36-year professional career was spent in a field more closely related to electrical engineering than physics, I received a PhD in physics from the University of Utah in 1972. And what I strongly believe and can substantiate is the fact that many of the AGW community’s arguments used to persuade the general public that AGC is a problem are incomplete, or to put it bluntly, flat wrong. For example, one of the arguments used to convince lay people that atmospheric CO2 must increase the Earth surface temperature goes along the following lines. (1) The Earth’s surface radiates energy to space. (2) CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will absorb some of this “outgoing” radiation. (3) The atmospheric CO2 will radiate a portion of the absorbed energy. (4) Some of the CO2-originated radiation (often called “backradiation”) will be directed back towards and absorbed by the surface of the Earth. (5) In the absence of the atmospheric CO2, no radiation from molecules of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will exist–hence since atmospheric CO2 provides a source of energy to the Earth’s surface, the Earth’s surface must be higher in the presence of atmospheric CO2 than in the absence of atmospheric CO2.
Sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? The problem with this argument is that it completely ignores other forms of heat transfer that atmospheric CO2 can support. For example, convection (the movement of hot matter from one place to another) and conduction (the transfer of heat through a material–think sticking a copper rod into boiling water and trying to hold onto one end of the rod). Now I don’t claim that the net effect of atmospheric CO2 won’t increase the Earth surface temperature. I don’t know. I do know, however, the argument that backradiation by itself is sufficient to ensure an increased temperature is hogwash. Now water vapor is supposed to behave in a similar manner. But as noted previously, water vapor is present in the Earth’s atmosphere as part of the “water cycle,” and it’s even more unclear that backradiation from water vapor will increase the Earth’s surface temperature.
I know this response to your comment is long. If nothing else, it may give you the flavor of the kind of comments you will see on this blog. Best wishes.
[“…in my opinion Joanne’s blog is the best, because I believe WUWT has taken a position to limit comments that argue against the so called Greenhouse Effect, whereas as far as I can tell, Joanne’s blog has not.” Reed, You’re correct, Jo definitely does not filter out dissenting views. This site is all about honest debate.] AZ
31
Thanks for the reply Reed! The community here is very welcoming and friendly. Quite a pleasure. All I care about is information and honesty and that appears to be what I am getting here.
31
You’re welcome. The commenters on this blog are for the most part quite friendly and helpful. Another quality of most commenters is a sense of humor, which often manifests itself in their comments. Furthermore, when faced with inane or personally attacking responses, they (including myself) sometimes respond in kind. On balance, however, I think you’ll enjoy your interaction with the commenters on this blog. I know I do.
00
Nice one Reed. Just a thought from a layman, CO2 can and does absorb sunlight and warms the air. That absorbed sunlight never reached the surface, an umbrella cooling effect. Another point, 15 micron radiation from the surface will NOT be absorbed by CO2, it is already too warm! Although CO2 IS radiating over the 13 to 17 micron bands, less than half reaches the surface, again for no warming on the surface unless the science of radiative heat transfer has been rewritten and I missed it. Why should a CO2 molecule absorb radiation only from the surface when it is subject to in band radiation from all the other CO2 molecules around it?
12
Richard111. I basically agree with everything you say. Your comment regarding absorption of radiation from the sun (incoming radiation) versus the absorption of radiation outgoing from the Earth (outgoing radiation) is valid. The AGW’s response (not mine) to your comment is: Most of the incoming radiation is at frequencies outside (above) the IR band so that to a large degree incoming radiation passes through the atmosphere with little absorption; whereas most of the outgoing radiation is at frequencies in the IR band. As such atmospheric CO2 has a much larger effect on outgoing radiation than it does on incoming radiation. On a relative basis, this statement is probably correct. However, you are correct when you say greenhouse gases act like an umbrella for some of the incoming radiation.
