I was taken by the way Chiefio slices away the clutter to leave bare the most pertinent point. From day to day, the sun, the latitude, our orbit, and the CO2 levels are the same as the day before, yet the temperature can swing wildly. Over a whole month, most variables are constant, yet one obviously dominates the monthly average, a factor we don’t even have good data one in the long run.
Is The Average Variation Of Clouds CO2?
Now the one big thing I can add to the graph itself is simple. I watched the sky during that time, closely. The cool days were cloudy to overcast. The hot days were clear blue sky. Temperature directly matched to degree of clouds. Cloudy days are cool. Clear days are hot.
During these three weeks of data, there is nearly zero change of any of the Milankovitch parameters. Insolation is a functional constant to a large number of decimal places. Our latitude and longitude and distance to water do not change. All manner of variables in this complex soup are held constant by the nature of their 1000s of year rate of change. On the scale of a couple of weeks, geologic time scale events ARE constants.
Even the slow rise of CO2 on a decadal scale is a constant and the seasonal change similarly near zero. CO2 is also a functional constant.
NONE of these temperature changes can be attributed to anything solar, celestial, gas composition changes, volcanic, etc. etc. What changed was the clouds, as observed.
So where is CO2 in all this? Nowhere to be found. It didn’t change the clouds. It didn’t change the sun. It didn’t change the light on the ground. It didn’t change anything. So IF we have a 20 degrees F to 30 degrees F change of temperatures from clouds, and then ignore changes in clouds, how can we say ANYTHING about CO2? If we average all those daily temperatures for this month, it tells us about clouds, not about CO2.
Then, given such a daily Average Of Global Temperatures is driven by clouds, how can one assert that changes over years, of a fraction of the daily changes of temperature, can not also be entirely explained by changes of cloud cover (that is poorly tracked at all, and completely ignored in vast areas of the planet)? Hmmm?
Cloud levels and precipitation are shown to control temperature ranges in the short run, so averages of them over long runs will also be dominant. Yet we do NOT have good data for changes of clouds or precipitation over time…
But, but, but, but ….. oh no!
152
Yes and us commenters on that post also have experiences of the same thing.
82
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00040.1
A pronounced summer warming is observed in Europe since the 1980s that has been accompanied by an increase in the occurrence of heat waves. The authors show that the variance of European summer temperature is partly explained by changes in summer cloudiness. Using observation-based products of climate variables, satellite-derived cloud cover, and radiation products, the authors show that, during the 1984–2007 period, Europe has become less cloudy (except northeastern Europe) and the regions east of Europe have become cloudier in summer daytime. In response, the summer temperatures increased in the areas of total cloud cover decrease and stalled or declined in the areas of cloud cover increase. Trends in the surface shortwave radiation are generally positive (negative) in the regions with summer warming (cooling or stalled warming), whereas the signs of trends in top-of-atmosphere (TOA) reflected shortwave radiation are reversed. The authors’ results suggest that total cloud cover is either the important local factor influencing the summer temperature changes in Europe or a major indicator of these changes.
153
Wielicki et al., 2002
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5556/841
It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.
—
Goode and Palle, 2007
ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.
Conclusion: In this paper we have reviewed the physical mechanisms behind solar irradiance variation, and we have reviewed how on the timescale of solar evolution, the Sun cannot have been any dimmer than it is at the most recent activity minima. We have also shown how concurrent changes in the Earth’s reflectance can produce a much larger climate impact over relatively short time scales. Thus, a possible Sun–albedo link, would have the potential to produce large climate effects without the need for significant excursions in solar irradiance. These could provide an explanation for the apparently large climate response to apparently small solar changes, as well as how the 11/22 year solar cycle is imprinted on Earth. Regardless of its possible solar ties, we have seen how the Earth’s large scale reflectance—and the short wavelength part of the Earth’s radiation budget—is a much more variable climate parameter than previously thought and, thus, deserves to be studied in as much detail as changes in the Sun’s output or changes in the Earth’s atmospheric infrared emission produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
52
Ramanathan et al., 1989
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.
—
McLean, 2014
http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
[T]here is general consistency of a reduction in total cloud cover as temperature anomaly increases, with cloud cover decreasing from about 1984 until year 2000 followed by a flattening out to 2009, which is the end of the available cloud cover data. The decrease in total cloud cover anomaly is approximately 4.5 percent of sky, against the long-term average (all months 1984-2009 inclusive) of 66.4 percent of sky, which means a reduction of 6.8% of the cover.
The reduction in total cloud cover [between 1984-2009] is significant in the context of the energy budget described by Trenberth et al., which indicates that cloud reflect 23% of the 341 Wm−2 (i.e. 79 Wm−2) of incoming solar radiation. The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere, some of which will be lost when it adds to the longwave radiation to space. Of course clouds have many other effects on the earth’s radiation budget many of which are not fully understood, but a change of 5.4 Wm−2 is potentially of considerable significance.
To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2.
The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present]. Even the upper limits of the IPCC’s estimates fall well short of the increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover.
72
Thankyou, Kenneth, for publishing the text that’s relevant to the pertinent point(s) in these papers.
Far too often a blogger will provide a link only, to a publication(s), with no indication that they have read it, let alone understood it.
Many of us, in the blog environment, don’t have time to be sifting through dozens of pages of peer reviewd literature to find alleged substance for a particular claim, only to be disappointed.
41
A simple easy demonstration of the influence of clouds can be done by pointing an infra-red temperature gun high at clear blue sky (away from the Sun). The temperature can be commonly -27oC. This alone indicates very little atmospheric warming is occurring from the gases in the air. But now wait till some low-level cloud comes over, preferably only an hour or two later on the same day. Point the temp. gun high again to the sky (away from any direct Sun influence) and note the temperature. It can now be 30 degrees warmer at the cloud base, say +5oC. This will be the case even if the surface air temperature is only 1 or 2 degrees warmer. How’s that for the thermal power of clouds? Has GISS got anything to say about that? How about Craig? Lol
52
I seem to be on a roll with another chance to slam the alarmists squarely in the face.
What kind of fool does it take who is so educated that he or she can do complicated calculations and analysis and still not recognize what Chiefio has exposed?
Hey there you climate change non-deniers, you’ve missed the obvious so badly I don’t know a word that explains it. Any effects you try to use to scare us are lost in the day to day and worse, the daily temperature changes. It’s utterly lost in the noise of making measurements.
And I can recall others making a similar statement on this site more than once.
Hello! Is anyone really listening?
Dumbo could have done better than you have.
BB
123
You just *have* to be joking. You really think that some semi-educated blogger has “exposed” something?
Maybe have a read of some information that has been produced by the people who really do research this stuff:
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_03/
865
When NASA stops being a heavily politicised body and actually does work backed by actual science, then we will listen.
Until then, enjoy your delusion…
473
I suggest we just ignore him. He is what the Brit’s would call, “A Pompous Git”. Or what the Bogans would term, “A Tool”.
32
He’s trying real hard live up to the image.
Just Google. “Michael Collins irish hero of 1916 uprising” and look for photos of him.
Eventually you will find a pic of Craig in his suit.
Will the real Craig please stand up.
KK
12
Just ignore himis best. I was going to ask him why giss.nasa.gov cannot figure out the mass of Earth’s atmosphere let alone why\how the Earth manages to keep just that amount. But Crag never answers any questions. Perhaps some non Climate clown has figured it out, but I have not seen any viable calculation. Multiple gas pressure, mass, and weight in a gravitational field; are not necessarily connected by any known set of equations.
12
Einstein was a patent clerk…
394
are you saying that is all he was? That was it?
1013
Err, okay then, he wasn’t a patent clerk.
164
point is that he was employed as one but he wasn’t unqualified or uneducated in the things he published while a still a patent clerk. I don’t think you’d need to dig too deeply to find many eminent scientists who took other jobs while still working on their science – trying to get grants, write up theses, maintaining momentum between jobs.
You have to pay the bills.
115
Gee Aye,
As ever you miss the point of my comment.
Einstein is to a patent clerk as “some semi-educated blogger…” is to important discovery.
OT – How’s the corn pone going this year?
174
It is not what you do, that matters. It is what you manage to achieve, in terms of making a difference in the world, that matters.
The journey is the process. The final destination is what is important.
Einstein understood that. So does EM Smith.
Craig and Gee Aye, not so much.
30
‘You have to pay the bills’ That’s it in a nut shell.
There’s very few research grants, for something that’s not perceived to be a problem.
You can however get grants, to research just about anything … Provide you can link it to ‘climate change’
41
Finally got time to visit here. Interesting to see “character assassination” and “attack the messenger” have not gone out of fashion with the Warmer Crowd.
Per “unqualified”: Since most of the support for “Climate Science” comes out of computer models and data analysis, perhaps my years of classes in computer programming, and years of employment running models (plastic flow, thermal) on Cray Supercomputers count toward my “qualification”. Oh, and maybe my formal Symbolic Logic class counts toward thinking clearly? Bachelors is in Econ with a computer emphasis. Computer Science degrees did not exist then, there. It was Econ or Elec. Engineering (or a few Math Majors).
I also have a State of California College Teaching Credential, lifetime, in “Data processing and related technologies”. True, the posting in question isn’t very heavy on math (more the logic part…), but in fact most of my blog, especially the early years, was devoted to data analysis and looking at the various climate codes. To point, on that:
I ported GIStemp and got it running on my own server. Have done dozens of comparisons of various ‘cuts’ of the GHCN data set, with various subsets by latitude, altitude, country, etc. etc. I’ve compared V1 to V2 to V3 of GHCN as well, via custom written programs. I’ve got about 8 years so far working on the technical side of “Climate Science”. Latest being the download and compilation of a couple of coupled climate models. (I’ve not yet run them as I’m still assembling the control files and input data. I have however read ALL the code, end to end, and posted my assessments).
So have those casting stones read ALL the code of GIStemp and at least 2 climate models? Hmmm? Got them running?
I’ve lost count of the number of formal published papers I’ve read. It is well into the hundreds.
Per formal credentials, I’ve got a bunch of letters I could put after my name, but don’t bother. Latests was a Ph.D., but it is in religion so not an academic qualification (but if anyone wants to talk the relative merits of Buddhism vs Christianity, or the nature of Christology, I’m “up for it”…) I’ve lost count of all the computer languages I’ve learned and used over the decades. At least a dozen in common use, and more that have faded from use. CDP certification too. (ICCP “capstone” cert.) State of Washington treated the CDP as the equivalent of a MS Computing for pay purposes.
Oh, and the resume tops out as Director of a publicly traded company, President of my own company, and Board Of Directors member for a public medical charity. Other than that, not much… About 45 years of professional work in computing including running a supercomputer center for a Fortune 500 company and managing budgets in the $Millions.
Why put this here? Well, I figure a lot of folks here have no idea who I am, so maybe it’s worth a mention.
Sorry I’m not a patent clerk.
BTW, I see my role as finding and exposing interesting points of view, and believe others ought to do the work to make them detailed and publish. All I ask is a footnote. I’ve got at least one that I know of, oh, and a photo credit in another. I just don’t have enough ego demand to care about the name on a publication. That Buddhist kind of thing… I am but the vessel…
I’m pretty sure I could be formally published, if I was willing to lose 2 years to the process. Oh, and then there is that whole Pla Review fraud in climate publishing along with intimidation of editors… (see the Climategate Emails). Kinda makes a fella thing “why bother? Just bypass them.” I just figured it was better to do 10 times as much “discovery” work and get things moving faster as we were in a “race condition” with the IPCC.
There’s lots more about me scattered in the years of Climate postings on my site, but this covers the bulk of it.
Oh, and thank you to my defenders. Now you have a little more to work with.
E.M.Smith “Chiefio”
[I was surprised to see this comment in moderation earlier this morning. I have no idea what trapped it but it was a pleasure to be able to approve it. I think I speak for all of us when I say I’m glad to see your qualifications laid out so well for all your detractors to see. Moderating has few pleasures like finding this and making it visible.] AZ
32
“Pal Review” and “fella think”…
I tried to do the ‘preview’ but it didn’t happen, so just posted without proofing… Oh Well 😉
20
HI,
your reply is underneath my post in which I was responding to a post about Einstein and the imputation that he was only a patent Clerk (which he was, but he was not “only” a patent clerk) as though, according to James B. that meant that your qualifications were a distraction. I actually made no comment about you.
I do realise that this part of the discussion was kicked off in 3.1 and it is this that you are responding to.
Thanks for the run-down on your background.
31
No worries.
I was just picking a convenient level to put a response to the Credential Criers both above and below. You were just near the middle 😉
11
that’s a good summary of me
10
“some semi-educated blogger has “exposed” something”
You have NEVER exposed anything, CT, except your all-round ineptitude.
—————
The AGW drone at GISS says
“Since the changes in low- and high-level clouds mostly cancelled each other out, the net global effect of the clouds did not differ very much …”
OOPS.. Looks like someone at GISS needs to do a science/hydrology refresher course.
425
Has ignorance been ruled out, then?
110
With Craig, it is a given.
11
Why would that be, AndyG?
Is that because what goes up must come down, and climate is defined as the 30 year average of temperature and rainfall for a region.
From CT’s NASA link:
The more extensive clouds were presumably the ones creating “greater rainfall”, which is technically a change in the climate of that region. But this does not indicate whether water concentrated in those thunderstorms is offset by less liquid water in the clouds of other areas, so they have not given enough information here to justify the conclusion of no net change to the planet’s climate. They are only considering the total reflectivity of clouds, or the planet’s albedo.
It is not even clear how they can say there is no change to total albedo due to greenhouse warming, as the only statement they make about the adherence of the climate model to actual measurement is for low-level cloud. They never specifically stated the modelling of high-level clouds also matched the data, so how can we be sure the highs really cancel out the lows?
CT’s link does not contain the reasoning for CO2 increasing surface temperature, because that was not the topic of the article. Their topic was the effect that temperature has on clouds, but the topic Chiefio was discussing was the effect of clouds on temperature. Who on earth is going to claim that more cloud cover doesn’t reflect more sunlight? CT’s link neither argues against Cheifio’s point nor argues for the strength of the CO2 greenhouse effect. It’s a total red herring.
But let it not be said that CT’s link was a total waste of time. When you click through to the original paper that was the basis of the press release, you find the scientists making this rather amazing confession (my bold):
So they were happy to simulate positive feedback in the infrared band of high clouds, but reluctant to simulate any offsetting negative feedback in the optical band because they don’t know how.
A compromise! Which can’t be deterministic from the evidence because “there is as yet no observational or theoretical basis for predicting the sign of [middle and high cloud] contributions to cloud optics feedback”.
They seem to contradict themselves:
So ARM and ISCCP still don’t qualify as an “observational basis for predicting the sign of [middle and high cloud] contributions to cloud optics feedback”? They proceed to highlight how many limitations are in their study and what extra measurements would be needed to “solidify” their conclusions. The words “unlikely” and “suggest” seem to be weasel words given what follows them.
Thanks to Craig for a very useful link there, but maybe not for the reason he wanted.
Changes in cloud type and cloud cover affect surface temperature, that is uncontroversial and is supported by Craig’s link where they mention different cloud types having different radiant feedbacks.
Since 2000 we’ve had two independent confirmations that the Svensmark effect is real (Sky 2, and CERN CLOUD), although the strength of the observed effect of solar activity on Earth climate may not be entirely explained by Svensmark as other mechanisms may also be involved.
172
Nicely done Andrew.
I suppose Craig will be pressing buttons on his Blog-O-Tron web link robot to burp out another series of links to correct his faux-pas.
12
That’s the view of Prof Humlum at his excellent climate data resource climate4you — clouds.
Further, that the cloud cover over the tropics which are mostly ocean where solar radiation is strongest is an important for global sea surface temperature and global air temperature …
… do yourself a favour.
141
Lord Monckton also wrote a paper on this quite obvious drop in cloud cover this period of warming (relatively). He was right. The very idea that an increase in a trace amount of an invisible gas is responsible for major climate changes would need normally to be proven.
It is agreed even by Climate Change enthusiasts that the increase in CO2 is NOT enough to produce significant warming.
Ironically the only hypothesis that it could produe heating involves consequential evaporation of water which has a real effect and that theory has been proven wrong as there is not hot spot over the equator.
It is a chick and egg theory. How do you get enough heat to get enough evaporation to get enough heat? The impossible dreams of people who want to blame the industrial revolution for the increase in CO2, unsupported by science or evidence. As all gases are in constant and fast equilibrium with the oceans, it is also unexpected. Warming the oceans does release CO2, but we are also to believe that the warmer oceans actually absorb more CO2. How does that work? What happened to simple physical chemistry?
92
Back in the day when they loved satellite and balloon data.
100
Ah!!!! attack the messenger Craig. as for myself I will ,look at the logic and the emperical data from observations. As basic as that data may be.
I am not so pompous as to be totally dismissive.
120
You disagree with those observations Craig?
101
Craig,
I have some bad news for you. Some of those bloggers know more than NASA does. And the reason is that they think instead of marching to the damned government line of bull.
I will take accomplishment over credentials any day unless the credentials also come with the accomplishment. NASA’s credentials have come with nothing but lies, distortions and doctored data for so long that frankly I would abolish all of GISS at the bare minimum. And the rest of it is questionable money spent when we’re in debt up to our ears and still sinking.
Chiefio can think and come up with accurate conclusions.
The Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics for god’s sake. And look where they went in the history of aviation while Langly, backed by money, education and reputation dove his airplane off a bridge into the river.
Sorry but it’s accomplishment that counts every time, not credentials.
I agree with OroginalSteve, Let NASA perform first, then we listen to them.
253
I think Langley launched his aerodrome off the roof of a house boat.
However you point is well taken. The Wright brothers were practical self trained engineers. Their design was superior to the Langley design which was too weak to sustain itself and broke up as it left the launch pad.
110
The Langley design was subsequently flown by Glenn Curtiss and shown to be airworthy in that it could be flown and he could keep control of it. But he didn’t try to catapult it off to a start but made a rather less spectacular standard takeoff.
The plain truth is that both the Wright and Langley designs were impractical and I think the Wrights would have eventually been forced to do some serious rethinking or end up as failures along with Langley. It took a man like Glenn curtiss to come up with the airplane design we see today and while we owe the Wright brothers a lot of credit for showing that it could be done, it took Glenn Curtiss to make flight practical.
There was no end of fighting in the courts between the Wrights and Curtiss and as it was, the Wrights never got their business as airplane designers, builders and suppliers off the ground. So the real pioneer we need to thank for powered flight as we know it today is Glenn Curtiss.
The point about accomplishment vs. credentials is still valid. Two self taught aviation engineers did the job where all the money, education and reputation did not.
40
In my varied and interesting life, I have acquired a considerable number of credentials. But please don’t ask me to do anything useful, or material, that might be related to the credentials I hold. Having credentials open doors into conferences and other “closed” gatherings, and it tends to impresses the impressionable, nothing more.
11
Craig:
You think he knows damn nothing, whereas you know damn all?
Considering the quality of your contributions I can only assume that you are being paid to make inane comments in order to annoy people.
151
Craig,
The very first paragraph of your link,make clear they are not that reliable,GISS wrote this stupid paragraph:
CO2 and Water Vapor doesn’t “trap heat” at all,they ABSORB Electromagnetic Radiation. Heat is never trapped energy anyway since they show up only at a boundary and nowhere else.
Secondly that trivial increase of CO2 into the atmosphere since the 1880’s,adds so little to the system,that it irrelevant,since 90-95% of of the postulated CO2 effect was already in place around 700 Million years ago. The chart below make this clear since it very probably never been below 150 ppm in all that time.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png
You have no idea how minor CO2 effect is at the 400 ppm level,since you ignore the Logarithmic angle completely.
193
“Reorganisation”, as expressed in Craig’s comment, implies an act of will, and thus the influence of an intelligence.
I know that some people worship a deity, they refer to as Gaia, but imbuing it with the ability to plan and execute change in the physical realm, is going a bit far, especially on a blog that is essentially concerned with matters, scientific.
20
O ye of little faith !!! Shock horror.
I reckon God is real, but She’s out to lunch with her pals, & thinking of new shoes.
😉
John Doran.
00
“Mao-Sung Yao, Tselioudis, Del Genio, and William Kovari used the GISS global climate model to predict changes in different types of clouds, and the sensitivity of the climate” – from Craig’s GISS site.
So they have used climate modelling which doesn’t quantitatively (or accurately) take account of clouds is used to model cloud climate behaviour. And in the end, they really only talk about what difference in cloud behaviour from cool climate latitudes to warm climate latitudes and between a warm global climate and a cooler global climate. Nothing about the quantitative effect on global temperature from clouds in any case. Good one Craig.
140
A fellow at Stanford got his Ph.D. in part due to Cray time I donated to him. It was about 10 hours per run, sometimes much longer. This was to model ONE small cloud formation event.
Simply put, it takes so much compute power to model clouds, and works so badly, that nobody can do it correctly. It must be heavily parameterized. Second, due to the OTHER compute loads of running a model, the grid size is way too large to be useful, and totally worthless for cloud scale events.
So while I don’t have a credential in cloud simulation, I’ve probably run more of them than most Climate Scientists and I’ve been “admiring the problem” in computational terms since about 1990…
Basically, we’re not yet at the point where we can do anything useful in cloud modeling beyond maybe trying to get one cloud to form that looks sort of real.
12
“I’ve probably run more of them than most Climate Scientists…”
And yet all this translates to is a confused blog-posting instead of published research.
30
Nothing confused about the blog posting.
I can’t speak to the state of the reader.
Do note that it IS published. Just not in a Pal Reviewed academic money collecting media with gatekeepers. What I do is given to the world free.
Frankly, I find what academia has sunk to and become a bit repugnant. I have little desire to deal with things that are corrupted.
12
Craig, old mate,
This may be off topic, but why do you use the face of a human being on your trolls?
You are not really a human being are you?
131
Are you suggesting…..? ..surely not!