Your question, Why should a CO2 molecule absorb radiation only from the surface when it is subject to in band radiation from all the other CO2 molecules around it? is also relevant. The answer is: It doesn’t. A CO2 molecule doesn’t know or care what the source of the IR radiation was. It will absorb radiation in some sub-bands of the IR from any source.
These issues are but a small part of the complex nature of atmospheric gases and their effects on Earth surface temperature. One of the reasons I haven’t formed an opinion as to the net effect on temperature of atmospheric greenhouse gases is as you point out the complexity of the subject.
01
If you don’t mind answering a quick question for me, and please correct me if I am wrong because I’m definitely trying to learn here.
Ocean acidification caught my attention, as from what I can tell from CO2 emissions, climate sensitivity is low, so the expected warming from its doubling will likely be less than a degree celcius (due to negative feedbacks). So it doesn’t appear to be much of an issue. (But there’s still so much more to read on this).
Ocean acidification though, as I understand it, Oceans can absorb CO2 stored in the atmosphere. But only when oceans are cooling, right? So my question, is how is ocean acidification a reality at all if the planet is warming (even slowly)? Shouldn’t the Oceans be releasing, not absorbing, CO2, and thus becoming more alkaline?
10
Paul, I’m not a chemist; so with one exception I’ll defer your question to those who know a lot more about the chemistry of the ocean than I do. As I understand it, at this time the ocean is basic not acidic with a long way to go before it becomes acidic. So to say the ocean is becoming acidic is wrong, and to say the ocean is becoming more acidic is misleading. Who wants to stick his/her hand in an acid. Saying that the ocean is becoming more acidic is to indirectly imply that sticking your hand in tomorrow’s ocean will be worse than sticking your hand in today’s ocean. A more accurate characterization would be so say the ocean is becoming less basic. Since few people want to stick their hands in lye (a base not an acid), saying the ocean is becoming less basic indirectly implies that sticking your hand in tomorrow’s ocean will be better than sticking your hand in today’s ocean. Amazing isn’t it how words that denote the same condition carry different connotations? So if your goal is to persuade people there’s a problem, you phrase the change in terms of the ocean becoming more acidic. If your goal is to persuade people there’s no problem, you phrase the change in terms of the ocean becoming less basic. If you have no dog in the fight so to speak, you say the ocean is basic but may become less basic with added atmospheric CO2.
10
” A more accurate characterization would be so say the ocean is becoming less basic.”
There is no proof that this is the case.
The oceans are massively buffered against pH changes. Limestone, basalt, huge deposits of carbonates.
Almost every river that has flowed into those oceans over millions, billions of years were mostly on low side of pH7, yet the oceans remain steadfastly around pH8.1 +/- some. That is where the equilibrium is, and no tiny change in trace atmospheric CO2 is going to make one iota of difference.
There may be temporary local or regional changes here and there, but they will always bounce back to that balance between the oceans and its container.
00
Paul, again, Jo Nova’s past posts on the topic are a great resource. But remember the fears of ocean acidification are based on the unscientific future predictions of warming, and take little account of CO2 sinks including greater CO2 uptake by plants, including plants in the oceans. But I am certain all your questions will be answered here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/noaa-scientists-admit-in-private-that-they-cant-name-any-place-affected-by-ocean-acidification/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/life-adapts-fish-evolved-from-salt-to-fresh-water-in-fifty-years/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/06/researchers-astonished-coral-reefs-thriving-in-a-more-acidic-ocean/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/does-ocean-ph-shift-with-the-pdo-cycle/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/oceans-not-acidifying-scientists-hid-80-years-of-ph-data/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/one-vulnerable-coral-type-adapts-to-ocean-acidification-in-just-6-months/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/the-chemistry-of-ocean-ph-and-acidification/
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/ocean-acidification-a-little-bit-less-alkalinity-could-be-a-good-thing/
00
Paul, if no offence taken – stay here.
You will learn much to your advantage and it will broaden your horizons.
You will even get the odd laugh – guaranteed.