40
Craig: Beautifully written paper!
B U T I didn’t see anywhere in there a discussion how 1ppm of CO2 will change clouds in a falsifiable way
101
JetSet, I was writing my comment at the time you posted yours, so I did not see it. Possibly you were thinking a similar thing to my 3:36pm comment?
20
or he fell asleep after the first 1000 words
38
No, his attention span is even less than yours, give the guy a break.
20
Craig if you had any idea of what the Chiefio really is and the Mensa IQ he has you would shut up.
93
Chiefio is no poorly educated blogger. Veeeeeeeeeery
smart man, E.M. Smith. Read his posts … from computer
problem solving at Apple, finance, volcanoes, his essay
on use of the slide rule, ‘trust but verify’ rather than
‘press yr calculator’ and full steam ahead that’s kinda’
like cli-sci modelling in cloud towers and voila!
111
E M Smith is also a very well mannered, better spoken and closer-mouthed man than the commenter.
11
I have an HP65 Scientific Calculator – it cost a fair packet, back in the day, so I keep it for nostalgia, or a good offer.
My boss, back in the day, used a Pickett N904-T slide rule. His calculations were accurate enough for engineering purposes, and done in about a third of the time that I spent punching buttons on the HP.
If anybody is interested, there is a simulation of the Pickett at http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/n904t/virtual-n904-t.html
It works too! But only if you know what you are doing.
10
That is sweet RW! I haven’t played with one since….
Well, since I lost mine in a move about 40 years ago.
I do think a real one would be handy when the cost of electricity is so high that one cannot afford to find your link on the web.
00
and who was this guy Vernier?
00
I think he was the French dude who thought of putting a vertical line on a slider so you could convert across scales. Mind you, he probably did his conversion in French, so it probably wouldn’t work for me.
10
I still have a pair of fairly pricy Pickett slide rules stashed away just for nostalgia’s sake. Useless now of course but maybe my son will be able to sell them to some collector some day or maybe use them to add weight to his trash bags against the constant wind where he lives. On the other hand I doubt he would know what a slide rule is.
I bought them just in time to see the world of calculation change from slipstick to calculator.
Who bothers to write a simulation of a slide rule in this day of calculators with every function the world has ever known all built in and selling for $30 or $40?
00
Blush!
Thanks, guys..
FWIW I put a thumbnail credential bio up above near the first Credentials Criers. Didn’t mention the Mensa thing though… my modesty 🙂
10
Here is some scientific backing for the perspective that the radiative forcing from clouds is far more influential than modeled CO2 forcing (just 1.8 W m-2 since 1750).
.
.
Ramanathan et al., 1989
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17780422
The size of the observed net cloud forcing is about four times as large as the expected value of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2. The shortwave and longwave components of cloud forcing are about ten times as large as those for a CO2 doubling.
—
Wielicki et al., 2002
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5556/841
It is widely assumed that variations in Earth’s radiative energy budget at large time and space scales are small. We present new evidence from a compilation of over two decades of accurate satellite data that the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) tropical radiative energy budget is much more dynamic and variable than previously thought. Results indicate that the radiation budget changes are caused by changes in tropical mean cloudiness.
—
Goode and Palle, 2007
ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into a Bond albedo decrease of 0.02 (out of the nominal value of about 0.30) or an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.
Conclusion: In this paper we have reviewed the physical mechanisms behind solar irradiance variation, and we have reviewed how on the timescale of solar evolution, the Sun cannot have been any dimmer than it is at the most recent activity minima. We have also shown how concurrent changes in the Earth’s reflectance can produce a much larger climate impact over relatively short time scales. Thus, a possible Sun–albedo link, would have the potential to produce large climate effects without the need for significant excursions in solar irradiance. These could provide an explanation for the apparently large climate response to apparently small solar changes, as well as how the 11/22 year solar cycle is imprinted on Earth. Regardless of its possible solar ties, we have seen how the Earth’s large scale reflectance—and the short wavelength part of the Earth’s radiation budget—is a much more variable climate parameter than previously thought and, thus, deserves to be studied in as much detail as changes in the Sun’s output or changes in the Earth’s atmospheric infrared emission produced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
–-
Pinker et al., 2005
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S [solar radiation] from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.
–
Wild et al., 2005
http://www.meteo.mcgill.ca/~tremblay/Courses/ATOC530/Wild.et.al.Science.2005.pdf
A similar reversal to brightening in the 1990s has been found on a global scale in a recent study that estimates surface solar radiation from satellite data. This indicates that the surface measurements may indeed pick up a largescale signal. The changes in both satellite derived and measured surface insolation data are also in line with changes in global cloudiness provided by the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP), which show an increase until the late 1980s and a decrease thereafter, on the order of 5% from the late 1980s to 2002. A recent reconstruction of planetary albedo based on the earthshine method, which also depends on ISCCP cloud data, reports a similar decrease during the 1990s. Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe. The overall change observed at the BSRN sites, estimated as an average of the slopes at the sites in Fig. 2A, is 0.66 W m-2 per year (6.6 W m-2 over the entire BSRN period).
–
McLean, 2014
http://file.scirp.org/Html/22-4700327_50837.htm
[T]here is general consistency of a reduction in total cloud cover as temperature anomaly increases, with cloud cover decreasing from about 1984 until year 2000 followed by a flattening out to 2009, which is the end of the available cloud cover data. The decrease in total cloud cover anomaly is approximately 4.5 percent of sky, against the long-term average (all months 1984-2009 inclusive) of 66.4 percent of sky, which means a reduction of 6.8% of the cover.
The reduction in total cloud cover [between 1984-2009] is significant in the context of the energy budget described by Trenberth et al., which indicates that cloud reflect 23% of the 341 Wm−2 (i.e. 79 Wm−2) of incoming solar radiation. The reduction in total cloud cover of 6.8% means that 5.4 Wm−2 (6.8% of 79) is no longer being reflected but acts instead as an extra forcing into the atmosphere, some of which will be lost when it adds to the longwave radiation to space. Of course clouds have many other effects on the earth’s radiation budget many of which are not fully understood, but a change of 5.4 Wm−2 is potentially of considerable significance.
To put this [5.4 Wm-2 of solar radiative forcing via cloud cover reduction between 1984-2009] into context, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, section 8.5.2, states that the total anthropogenic radiative forcing for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 Wm−2 for all greenhouse gases and for carbon dioxide alone is 1.68 Wm−2.
The increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover over 10 years is therefore more than double the IPCC’s estimated radiative forcing for all greenhouse gases and more than three times greater than the forcing by carbon dioxide alone [from 1750 to present]. Even the upper limits of the IPCC’s estimates fall well short of the increase in radiative forcing caused by the reduction in total cloud cover.
—
Herman et al., 2013
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
[T]here has been a global net decrease [of 3.6%] in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [which has led to] an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface [between 1979 and 2011].
–
Palle et al., 2005
ftp://bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Palle_etal_2005a_GRL.pdf
Traditionally the Earth’s reflectance has been assumed to be roughly constant, but large decadal variability, not reproduced by current climate models, has been reported lately from a variety of sources. There is a consistent picture among all data sets by which the Earth’s albedo has decreased over the 1985-2000 interval. The amplitude of this decrease ranges from 2-3 W/m2 to 6-7 W/m2 but any value inside these ranges is highly climatologically significant and implies major changes in the Earth’s radiation budget.
—
Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2016
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Alejandro_Sanchez-Romero/publication/281448448_Trends_in_global_and_diffuse_solar_radiation_in_Spain_based_on_surface_observations_1981-2012/links/55e8155d08ae65b638996cf3.pdf
The linear trend in the mean annual series of global solar radiation shows a significant increase since the 1980s of around 10 Wm-2 over the whole 32-year study period [1981-2012]. Similar significant increases are observed in the mean seasonal series, with the highest rate of absolute (relative) change during summer (autumn). These results are in line with the widespread increase of global solar radiation, also known as the brightening period, reported at many worldwide observation sites (e.g. Wild, 2009; Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2013b).
—
Sanchez-Lorenzo et al., 2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425716304655
Downward surface solar radiation (SSR) is a critical part of the Global Energy Balance and the climate system … A widespread decrease of SSR from the 1950s to the 1980s [when global cooling occurred] has been observed (Liepert, 2002; Stanhill and Cohen, 2001; Wild, 2009), followed by an increase of SSR since the mid-1980s … Pinker et al. (2005) used a different product (2.5° resolution) and found that the derived global mean SSR series underwent a significant increase of 1.6 W m−2 per decade from 1983 to 2001. … On the other hand, Hatzianastassiou et al. (2005) derived a SSR product from 1984 to 2000 (2.5° resolution) and reported a significant increase of +2.4 W m−2 per decade in the global mean series, which is considerably higher than the results from Pinker et al. (2005) and Hinkelman et al. (2009).
—
Longman et al., 2014
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021322/abstract
Trends in downwelling global solar irradiance were evaluated at high elevation sites on the island of Maui, Hawai‘i. Departures from monthly means were assessed for the 6-month Hawaiian wet and dry seasons over the period 1988 to 2012. Linear regression analysis was used to characterize trends in each season. For the dry season (May-October), statistically significant (p ≤0.05) positive trends of 9–18 W m-2 (3–6%) per decade were found at all four high elevation stations tested. Wet season trends were not significant, except at the highest elevation station, which had a significant negative trend. No consistent trends in aerosol concentrations have been observed at high elevations in Hawai‘i, therefore, the observed dry-season brightening is most likely the result of decreasing cloud cover. Supporting this hypothesis, analysis of 15 years (1997-2012) of high temporal resolution Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) imagery over the Hawaiian Islands showed a statistically significant decrease in leeward cloud cover amounting to 5–11% per decade over the stations.
—
Posselt et al., 2014
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425713004161
Global [surface solar] radiation has an overall positive, and significant, trend [1983-2010] over the Meteosat disk which is mainly due to a negative trend in the effective cloud albedo, i.e., a decrease in cloudiness. All considered regions show positive trends for the extended CM SAF surface radiation dataset pointing to an increase in solar surface radiation and, thus, a brightening by either a decrease in cloudiness or a decreased atmospheric absorption of solar radiation. However, the extent and also the significance of the trends in the different regions vary substantially. The trend for Europe of 4.35 W m− 2 dec− 1 is in the order of trends derived from surface measurements by Wild (2012) of 2 W m− 2 dec− 1 for the 1980s to 2000 and 3 W m− 2 dec− 1 after 2000.
21
My favourite NASA gig is their lavishly touched-up space photography, which looks just like the covers of cheesy 1950s sci-fi mags and paperbacks. You even get pointy stars with the technicolour swirls.
Takes me back to the era of Gidget, Jet Jackson and aunties in muu-muus sprinkling sugar on the lettuce salad. Thanks NASA. Much more fun than your climate waffle, even if the cheese is laid on a bit heavy.
42
Speaking for yourself again Craig?
32
Craig: another FAIL …
I thought at first that the author of the Nasa article you linked to, was a PR hack from the Grauniad because it had that `feel.’ He turned out to be Ph.D. He didn’t do his research and presented a naive, if not juvenile explanation for the formation of clouds. After checking his bio, I was even more surprised as he claims to work on the parameterisation of clouds for climate modelling. Perhaps that explains why the models are so bad when it comes to clouds. That was how clouds were thought to form a long time ago. It’s an idea as obsolete as the Continents being fixed in their positions Unfortunately, it’s still being taught in schools.
Do you know:
1. A cloud chamber has super saturated air in it.
2. Clouds do not form in the cloud chamber, not until a high
velocity, high energy charged particle enters it.
3. The trail of the particle is marked by cloud.
4. Quite a lot of trails are left by random cosmic rays.
If you had known that, you would have known better than to link to a junk article like that one.
He (and you) would find Dr. Kirkby’s presentation illuminating. Note the first point on slide 27, Craig. You’re obviously ignorant of it so you need to know.
For your information, Dr, Kirkby is the scientist in charge of the CLOUD project at CERN and not ‘some presentation author.’
You should know who/what CERN is …
32
CT:
Once you’ve read all that, you should be sufficiently qualified to be able to explain why the charged particle and the cosmic rays leave trails in the cloud chamber. Remember: the atmosphere in the chamber is super saturated, but cloud does not form on its own.
02
Read it and weep, TROLL
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/mit-researchers-slam-global-warming-data-new-report-no-way-valid-representation-reality/
01
Will Janoschka.
“Read it and weep, TROLL”.
That paper (and I use the term loosely) was even debunked by Snopes. But I guess Snopes is in on the Conspiracy as well 🙂
10
Hi Fellows,
I realize I am a late comer but there is a quote which has been attributed to Einstein. It is: “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it.”
Newton quit science to work at the mint because his university would not give him a position with no strings attached. Do you think Einstein had to write research grant proposals when he was a professor at Princeton? Caltech recruited Feynman away from Cornell U. Do you think that Feynman had to write research grant proposals at Caltech? A little earlier in the comments a paper by Ramanathan et. al. was referenced. Ramanathan and his group at the University of Chicago at some time, I forget the date, moved from U of Chicago to Scrips Institute. Do you think Ramanathan had to write research proposals at Scrips? If you have earned the highest respect of your scientific community by your science and not your politics, you do not have to earn your living at it.
So, the fact that Einstein could, at the beginning, earn his living as a patent clerk was the best thing for his revolutionary, creative, thinking.
Have a good day, Jerry
11
I’m shocked this wasn’t in the first post on this topic:
Bows and flows of angel hair and ice cream castles in the air
And feather canyons everywhere, I’ve looked at clouds that way
But now they only block the sun they rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done, but clouds got in my way
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down and still somehow
It’s cloud’s illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Xm30heHms
200
As a resident of one of the coldest countries on Earth (Canada), I’ve wondered why I’m supposed to get worked up over a lifetime rise in temperature that’s comparable to how much it increases while I’m having breakfast.
451
Two closely related aspects where “settled climate science” has nothing to offer:
Cloud formation linked to fluctuations in cosmic rays, which vary inversely with solar activity.
http://notrickszone.com/?s=Cosmic+rays#sthash.CFKUDynJ.dpbs
Variations in earth’s albedo resulting from cloud formations at varying altitudes.
http://www.bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/
That last site “suggests” that a variation of 1% of albedo is equivalent to a variation of 1W/m2. The chart shows a 2% range over the last 20 years. Why does a variation of 2W/m2 sound so familiar?
Of course, just because climate models are incapable of replicating cloud formation, storms, vertical latent heat movement (particularly in the tropics) and precipitation, doesn’t mean that their projections are completely unusable.
181
They doooo make superb political instruments though, don’t they?
170
They doo doo.
60
Earlier this year I got hold of Hubert lambs reconstruction of wind direction back to the 16th century for the British isles. As I have carried out a reconstruction of CET to 1538 I merged the two together. It has gaps and there are anomalies but there is no doubt that for a very good part of the study there is a close correlation between the two, right through the LIA and warm periods. The correlation bemg roughly that westerly winds equals mildness especially in the winter.easterlies means hot in the summer but cold in the winter.
Unfortunately lambs study ceased in 1974 . The met office and DR Phil jones have both been extremely helpful in trying to fill in the gap to the present day as it may be that the warm spike during the 1990’s and the cooler period the decade after might be the result of persistent wind directions.
Intriguingly in December 2015 we were heading for a rather cold year but during that month the westerlies were very dominant and temperatures rose sharply except on the two days we had easterlies when the temperatures plummeted.
Overall the winter was the warmest on record apart from one in the 1850’s which also had an unusual amont of westerlies.
So I am trying to fill in the gap to see if the hypothesis that wind direction is the prime climate component holds good. Of course, wind direction also impacts directly on cloud amounts. Westerlies over here are generally cloudy and rainy whilst easterlies often bring clearer weather
Tonyb
182
At one stage way back in the 1980’s to early 90’s average wind direction was the main reason provided for shifts in climate in New Zealand, including average temperature. The peer reviewed literature said that this was true. Then along came carbon dioxide. The same researchers jumped on the CO2 bandwagon and now changes in average wind direction are all but a forgotten artifact of a distant past.
This week in NZ we have had a stunning demonstration of the power of the wind in terms of temperature change. It went from positively average to virtually polar on the east coast of the South Island in a matter of hours. All it takes is a good southerly blow. Snow to sea level. Good news for the Ski Fields.
180
Rob
Thanks for that.
you wouldn’t have a link to one of those studies of kiwi winds would you?
Tonyb
50
Tony,
Start with-
Salinger, MJ. 1980. New Zealand Climate: II. Temperature Patterns. Monthly Weather Review 108:1905-1912.
30
Tony,
Follow up with:
Salinger, MJ & Mullen 1998: New Zealand Climate: Temperature and Precipitation Variations. International Journal of Climatology19: 1049-1079
30
Rob
Thanks for those, I will track them down
20
Same thing holds for California. Part of why I limited the time I looked at in my posting. A stable wind period, mostly.
In Los Angles, IIRC, it is the Santa Anna winds that cook the place. Straight off the Mojave desert and hot hills. Mostly, wind comes in of the ocean and L.A. is pleasant. Warmish winters and OK summers. (Closer to the water more desired, and not just for the view). Then every so often, a summer Santa Anna happens and temperatures soar. (Police Calls likely a very good proxy…)
Up north where I am, we rarely get an offshore wind. Almost always it comes ashore, mostly from the North East, only with the odd cyclone far off somewhere we’ll get a “Pineapple Express” and South East winds (usually with massive rains). At this time of year, it’s pretty reliably a North East, slow breeze, with only occasional shifts and stalls at sundown. So it was a good time to look at clouds vs temps as even the winds are not changing a whole lot.
10
In the late 1870s heat and drought girded the globe. Anywhere away from the high latitudes was affected, from Asia, through Oceania, South and North America to Africa felt the effects. They were even buying water by the bucket in NZ. (I know that the Brazilian drought a couple of years back was supposed to be “unprecedented” but it was more than precedented by the drought of the late 1870s.)
What got me interested in the period was the very high 1877 annual temp reading for Nobby’s Signal Station, an old station right on the NSW coast with an old weather record. No temp before or after even comes close to that of 1877, except that of 1878. My initial assumption was that, Nobby’s being right on the ocean, stations further inland would have recorded much higher temps. When I checked the scant info I found this was not the case. Only one explanation offers itself: the westerlies (our inland winds) must have been so dominant at that time that the effect of the ocean was cancelled. (I recall during the strong 1983 El Nino when the winds were blowing direct from the west one summer day I could not feel the slightest relief from heat even while standing right on the shore of Freshwater beach. Same thing happened again in the early 2000s on Crescent Head Beach.)
Overall, it is with our westerlies as it is with Tonyb’s easterlies in England: they make the winters harsher and, while they are uncommon beyond spring, the can make the summers deadly, as was experienced and first documented in Port Jackson in the searing early 1790s when millions perished in India.
But before anyone complains, it is the westerlies that now and again take huge amounts of silt from our red centre and deposit the iron so usefully in the Pacific Ocean – for a climate change! (Little Nino making room for his little sister Nina, maybe. He’s not such a bad boy, just unpleasant.)
150
I’d think that anyone who lives near enough to a very large body on one side and a very large land mass on the other side would note the effect of wind direction, especially when you get day + long strong fetches. Where I am, the most variable weather happens in winter. The least variable weather happens during the summer. The next most variable weather is in the transition seasons, with variability in early spring dropping over time and variability increasing over time in the fall (from leaf fall)/autumn. I’ve seen the weather go from very cold and 20 degrees (F) below average to 20 degrees (F) above average over the course of 48 hours, just because the wind changed from westerly/northerly to southerly. I’ve seen it go the other way, too.
Oh, and just for grins, human cities do the same thing as forests to an area, but the city will be warmer. They clip the lows more than they clip the highs. They do it partly by the same mechanisms, too. A primary one being that they add water to the local air.
30
Great! Another acknowledgment that water vapor, clouds, and precipitation control temperature (and other things as well such as wind, barometric pressure, relative humidity, albedo, max/min diurnal variation in temperature and these related things just listed).
I check the weather daily, or more often, to see satellite views of clouds, their movement, clockwise and anticlockwise movement of the clouds, and their their density as indicated by albedo. One can see many things from these images and the dominant one is clouds!
This can be seen in regular views as well as IR temperature patterns. Why do they not use these images/data to get a daily index of cloudiness, monthly, annual, etc. indices? I bet these would superb predictors of surface temperature,and, give us additional insight into precipitation patterns on the earth’s surface.
71
Why is a day, year, month with a high maximum so often a day, year, month with a low minimum? No cloud to hold in the day’s warmth during the early hours.
Why did the winter of freakishly wet 1950 have so many high minima in so much of north east Australia? Because the cloud simply would not go away during what are normally the coldest driest months in this part of the world. It wasn’t a warm winter, it just couldn’t touch the low base. By contrast, 1946 was a very warm winter by mean max but very cold by mean minimum. Do I have to tell you it was dry? The same year was hot and cold, all depending on how you define hot and cold.
Stats are meaningless without curiosity and an understanding mind. Even with all that, stats are merely handy, seldom telling you why, how and for how long. They’re just stats. Clouds get in their way.
142
Very well put- clouds and rain (or lack thereof) directly control surface temperature, and account for a very large part of the difference between surface and satellite datasets. It should be obvious to everybody.
121
While the alarmists like Craig Thomas/ silly filly et al , keep dissing people like John Christy, its a bit hard to take anything they say seriously.
172
love the name change. Can you take anything seriously if you don’t agree with it?
62
I have fat fingers…..drives me nuts trying to use a small keyboard on a phone.
OT, but I can take the threat of socialism very seriously even though I dont agree with it. Same could be said of profound damage “marriage equality” do to the rights of children…dont get me started…. 🙂
10
“A bit of cloud can knock 10 degrees F off the highs. So to detect a 0.01 degree effect we must know cloud density to 1/1000 of the norm.”
If this statement from Chiefo is correct, then the “Svensmark hypothesis” is extremely plausible, with temperature changes subject to virtually undetectable changes in cloud cover.