I must be growing old far too disgracefully – but your missive really did grab my attention by your ‘style’ of writing – apparently not for the right reasons, though.
I spent 20 odd years with my bulltish meter wound up and turbo-charged, because that was the nature of my job – people ‘spinning’ and me unravelling to get to the truth of the matter.
The unreserved apology stands – for everyone!
Egg – splattered everywhere – and pongy, ‘coz some of them were old.
Time to crawl back in the hole, with only the tip of my nose exposed – to lurk, if not to read.
BL.
00
Don’t worry I take no offense! Honestly, maybe my written style seems odd to you because I’m trying my best to, well, sound intelligent. This place is rather intimidating.
Do you get a lot of trolls around here? That’d be a shame if so. It seems like a nice community.
00
Hi Paul,
By now you have done a bit of reading, but if you are smart you would be thinking, if the science is so certain:
– How come the goal posts keep changing. In fact not just the goal posts but the name. Climate Scientists and the UN IPCC have taken us from Global Warming to Climate Change, when the warming wasn’t going as predicted, and then to make things scary they started to use the term Climate Disruption, so they could blame every extreme weather event on man made climate change. Why so desperate if the science was certain?
– Why claim a ridiculous consensus of 97% of scientists when nothing in science would have that much support. Then to try to live up to that ridiculous 97% someone has to abandon all acceptable standards of statistical surveys and torture the data to get what they want:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-97-consensus-misrepresented-miscalculated-misleading/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/thats-a-0-3-consensus-not-97/
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-the-ipcc-95-certainty/
And have a chuckle with this: http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/the-99-99-pure-climate-consensus-how-to-ignore-thousands-of-skeptical-scientists/
– Why have they made so many incorrect and dud claims and predictions? Timm Flannery, The Climate council, Al Gore etc.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/tim-flannery-extreme-climate-predictions/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/10/man-made-global-warming-disproved/
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/unsw-climate-scientists-shift-goal-posts-publish-irrelevant-extreme-hot-days-trend/
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/pachauri-quietly-blows-goalposts-away-pretends-to-like-skeptics-its-all-pr-to-keep-the-gravy-train-running/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/10/failed-climate-predictions-gets-a-website/
Have fun reading
00
@Tony regarding the 50% BY 2030 Response:
You might be right about the likely response, but remember that the current regime in Queensland is not going to last for long, and you will not be the only person responding. Make sure people like Viv Forbes at info@carbon-sense.com gets a copy, also front-runners and sitting members in the LNP.
Back in May 2013 I wrote a 7-page response objecting to the inclusion of the IPCC bunk in the State Planning Policy, eg the 3 degrees by 2100 = 5% increase in precipitation per degree, + 10% increase in cyclone intensity; the stuff from around 2008 that even the IPCC doesn’t seem to be supporting any more. I sent a copy to my elected member Andrew Cripps, who read it, and forwarded it to Jeff Seeney, who was then deputy premier. The offending clauses were removed from the State Planning Policy. I very much doubt that this was a result of my submission alone. Most construction practitioners and professionals I am in contact with are at least skeptics.
The bunk got put back into the SPP when Anaesthesia and Co were elected, but they won’t be there for ever.
61
Thanks Martin, and thanks also to everyone for the very useful pointers here.
I’ve re-read the Submission, well, for the twentieth plus time, and sometime tomorrow morning I’ll be submitting it.
If it appears at the site, I’ll be back soon to leave the link, because there are numerous areas at the site where comments can be left, umm, if any of you so desire.
Tony.
70
Yes Tony, please leave link to comments and submissions.
40
“Get Ready to Bend Over, Er…Bow to the Aristocratic Class”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/05/get-ready-to-be.html#comments
Sound like Australia at the moment?
30
Di Paprio is probably the WORLD’S GREATEST CLIMATE HYPOCRITE.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/22/leo-takes-private-jet-to-collect-environmental-award/
What a low level piece of scum this guy really is !!