62
Cloudy nights are warm. Clear nights are not.
It has been remarkably clear over Tassie & Canberra this winter.
60
That is also correct, it becomes a matter of the deviation from the norm is greater during the daytime than the night time, which on my personal observations is be the case for where I live.
40
Clear, and still, so no solar power or wind power being generated. How is that hydro coming along? Oh wait, Malcolm the Magnificent has a plan to add more pumped storage, but where will the electricity for the pumps come from? Malcolm’s own pumped up sense of self importance? Knew him at Sydney Grammar School, where he had a stamp made-TVRNVS MAXIMVS- with which he stamped EVERY page of EVERY book he owned. He only had one friend at school, his Ego.
40
No Greek tragedy
w/out Hubris, Oedipus,
… or human history.
Oh Malcolm !
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hauBcShPWfM/UPRKBEQ1-gI/AAAAAAAAESU/pdYyW-psglY/s1600/3917310-cicerone–roma–palazzo-statua-della-giustizia.jpg
20
Ian H
“Malcolm the Magnificent” ?
More like “Malcolm in the Muddle” ?
10
““Malcolm in the Muddle””
In the “muddle” of Labor and the Greens.
Or should that be.. in the mud with Labor and the Greens.
13
Malcolm is the worst kind of Socialist – a champagne socialist….hes wealthy as, and the whole PM thing is just a bit of a lark … the ultimate jolly for someone who is bored, probably on behest of Sacks of Gold Bnk no doubt….” our man in australia” as it were…..but bored or not, he is damaging australias ability to function bit by bit, slowly crippling it.
He is very effective, he doesnt care of no one likes him….as long as the green agenda moves forward, adn Australia becomes slowly the asia pacifics Zimbabwe….
10
It is probably just a ploy to get rid of all the New Zealanders who have infested some of the seedier areas of Sydney.
If he succeeds the quality of the barista coffee will go through the floor.
00
Somewhat O/T but around CO2
Paris “good” intentions listed here by country
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/12/looks-like-global-action-on-climate-change-is-dead/
As summarised in this comment
”
Russ R.
July 11, 2017 at 6:14 pm
Yes, it is officially a non-negotiable, non-solution, to a non-problem, that is non-enforceable, non-binding, and the very definition of non-sense.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/11/president-trump-boldly-proclaims-a-winning-u-s-climate-energy-policy-at-g20-summit/#comment-2549063
“
110
Yes that is good Ian. I’ll give credit to Russ R. every time I borrow it.
20
Just love that last sentence Another Ian.
30
Jo! Jo! Jo! “a factor we don’t even have good data one in the long run.” For more than a month I have been trying, by private email, to inform you about the 20+ years of data that have been observed by the NOAA (US Department of Commerce) project SURFRAD (surface radiation) and the SCAN (soil climatic analysis net) project funded by the US Department of Agriculture. How many days of data recorded every hour (SCAN) or every minute (SURFRAD) do you need to acquire a understanding of the possible influences of cloud, precipitation, wind, dewpoint upon air temperatures, soil moistures, soil temperatures, solar radiations (downwelling, upwelling, direct-normal, and diffuse) and infrared radiations (downwelling and upwelling)?
July 4, 2017 I made a ‘public’ attempt to get your and your readers’ attention by submitting a ‘long’ comment (essay) to your post of July 3rd. I fight the temptation to submit it again but know it is not hard to look back and read it, if you or present readers have such a desire.
Please consider this good data which exists, ponder it, and then share. Yes, it will give you data overload. But do not average one reported measurement for averaging can only destroy information.
Have a good day, Jerry
71
from memory, this is your shortest blog post ever. I think it is terrible that Jo didn’t let you unleash one of your essays. We need more long posts here not concise on topic ones. Here is a way around it eventhough I prefer the modus of Tdef, Pat and that guy who signs his posts despite his name being on the post already – post it offsite and link to it. Google docs for example.
Make the link your username!
55
And probably your longest post, Gee. Still a load of irrelevant nonsense… just more of it.
23
Hi Gee Aye,
Have never encountered you before to my knowledge (memory). So I am curious how you consider to know about my sometimes long comments. And I wonder why AndyG55 is critical of what you wrote?
And am I that guy who signs his posts?
Have a good day, Jerry
00
20 years of data is only 1/3 of the 60 year climate cycle of PDO AMO et. al. It is relatively useless for anything climate. Frankly, with 200 year sized solar cycles and 1800 year lunar tidal mixing cycles, it is essentially a single climate datapoint. Id not call that good climate data.
Probably good for very short term observatioal things, though. Like observing a month and noting cloud vs temperature ranges… and covariance.
00
Hi E.M.,
“Simply put, it takes so much compute power to model clouds, and works so badly, that nobody can do it correctly. It must be heavily parameterized. Second, due to the OTHER compute loads of running a model, the grid size is way too large to be useful, and totally worthless for cloud scale events.”
You correctly call attention to fact that clouds are the only real time variable which clearly influence the temperatures of one day to the next. You report your computer achievements which thus are useless to understand this influence of clouds which you know is critically important. Is not climate merely the average of such measured variables of meteorology such as temperature and precipitation at a given location on a given day as averaged over as long a period as there is reliable data available?
If we believe that glaciers once covered northern portions of northern hemisphere continents, as there is strong physical evidence that they did, we must believe there has been natural climate change and that there continues to be possible natural climate change.
There was a Swiss meteorologist, Hoarse de Saussure(1740-1799), about whom we can read (Wikipedia): “Obsessed by the measurement of meteorological phenomena, Saussure invented and improved many kinds of apparatus, including the magnetometer, the cyanometer for estimating the blueness of the sky, the diaphanometer for judging the clarity of the atmosphere, the anemometer and the mountain eudiometer.” Because of my own observations I can understand why he invented the cyanometer. For the ‘blueness’ of the ‘clear’ sky can be observed to subtly change.
R.C. Sutcliffe, (Weather&Climate, 1966) describe cirrostratus clouds as “transparent, whitish cloud viel of fibrous (hair-like) or smooth appearance, totally or partly covering the sky, and generally producing halo phenomena.” I conclude these are the clouds which subtly change the ‘blueness’ of the ‘clear’ sky.
Now, if one studies the downwelling longwave IR radiation, the downweling solar radiation, and the air temperature being continuously measured and recorded every minute at the Desert Rock NV NOAA SURFRAD site, which has an arid climate and therefore more ‘clear’ skies during June and July than other SURFRAD sites, one can see the interplay of cloud upon these measured radiations and temperature. After all the relationships between these two radiations and air temperature is what the controversial GHE is all about.
Hopefully you can agree such SURFRAD observations (measurements) are much more useful than any computer modeling if we want to better understand the influence of cloud upon air (or surface temperature) temperature. And if one studies certain SCAN data funded by the Dept. Of Agriculture, one see the sometimes significant differences that can exist between the air temperature and the soil temperature at a depth of 2 inches.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Jerry,
I’ve been trying to pull your various comments together to figure out the “money quote” in your position. It’s still a bit of hunt and peck, but I’m plugging away on it. (Unfortunately, the next couple of days are demanded by ‘life events’…)
You seem to have some kind of issue about high thin clouds mattering, but it isn’t clear if you think they matter as they make things warmer or colder, or just different. (i.e. not accounted properly, either way).
Well, yes! NONE of the clouds are properly handled in models. They can’t even properly model thunderstorms and hurricanes.
How any of that relates to your other point, about soil vs air, is also unclear. It looks like they are just disjoint concerns. Well, OK: Soil temps is pretty much always going to be different from air temp other than the two times a day air temps rush past the soil temp.
Soils are slowly accumulating or losing heat. Air does it fast. So every day air starts out cold from the night (comparatively speaking) and rushes up to warm as the sun hits. Then cools down all night to the cold spot at sunrise. Soils either slowly are adding a bit from that swing as they warm out of winter, or lose a bit to the air as they cool from summer highs. In either case, they will not match other then when the air ‘dips’ from one side to the other side of more slowly changing soil.
It doesn’t mean much other than that soil temps move more seasonally and air moves more daily. (The deeper in the soil, the longer the lag time).
Well, it’s late, I’ll catch up in a couple of days.
00
Hi E.M. and others who are part of a spontaneous event he has begun.
Jo wrote: “I was taken by the way Chiefio slices away the clutter to leave bare the most pertinent point. From day to day, the sun, the latitude, our orbit, and the CO2 levels are the same as the day before, yet the temperature can swing wildly. Over a whole month, most variables are constant, yet one obviously dominates the monthly average.” She titled her post: “Chiefio: minor changes in clouds swamp the effect of clouds—see it every day”.
One might ask: What is the spontaneous event? One might ask this because I consider this event is multi-faceted. I consider the critical factor is some us seem to be in common agreement that observation, not reason (argument), is the test of scientific ideas. But someone, for some reason only known to that person, noted that Einstein was a patent clerk. And someone, for some reason only known to that person, questioned Chiefio’s credentials to be a qualified spokesperson for scientific issues. And eventually Chiefio appeared on the scene and described how it was that he considered himself to be qualified. Anyone capable of actually seeing is a qualified scientist in my eyes. And Chiefio has been successful in drawing this fact to the attention of some of us.
However, Jo continued: “A factor we don’t even have good data one in the long run.” And as yet it seems I have been unable to convince anyone that this is not true.
Chiefio, on his site has accused me of having a hobby horse which I insist on riding as I try to direct him and others to the data which Jo claims doesn’t exist. Chiefio has requested that I inform him what he might see because of this data and to explain how it might be important for him to spend time studying it.
I try to quote others whenever it is possible so it cannot be said I am riding my personal hobby horse. So please consider a few quotes.
“If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” (Newton) I consider Archimedes, Galileo, Tycho Brahe, Johannes Kepler, Newton, Robert Boyle, Horace de Saussure, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Joseph Louis Proust, John Dalton, Arthur Conan Doyle, Einstein, Richard Feynman, R. C. Sutcliffe, Verner Suomi, Linus Pauling and John W. Hill to be on my short list of giants. I suspect, but do not know, that some of these names might be unfamiliar to some of you.
R. C. Sutcliffe is one. For he wrote (Weather and Climate, 1966): “It would be difficult to overstress the importance of clouds as the necessary intermediary between invisible vapour and falling precipitation in the water cycle upon which all land-life depends, but their importance by no means ends here. Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate. This obvious enough if we only think of the difference between a cloudy and sunny day in summer or between an overcast and clear frosty night in winter.” Hence, if one had read his book, Cheifio’s posting would not have begun the spontaneous event which I see as accruing.
This quote is for those questioned Cheifio’s credentials and for Cheifio who considered himself qualified because of his credentials. “It’s not that I’m so smart; it’s just that I stay with problems longer.”
I have been criticized for even considering Arthur Conan Doyle as being a scientist, even less, a giant of science. But, in the context of the greenhouse effect hypothesis, consider (ponder) the following Doyle quotes from his Sherlock Holmes’ short stories. “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.” “It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence, it biases the judgment” or “The temptation to form premature theories upon insuffient data is the bane of our profession.” “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.? And finally, relative to the selection of one’s giants, “Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.”