122
You’re a bit harsh there Andy, I don’t think he’s so bad…….oh wait /sarc.
81
Not half as harsh as I’d like to be.
But the auto-mod, and much more importantly, our esteemed host, might not approve 😉
52
Yeah, I had a post with multiple links lambasting his hypocrisy and it got moderated into oblivion. The next time he makes a big public statement on CAGW, I’ll try again with the likely filtered words modified with dollar signs and the like
51
Hey my DiCaprio comment @ #4.2.1.1 got through even though it was fairly scathing, I think it’s the profanities that set off auto mods or being too crass, I rarely go into moderation so maybe I’m right on that fine line.
I’d like to take this moment to thank the moderators here that allow my creative? outlet to flow and inflict it on society. 🙂
61
I did not resort to expletives nor profanities but I did express my lack of regard for Leo and his mates in a far more scathing manner than you did. And I wouldn’t take back a work of it.
31
Andrew Montford at Bishop Hill has run out of things to say!
Roy Spencer is no longer taking comments at his blog
Anthony Watts is struggling to maintain his blog, partly because of its popularity.
I hope that these developments do not impact on the commente here at Jonova as I enjoy reading the comments here.
70
I stumbled across this manic review of the French solar roadway system, Wattway by Colas
Unsurprisingly perhaps, this chap is not particularly positive about the efficiency after a 12 month trial.
50
What is not often brought to light is the fact they want to implement it BECAUASE it won’t work. That way, when it fails, they can say they didn’t do enough of it so they need to try again and spend way more money.
How do I know this, it is a government project and that is just the way government works. The more they fail the more they get to spend and do. Hence, they fail BY DESIGN!
Governments have been doing projects that way through all of recorded history. There is no mystery here. If its done by government it fails to achieve the stated goals: often at a staggering cost of time, wealth, and lives. The real mystery is why do we who create the wealth and pay the bills allow it to happen still one more time?
Isn’t it time we stop feeding them?
50
I would be interested to know why Wattway by Colas have chosen a Police road spike as their logo.
50
I thought it looked more like 2 hostages sitting on the floor, back-to-back – perhaps representing the French Government/people, and the EU?
As for Colas, they’ve been building less than 1Km of combined roadway, and pedestrian/bike paths for the better part of a year, between my office and the nearest train station – and they’ve just dug up a section which was completed a couple of months ago… it seems that never ending roadworks are that 3rd universal certainty to add to death, and taxes.
40
this could be developed into a psyche test and I think mine is most worrying. It looks to me like a headless person (gender neutral) reclining back from the viwer with their legs apart heals on the ground
20
viewer
00
Heels?
00
yes it does look like heels too.
00
The eye sees the pattern. The mind tries to give the pattern some kind of meaning.
You interpret the pattern as representing the contorted posture of a headless androgynous person. I can kind of see it your way. However, I more easily interpret it as simply a highly stylized double W derived from the first letter of “Watt” and “Way” in the name “WattWay”.
Clearly, I allow boring evidence to constrain my flights of fantasy. I go for an interpretation that has reality based evidence in its favor. Your interpretation is more freely creative.
Neither interpretation gives us insight in what the person who created the logo was thinking at the time. Since many things in the mind are over determined, he could have been thinking of both. With your interpretation as a covert finger in the eye of “the man” and mine as safe for public consumption.
00
Now here is the funny of Weekend unthreaded. Notice what he says about climategate. I think this Hoggan is having a hissy fit just like Trudeau our dear leader getting physical in parliament. This Hoggan is a PR expert, ya right expert of PR climate miss information.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/public-discourse-is-toxic-you-are-an-idiot-1.3594807?cmp=rss
60
Yes. It’s a bit hard to be sure if he is with us or against us.
Long before Climategate and AGW I observed that when somebody attacks and accuses another body, very often the accuser might have been talking to a mirror. The faults he/she sees in others are very visible in the self.
00
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/alan-kohler/australias-secret-ets-starts-in-five-weeks/news-story/7f1de2a63db3e8d4a12066f31edcf640
Go Mal! just go……………….
10
more “climate” thought police:
21 May: Yahoo: Kerry Sheridan: Climate Feedback site allows scientists to correct media errors
Interested readers can visit the website ClimateFeedback.org to see what climate scientists thought of the original article.
The site uses web annotation software to enable line-by-line critiques from more than 100 volunteer scientists, pointing out what they see as errors, falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Founder Emmanuel Vincent, 31, said the project is about communication, not activism…
Another popular target is Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of the 2001 best-seller, “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” who frequently writes about the politics and economics of climate change…READ ALL
https://www.yahoo.com/news/climate-feedback-allows-scientists-correct-media-errors-031549253.html
00
big on BBC overnight:
29 Apr: The Atlantic: Robinson Meyer: Human Extinction Isn’t That Unlikely
“A typical person is more than five times as likely to die in an extinction event as in a car crash,” says a new report.
Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story presented an economic modeling assumption—the .01 chance of human extinction per year—as a vetted scholarly estimate. Following a correction from the Global Priorities Project, the text below has been updated.
Nuclear war. Climate change. Pandemics that kill tens of millions.
These are the most viable threats to globally organized civilization. They’re the stuff of nightmares and blockbusters—but unlike sea monsters or zombie viruses, they’re real, part of the calculus that political leaders consider everyday. A new report from the U.K.-based Global Challenges Foundation urges us to take them seriously…
Yet the risk of human extinction due to climate change—or an accidental nuclear war, or a meteor—could be much higher than that. The Stern Review, the U.K. government’s premier report on the economics of climate change, assumed a 0.1-percent risk of human extinction every year. That may sound low, but it adds up when extrapolated to century-scale. Across 100 years, that figure would entail a 9.5 percent chance of human extinction.
And that number might even underestimate the risk. Another Oxford survey of experts from 2008 posited the annual extinction risk to be a higher figure, 0.2 percent…
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/04/a-human-extinction-isnt-that-unlikely/480444/
00
A terrific article from The Guardian(!) about how western lefty pandering to Hugo Chavez and then Nicolas Maduro has contributed heavily to the tragic situation unfolding in Venezuela.
Radical tourists have been deluded pimps for Venezuela
00
23 May: Australian: Alan Kohler: Australia’s secret ETS starts in five weeks
From July 1, coincidentally the day before the election, the Coalition’s “safeguard mechanism” within its Direct Action Plan will come into force…
The caps specifically include the electricity sector and the ACCUs are “financial products” under both the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act, and can be traded, so an ETS market will be established from July 1.
It is, in short, a classic cap-and-trade ETS, similar in effect to the one legislated by the ALP in 2011, but which unwisely started with a fixed price that could be labelled a carbon tax, and was repealed on July 17, 2014 by the Abbott government, with high-fives and champagne.
What hasn’t been announced or included in the Coalition’s legislation yet is that the caps will start to be reduced from next year, which will make it even more similar in some ways to the Gillard government’s Clean Energy Act 2011.
The legislation that included the Coalition’s ETS was passed by the Senate — with the support of both the ALP and the Greens — on its last day of sitting in 2015, in December…
So far, climate change has been absent from the election campaign and will probably remain so — because fundamentally the parties agree now…
Will it result in higher electricity prices? Almost certainly. Shhh.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/alan-kohler/australias-secret-ets-starts-in-five-weeks/news-story/7f1de2a63db3e8d4a12066f31edcf640
00
Following the Perth storms, autumn is now winter apparently:
https://themarcusreview.com/2016/05/23/autumn-is-the-new-winter/
00
greenhouse reduction on steroids……. strewth!!
“Everything Is Plunging” – China Commodity Carnage Continues”
“everything is plunging… except cotton,” with Iron Ore, and Rebar down 7% today…
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-22/eveertyhing-plunging-china-commodity-carnage-continues
00