No, Cheifio, I have not done what you requested. But please be patient with me as I am not refusing to do so. It is just that I have not yet discovered how to ‘effectively’ do so.
I understand completely that each one has a life which needs personal attention. So I will patiently await your comments from which I can learn more.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Hi Chiefio,
You, Jo, and many others have talents and abilities which I do not have. And I come to you, Jo, and many others for help.
And you are correct when you question my ‘efficiency’. Principlia Scientific International (PSI) has published (posted) several articles I have written. Two of which are:
http://principia-scientific.org/new-scientific-law-greenhouse-effect/
http://principia-scientific.org/solar-radiation-sufficient-no-greenhouse-effect-certain-atmospheric-gases/
In the second I refer to the measurements made by an ‘amateur’ scientist in his ‘arid’ backyard. At the time I wrote this article, he and I were unaware of the SCAN project and the measurement of soil temperatures at 2, 4, 8, 20, and 40in at more than 200+ sites in the USA. Hence, the importance of the SCAN data is it confirms the validity of this ‘amateur’ scientists observations.
And you can read in the above two articles why I consider why the scientific law—The atmosphere’s temperature can never be less than the atmosphere’s dewpoint temperature—refutes the hypothesis of the greenhouse effect. And if there is no greenhouse effect, there is no man-caused global warming or climate change because of this hypothesis. But just as clearly is that when we begin to irrigate a desert we do change its climate. Just as a natural oasis has different climate than that of the surrounding barren desert.
Finally, I would like to see your definition of climate. For when you consider that one needs to consider a climate (weather) that existed a thousand years ago, I consider this is impossible because I know of no reliable measurements of meteorological factors that have existed for a period that long at even one specific location.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Hi E.M.,
I find I have rephrased the scientific law from that of my article. I consider they are both valid as stated.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Hi E.M.,
You have asked me to explain what you might find if you study SCAN and SURFRAD data. I know one must suffer data overload when one first looks at day after day of data or even month after month of the SCAN data. Which, the ability to compare daily hourly data for a month of days, allows one to see the variability of air temperature, soil temperatures, soil moistures, wind speeds and directions, dewpoint temperatures, etc. which actually occur daily and from one day to the next. But in the context of this post, the most important factor, which can be seen in this monthly format, is the solar data because variable clouds obviously influence the solar which reaches the surface.
I cannot describe what you might see; you must look and see. However, I can direct your attention to the SCAN data of three nearby sites, in Montana near the Canadian border, which possibly were selected because the elevation of the sites changed 500ft from one to the next and the horizons seen in the photos all appear level. Hence, these sites appear to be on a plain which somewhat uniformly sloped downward toward the east.
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/plot?sitenum=2117&report=SOLAR×eries=Hourly&interval=DAY=2011-07-01&temp_unit=8&format=plot&autoscale=false&legendpos=right
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/plot?sitenum=2118&report=SOLAR×eries=Hourly&interval=MONTH=2011-07-01&temp_unit=8&format=plot&autoscale=false&legendpos=right
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/plot?sitenum=2019&report=SOLAR×eries=Hourly&interval=MONTH=2011-07-01&temp_unit=8&format=plot&autoscale=false&legendpos=right
Compare the data of these sites during different months or years. One thing I do not know how to do, but expect you could, is to put several smaller scale figures on one page (screen) so it would be easy to compare one with the other instead of studying one and trying to memorize what can be seen with that which can be seen on the next figure.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Hi E.M.,
The previous urls (I believe this is the correct term) do not get you to where I intended. These do.
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=2117
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=2118
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/nwcc/site?sitenum=2019
Have a good day, Jerry
00
So 5 more replies, lots of text, bunch of links, and still no concise statement of what it is you believe. OK, I’m accused of being prolix sometimes too, I get that.
But is it really so hard to sum it with something like:
“High cirrus clouds may be nearly invisible, yet modulate other clouds” or
“High cirrus makes CO2 irrelevant” or “High ciruss is driven by CO2”
Or whatever it is you think all that means.
It would just be nice to have one sentence that sums up what I’m supposed to be searching for in that bag of pointers and such.
Per “hobby horse”: it is nothing more than an informal light way of saying “you have a single topic you fixate on, want others to explore, repeatedly raise, and won’t let go of; that is not necessarily interesting to others nor where they wish to devote a lot of time” The metaphore is much more brief and less stilted.
Yes, Ive said I’m going to look into “your thing”. I will, but it will be slow. I’m still slowed by pain killers after the surgery a couple of days ago and other stuff is backing up. So figure a week or two.
01
Hi E.M.,
First, thank you very much for getting back after your personal sojourn. It helps (motivates) me to have someone to whom to write that I can be somewhat sure that what I write will be read.
Secondly, I must state I believe in the Creator God and his Son who died for my sins. A middle school staff member delivered the greatest sermon on salt and light that I have ever heard. A central point was that a little salt makes things better for others.
Your article (Is The Average Variation Of Clouds CO2?) made things better. Jo’s article (Chiefio: minor changes in clouds swamp the effect of CO2 — see it every day) made things better because without them I would have not learned of you.
“It would just be nice to have one sentence that sums up what I’m supposed to be searching for in that bag of pointers and such.”
“Measure what is measurable and make measurable what is not so” (Galileo)
Neither you or Jo referred to a single quantitative measurement in your two articles. Before the comment before one of your most recent, I tried to be a fishing guide to direct you to three sites where the hourly recording of solar radiation quantitative measurements could be found graphically displayed for a month of days and for 24hrs of day (specific SCAN data) for the 12 months of a year and for several years. I did not state that a good time, that I had found to go fishing, was the month of March. Sorry. The months of March and the days of March which I looked at made it obvious to me that it would be extremely difficult to identify one day and conclude that this day that cloud did not influence the quantity of solar radiation which reached the earth’s surface where this solar radiation was being measured. For the same day, at three reasonably near locations, similar amounts (within reasonable experimentation error) of solar radiation were not being observed from one site to another.
And the variations observed from one day to the next at a specific site, made it obvious that there was no other known cause, beside cloud, which could come close to cause the magnitude of the variations which can be seen once one measures the solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface. Every other considered possible factor influencing the transmission of solar radiation through the atmosphere must be considered a possible perturbation whose influence is ‘swamped’ by the influence of cloud.
What you write and I write are not criticisms of each other’s thoughts: what you and I write are attempts to make something better.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
@Jerry:
OK, I think I understand what you are after now.
I do two kinds of technical climate postings. An “Everyman DIY” Kitchen Science style, that usually is qualitative and observationsl (“What do I see and what does it tell me?”) and more analytical technical math and computer language heavy. This is by design for different audience types.
You are looking for a “recorded data based” version of the Kitchen Science style article and pointing at data sources as candidates.
OK, I’ll take a look at doing that.
Personally, I strongly prefer the math, data, and compute heavy form, But I’ve found most folks like the qualitative observational approach in postings.
00
Hi E.M.,
“Personally, I strongly prefer the math, data, and compute heavy form, But I’ve found most folks like the qualitative observational approach in postings.” So, it now seems safe to broach a different topic as you check the qualitative observational approach.
Safe, because my goal is always to keep a conversation going because I believe that will lead to progress. And without progress nothing is efficient. In 1974 Richard Feynman, a physicist and one of my giants, gave a commence address at Caltech titled: Cargo Cult Science (“Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”). For he saw there were certain ‘intellectual’ activities (ideas) which ‘looked’ like science that were not because they could be observed not to work.
There are two fundamental physical sciences: physics and chemistry. And you have defined the general difference between physicists and chemists. However, the qualitative observational approach you have observe in posting concerning the GHE are not that which chemists have used in making their contributions to physical science. For in any discussion (debate) concerning the GHE one can commonly read that one does not know their physics but seldom, if ever, have I read that one does not know their chemistry. And one cannot commonly read about any mention of scientific laws.
Math, data, and compute heavy form (physics) generally requires a significantly greater intelligence quotient (IQ) than does the qualitative observational approach of the chemist. Hence, you have a high IQ and prefer the math, data, and compute heavy form and I doubt if I have an IQ close to yours (I actually do not know what my IQ is) and I know that I do not have the mathematical skills to go where the physicists have gone with their mathematics. Chemists have used the discoveries (phenomena) of the physicists without understanding the math, data, and compute heavy form that they (physicists) use in discovering this phenomena forced upon them by observed quantitative data. Chemists generally respect physicists but physicists do not seem to generally respect chemists because chemists are generally less ‘intelligent’ and use an intellectual method (the qualitative observation approach) that seems foreign to the general physicist as it relies on the experimental discovery of scientific laws.
Another of my giants is R. C. Sutcliffe, a meteorologist, who wrote (Weather & Climate): “Meteorology is not a fundamental physical science, that is to say it is not concerned to develop the basic laws of nature.” So, why do I consider Sutcliffe to be a giant? Because he began his preface: “This is not a textbook on meteorology, neither a general introduction nor a formal, but it has a serious purpose and that is to explain to the general reader what it is that meteorologist are doing and trying to do.” And I judge he does a very excellent job, given what I have read about meteorology, of honestly doing this without prejudice. And the meteorology he described in 1966 is little different from that which one can read about in recent introductory textbooks, except these modern textbooks prejudicially ignore that what he wrote: “Clouds which do not give rain, which never even threaten to give rain but which dissolve again into vapour before the precipitation stage is ever reached, have a profound effect on our climate.”
And the authors of these recent textbooks, while generally reviewing what Sutcliffe reviewed disregard the importance of what he wrote and they write because meteorology has no basic laws of nature.
If I have written to you the following I repeat. But it is more efficient to retype than carefully search for what I might have already written. Sutcliffe wrote: “These results, obtained first by Wilson and broadly confirmed by many later experimenters, have a very important bearing on natural meteorology, not because supersaturation occurs in the atmosphere but because it does not occur; why is it that in the atmosphere condensation to clouds invariably happens as soon as normal saturation is reached? The answer is that the natural atmosphere, however clean it may appear to be, is always supplied with a sufficient number of minute particles of salts, acids or other substances which serve just as well as liquid water in capturing water molecules from the vapour. These are the ‘nuclei of condensation’, and are effective as soon as the air becomes even slightly supersaturated. As a matter of fact, there are many observations of clouds in air whose relative humidity is considerably below 100 per cent, evidence of nuclei which are hygroscopic, but methods of measurement within natural cloud are not sufficiently refined to prove that even slight supersaturation ever occurs.”
In this quote Sutcliffe wrote the word—natural—three times; yet it seems meteorologists have not yet recognized that what Sutcliffe qualitatively described is a ‘natural’ scientific law of the ‘natural’ atmosphere just as Kepler’s three laws of planetary motion, based upon a mathematical analysis which assumed that the earth rotated about its axis with a period of 24 hours and revolved about the sun with a period of about 365 days, of Tycho Brahe’s careful astronomical observations were natural scientific laws.
While I cannot condense what I have just written to a single sentence, I imagine it can be read in a couple of minutes. Hence, I consider it to be efficient and to possibly help you to explore the qualitative observational approach.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Hi E.M.,
I consider it very possible that emission from the ‘condensation nuclei’ are the principal and natural source of the downwelling IR radiation from the atmosphere instead of that from the much smaller greenhouse gas molecules. I consider this because Sutcliffe wrote: “Long-wave radiation from the earth, the invisible heat rays, is by contrast totally absorbed by quite a thin layer of clouds and, by the same token, the clouds themselves emit heat continuously according to their temperatures, almost as if they were black bodies.” For while, the condensation nuclei are smaller particles than cloud droplets, it seems they are only different in size and in the concentrations of the hydroscopic acids or salts.
I must add that I do not consider that either cloud droplets or condensation nuclei absorb solar radiation or longwave IR radiation because Richard Feynman taught a scattering theory of radiation where the intensity of scattering greatly increased when a particle (or droplet) was greatly larger than the atmospheric molecules. (The Feynman Lectures on Physics) This because even a small droplet contained multiplied thousands, or millions, or even billions of water molecules plus the acid molecules plus salt or ‘acid’ ions.
Now, it seems another interesting fact that the environmental concern about ‘acid’ rain has seldom been noted in the context of the condensation nuclei. Nor has the known fact that the lightning of a thunderstorm naturally ‘excites’ nitrogen and oxygen molecules so that oxides of nitrogen and ozone are produced. Nor has the known fact that carbon dioxide naturally dissolves in liquid water because it reacts with water molecules to form the molecule dihydrogen carbonate or carbonic acid by another name. Nor does it seem commonly considered that this carbonic acid gives water solutions a taste which makes carbonated beverages popular drinks.
So it would seem there should be no mystery what some natural sources of the hygroscopic acids, which have long been considered a probable component of the condensation nuclei required to prevent the atmosphere from becoming supersaturated with water vapor, are.
Again, it is not a single sentence, but this comment can be read in a couple of minutes.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
Hi E.M.,
As you “check the qualitative observational approach” I will continue to inform you of what I doubt, but do not know if, you have read anywhere.
http://www.nature.com/news/2000/000106/full/news000106-11.html
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/01/pleiades.html
Peruvian potato farmers have long observed the Pleiades consolation to predict el nino events six months in advance. They seem to be successful because such observations require that the consolation needs to be observed from a high elevation to detect the subtle presence of high altitude thin clouds which would be hidden by ‘whatever’ in the lower atmosphere.
Another thing I doubt you would have read in the postings is any mention of quantum mechanics by those who question others’ understandings of fundamental physics. For this 20th Century physics is seldom, if ever, considered.
In the 37th Chapter (Quantum Behavior) of The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1963) he lectured: “We would like to take up as our next subject the problem of the behavior of relatively large pieces of matter—their mechanical and thermal properties, for instance. In discussing these, we will find that the ‘classical’ (or older) theory fails almost immediately, because matter is really made up of atomic-sized particles. … ‘Quantum mechanics’ is the description of the behavior of matter in all its details and, in particular, of the happenings on an atomic scale. Things on a very small scale behave like nothing that you have any direct experience about. … Because atomic behavior is so unlike ordinary experience, it is very difficult to get used to and it appears peculiar and mysterious to everyone, both to the novice and to the experienced physicist.”
Next I turn to another of my giants, Linus Pauling, and to the beginning of his preface of the 3rd Ed of College Chemistry (1950). “During the last decade the science of chemistry has continued to change. Descriptive chemistry, the tabulation of the observed physical and chemical properties of substances, is still an important part of chemistry; with each passing decade, however, it becomes possible to correlate these facts in terms of theory in a more and more satisfactory manner.
“The theories of greatest value in modern chemistry are the theories of atomic and molecular structure, quantum theory (quantum mechanics), and statistical mechanics. I believe that the concepts involved in these theories can be learned by the beginning student of chemistry sufficiently well for him to apply them in correlating and understanding the facts of descriptive chemistry. Moreover, the fundamental experiments upon which these theories are based can be understood by the beginning student. The theories in their detailed mathematical treatment can then be studied later.”
Thus, beginning in 1950, some beginning students of chemistry learned to apply the concepts involved in quantum mechanics and many of the very talented Caltech beginning students, who attended Feynman’s lecture a decade later, did not according to Feynman’s honest assessment.
But not all beginning chemistry students after 1950 learned how to apply the concepts involved in quantum mechanics because their professors had not chosen to use Pauling’s text or other texts, which began to consider quantum mechanics, because these professors had completed their formal training before 1950 and knew little to nothing about the concepts of quantum mechanics. I was one of these other students who went to graduate school in 1963 knowing nothing about quantum numbers or what a wave function was. However, within two years I was able to apply the concepts to the facts of descriptive chemistry and totally understand the mathematics used by Schrodinger to solve the problem of the hydrogen atom. I was helped by this because I was taking a physics course (Atomic and Nuclear Physics) in which I learned some of the mathematical tricks used by physicists and this helped me to understand what I was to learn in my Advanced Physical Chemistry course.
Have a good day, Jerry
00
For a nice run down of the many long cycles that make a 30 year “baseline” daft and 20 years of data nearly nothing, Javier (don’t know the last name) did a wonderful series of postings / papers on them. I’ve collected links and summaries of them here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/surprisingly-good-technical-series-on-climate/
To understand climate, it is imperative to think in thousand years scale. There’s a (roughly) 1000 year solar cycle, a 2500 to 2800 year one, and at 1500 year cycle that isn’t tied to the sun. There is a known 1800 year lunar tidal ocean mixing cycle, but how to map that onto 1500 years is an open question. Then there are several other cycles of shorter length.
Now how one thinks they can get a baseline in all that with a 30 year chunk, or have enough data to make a claim with even 100 years worth, well, that’s a very interesting question…
00
Hi E.M. and others,
I am getting old and forget with greater frequency. I had drawn attention to Hoarse de Saussure’s cyanometer because it involved the observation of visible radiation. Then I drew attention to the downwelling IR radiation being measured at NOAA’s SURFRAD sites, which he and I could not see. I had intended to call attention to the downwelling diffuse solar radiation being measured at these sites. For the minimum value of this solar radiation measured near midday at any of these sites during apparently ‘clear’ sky conditions, that I have found, is about 70 watts per meter squared.
I use the term, apparently ‘clear’ sky conditions and it needs to be described for those who have never studied the graphical displays of the radiations being recorded every minute. When these graphical curves are not ‘smooth’ it is easy to ascribe this lack of smoothness to the presence of variable clouds. However, if a uniform cloud is present, which covers the entire sky (overcast condition), the curve is still smooth but the value of the diffuse solar radiation exceeds the minimum value observed a few days earlier or later, of the minimum value observed the same date a year before or later.
And if one studies this data it is possible to find periods of several days when the value of the such smooth diffuse solar radiation curves approach midday values of 200 watts per meter squared and the maximum air temperature of each day increases until a record high temperature is measured for one, or more, day (s). Given the observed data being recorded, it is easy to explain the steady increase of maximum daily air temperature to be due to the fact that given the cloud condition that the daily minimum temperatures, due to cooling during the nighttime, are steadily increasing. So, the same, or even less, heating by solar radiation during the daytime produces a greater daytime maximum temperature.
I find it difficult to explain with words what can be so simply seen by studying the graphical displays of the measured SURFRAD data. But I have tried to correct where I had gotten lost because of my forgetfulness.
Have a good day, Jerry
10
So is the synopisis (that I’ve wanted) anything like:
“There are high thin ciruss clouds, nearly invisible, that stongly modulate temperature changes. This doesn’t show up in regular cloud reports and deserves much more attention.”?
If so, that’s something I can get interested in.
Much more than “Here are bunch of links go dig in the data”… that sound more like a fishing expedition in a mud lake…
00
I suppose that this is why deserts tend to be rather hot during the day and rather coldat night
50
No, that’s rapid Climate Change.
70
This approach, of stating the obvious, should be used by everyone. 350 full time CSIRO Climate Change scientists and what help have they given? A weight loss diet and a false claim they invented WiFi. For a mere billion dollars a year.
Since the invention of the IPCC in 1988 we have been subjected to an endless stream of claims the world is ending, except that after 30 years, it hasn’t happened. The endless research of tens of thousands of people has not found this man made Climate Change. It is still a theory which bears no resemblance to any facts. Mann’s hockey stick was manufactured and made many people rich, including the respected author who went into Climate Change to get his PhD and make a living, as he failed to do so in his chosen field.
Most importantly as is pointed out here, it flies in the face of the obvious. All life on earth comes from H2O and CO2 and sunlight. H2O is the one greenhouse gas which is involved in every aspect of our climates and weather. It is all about H2O. Invisible CO2 has no observable impact except we would all die quickly without it.
As is also obvious, CO2 is increasing steadily as the oceans warm slightly but the air temperature is not changing. You do not need to be a scientist to know that CO2 is not driving temperature but temperature is driving CO2. As Dr Murry Salby discovered, CO2 goes as the integral of temperature. This is the heat impulse of the sun, heating the water where 98% of all CO2 lives. Even instinctive science would tell you CO2 would go up as gas bubbles out.
Still in Australia, we are witnessing the crippling of our country by both sides of politics and against the wishes of the bulk of the people. This is something being done entirely by appalling politicians chasing marginal votes and secret agendas. The nett result is $3Bn a year going overseas, according to the IPA. Another $3Bn is being handed out in Australia to players in the game. All this is hidden, outside parliament and against every tradition of Westminister democracy.
You can see the effect of clouds, rain, storms, snow, oceans, water, sun for yourself. You can go to the beach and see no change in a century. This is all wrong science, social engineering, political science. Still this week you are told to pay an extra $5000 for your new car, even a Toyota Prius, 10x as much for your electricity and that your jobs and quality of life have to go to save the planet. Yes, but who will save us from these politicians?
172
I suspect TdeF, that a portion of the money “leaving” Australia will be “sequestered” for use at a later date.
I can imagine a retired politician stumbling into a situation with the U.N. or other charitable organization where their obvious skills can be applied.
Always plan for the future.
KK
21
Scott Pruitt (see full Reuters’ transcript in comments at jo’s previous “Turkey” thread) has touched some nerves!
12 Jul: Buzzfeed: Jim Dalrymple II: The Trump Administration Wants To Debate Climate Change On TV. Here’s What Scientists Think About It.
Peter Gleick, a scientist who cofounded the Pacific Institute, an environmental think tank, called Pruitt’s proposed debate “bullshit.” In an email, Gleick said that climate change has already been reviewed and assessed by “every national academy of sciences on the planet,” and is already debated “every day by the very process of science itself.”
“The effort by Pruitt and Trump’s EPA to pretend to put together a ‘debate’ is no more than another attempt to open the door to the voices of climate denial, delay, and confusion that have already postponed international action almost to the point of disaster,” Gleick added.
Michael Mann, a climatologist and geophysicist at Penn State University, said that a debate is already going on and “it’s called science.” He also said the debate amounts to a “bad faith effort.”
“What Pruitt and his ilk really want is to stack the deck against mainstream science by giving cronies and industry lobbyists an undeserved place at the science table,” Mann said.
Linda Duguay, who directs multiple environmental programs at the University of Southern California, said that “there is not much to debate” regarding the scientific consensus on climate change. Duguay also expressed skepticism that Pruitt and his team “would put together an honest forum on the subject.”
“The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community and the great majority of nations around the world that signed the [Paris climate agreement] accept it as a reality,” she said.
John Seinfeld, a professor at the California Institute of Technology who studies the atmosphere, said that “there’s nothing to debate,” unless the discussion focused on “remediation measures.”
***”Climate change is a done deal,” he added.
And Philip Mote, who studies climate change at Oregon State University, said that debating “settled” scientific topics such as climate change “is silly, counterproductive, and perpetuates a false sense of what’s true and what’s not.”…
Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science, pointed to Pruitt’s record and said, “we’ve seen evidence that his team kind of tries to stack the deck against the evidence.”
“There are plenty of interesting debates to have within climate science and climate policy,” Reich told BuzzFeed News. “But the ‘whether or not climate change is occurring and whether or not climate change is attributable to human activity,’ those debates are closed.”
She added that the debate is a problem because it gives scientists and those who deny science equal weight.
“That is inherently confusing to the public,” Reich said.
At least one study seems to confirm that. Earlier this year, John Cook — a George Mason University researcher whose previous work showed a 97% scientific consensus on climate change — published a paper that found that providing climate change skeptics and scientists equal voices lowered people’s perception that there was a consensus..
“I found that presenting climate change as a debate decreased acceptance of climate change,” Cook explained to BuzzFeed News in an email. “It lowered people’s perception of scientific consensus.”
Cook added that he is “disturbed that this denialist strategy is getting institutional support.”…
Brett Hartl, a spokesperson for the Center for Biological Diversity, called the idea of a public, televised debate on climate change “destructive.” Hartl referred to the proposed discussion as a “fake debate” that marginalized actual scientific discourse.
“This is going to tarnish the EPA’s legacy for decades to come,” he said.
Kimiko Martinez, a spokesperson for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told BuzzFeed News that the “science is clear,” and that Pruitt’s proposal “isn’t about scientific debate. It’s bad policy in search of excuses.”
“The public isn’t buying Trump’s retreat from climate progress,” she added, “and it won’t buy into this cheap charade.”…
https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympleii/the-trump-administration-wants-to-hold-a-televised-climate?utm_term=.bcxAPr2Wo#.bmdLDJ9yo
111
Do these twits not understand what Pruitt is trying to do? He wants to run a blue team red team exercise to challenge the orthodoxy so of course he is going to choose sceptical scientists for the red team! If the blue team’s scientific argument is watertight then they have nothing to fear from the exercise and indeed, they should be welcoming it. However, if they have something to hide, or if they have doubts, then I would expect them to react as they have done. They don’t want a debate, they don’t want a red blue exercise because they fear its outcome.
131
Revisiting CO2 as a proscribed ( pollutant) by the U.S court would be a start. Demonising a beneficial trace gas und so weiter. Conflating carbon particulate with this gas is a crime. Return science to its rightful, critical state.
41
Well put William.
GeoffW
00
Wonderful. Very funny in a perverse way. Now who’s in denial?
Apparently the debate is over, except it has never happened.
Peter Gleick, who cofounded an environmental think tank,
Philip Mote, Climate change at Oregon State University
Kimiko Martinez, Natural Resources Defense Council spokesperson
Katharine Reich, associate director of the UCLA Center for Climate Science
and needing no introduction
Michael ‘Hockeystick’ Mann
John Cook — ‘Mr. 97%’
All out of a job without Climate Change.
The one I like ”Climate change is a done deal,” he added. Yes, it is. Not science. Al Gore’s gift to the world.
121
They Marched for Science.
https://marchforscienceaustralia.org
“Science, Not Silence” was the slogan.
Open Communication was the pledge.
40
The way I see it is like to headless chooks. I have a degree i( B.Sc.) and have passed with D’s and HD’s and nary a credit or pass. Never fail !!! Oh, I’m computer literate and understand other people’s models and ALL is predicated on such. Am I literate? Nahhhh. Modern teritiary education for ya.
22
One of my fav posts by Jo
joannenova.com.au/2013/03/andy-hoffman-admits-theyre-losing-fighting-skeptics-is-like-fighting-slave-traders/
Gotta love how the lefties always try and make good bad, and bad good:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness…”
( Isaiah 5:20 );
20
That is good news, Pat,
I am off to buy popcorn futures …
00
It may well have been done, but has anyone analysed the ice core data to see whether the increase in CO2 that we are currently seeing is not merely following the increase in temperatures since the end of the little ice age, and that in say, 200 years time, we might see a corresponding pause or peak in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Records show that CO2 increases follow temperature increases by some 200+ years so who knows, that might be what we are witnessing today.
21
comment in moderation re “12 Jul: Buzzfeed: Jim Dalrymple II: The Trump Administration Wants To Debate Climate Change On TV. Here’s What Scientists Think About It.”
multiple “climate” experts desperately insisting the science is settled.
60
There are so many devastating uncertainties to global warming though. How is “global average” remotely relevant…average in what way? How can we know how temperature actually evolves over time normally if we have NO data about the past? Global cloud cover by its self is not known to sufficient certainty…literally ALL suggested warming could be the result of cloud changes that are within error ranges of our knowledge of past cloud cover. Even the instrument temperature record is not sufficiently accurate. Measurement error alone is +/- .15C and there is an obvious accumulating error due to the homogenization routines. We don’t really even know the past CO2 levels with sufficient accuracy.
…and yet it’s treated as if it was as certain as a well controlled experiment of a well documented and understood phenomenon.
71
Remember that the goal is to find a trend. The trend depends on the early data as much as the latest. The earliest data was recorded in 1 degree F whole numbers with an error band of at least one, and often closer to two degrees… even in the early 20th century that was true in many places…
10
The WIND saga in NSW continues.
WIND output crashes from 20% Installed Capacity (140 MW) to 40 MW just as NSW wakes up.
NSW AM peak demand yesterday was about 10,300 MW.
So today’s WIND supply a whopping 0.3% of demand.
I’ve come to the conclusion that wind turbines are just expensive fidget spinners for zealots of Climate Scientology.
I’ve yet to work out why the rest of us get to pay for these useless playthings.
151
Wind is Random power. How AGL can claim it is the new baseload is beyond logic.
140
I bet AGL keeps its gas turbine peaking plants to sell extremely expensive power when the wind stops blowing.
132
Dr Henrik Svensmark’s ‘cloud theory’ argued this point years ago. People can watch his documentary, The Cloud Mystery, at the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
41
Has Svensmark’s hypothesis made any progress? There was a deal of testing done at CERN a few years ago. Any significant results? Svensmark also pointed out very long term correlations between cosmic ray intensity and earth temperature. Is the Svensmark/Shaviv line of thought the “outside the square” approach that finally sinks the AGW boat?
11
the very same countries being condemned for not allowing unlimited immigration, and whose birthrates are among the very lowest in the world – US 1.9, Canada 1.6, EU 1.5, Australia 1.9 – are being encouraged to have one less child!
sounds like genocide of the West?
12 Jul: Breitbart: Oliver JJ Lane: Guardian: Save The Planet, Have Fewer Children
Having children is a “lifestyle choice” to be discouraged among young people in developed nations and is bad for the planet, according to a new paper trailed positively by the British left-wing Guardian newspaper…
Reporting a new Swedish-Canadian study promoting reducing the number of children born and seeking to target anti-child messages towards adolescents, Britain Guardian newspaper has played up (LINK) the findings, labelling the “true impacs” of having a family as “lifestyle choices” and asking the question of readers “Can you bring yourself to have one fewer of these”…
Emphasising the importance of communicating this information to young people, remarking that “adolescents [are] poised to establish lifelong patterns are an important target group for promoting high-impact action”, the academic paper lamented the lack of anti-children content in school textbooks.
Seeking to redress this perceived failure of schools, the report said including the environmental impact of creating more humans should be included in sexual education in developed nations. It said: “adolescents… should be informed of the environmental consequences of family size as they are likely becoming sexually active.”
“The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions”, published in Environmental Research Letters, is a new study by Seth Wynes of the Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund University, Sweden, and Kimberly A Nicholas of the University of British Columbia, Canada…
TWEET: Breitbart London: Report: Italian Birthrate Continues to Plummet …
TWEET: Breitbart London: Denmark increases pressure on young couples ot have children to avert demographic collapse…
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/07/12/guardian-save-the-planet-have-fewer-children/
12 Jul: IOP Science: Environmental Research Letters: The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions
2.3. Government documents
To analyze broad societal mitigation recommendations, we chose three developed regions with high per-capita emissions and government documents available in English: ***Australia (average per-capita emissions of 16.3 tCO2 per year), ***Canada (13.5 tCO2 per year), and the ***United States (16.4 tCO2 per year), as well as a lower-emission case, the ***European Union (6.7 tCO2 per year) (World Bank 2016). We identified the most authoritative and relevant set of recommendations from that region indicating how their citizens can help mitigate climate change, contacting government representatives for clarification where multiple possible documents were found…
For green energy, researchers have described problems with double-counting in several European countries (Hast et al 2015), as seen in the near-zero emission reductions for Great Britain in figure 1. Still, in regions with carbon-based energy grids such as Australia and North America, green energy has the potential to greatly reduce emissions associated with home energy use, which is why we retained this action in figure 1…
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
21
Oddly enough, in many poorer countries, they often have many kids.
Europeans could be out-bred by poorer immigrants and could become a minority in thier own country…..eurpoe could be chnaged from within its own borders.
Own-goal I’d say…..
01
Guardian is not alone in providing positive coverage. haven’t yet found who commissioned the study:
12 Jul: UK Telegraph: Sarah Knapton: How to save the planet: cut holidays, sell the car and don’t have as many children, say scientists
They also looked at school textbook and government advice from across Europe, Canada the US and Australia and found that most policies focussed on the strategies which had the least impact.
Having multiple children was found to have the largest impact on climate, with each child creating nearly 60 tonnes of C02 each year…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/07/11/save-planet-cut-holidays-sell-car-dont-have-many-children-say/
12 Jul: Daily Mail: Colin Fernandez: Want to save the planet? Don’t have children! Study finds bringing new life into the world is the most destructive thing you can do to the environment
Study finds carbon footprints are drastically reduced by not having children
Avoiding air travel, eating a plant-based diet and not driving a car also help
Impact of having a child is calculated by taking their descendants into account
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4687400/Study-Want-save-planet-Don-t-children.html
21
the “science” websites are just as positive:
The most effective individual steps to tackle climate change aren’t being discussed
EurekAlert · 1 day ago IOP Press Release
11 Jul: Phys.org: The most effective individual steps to tackle climate change aren’t being discussed
Governments and schools are not communicating the most effective ways for individuals to reduce their carbon footprints, according to new research…
The researchers also found that neither Canadian school textbooks nor government resources from the EU, USA, Canada and Australia highlight these actions, instead focussing on incremental changes with much smaller potential to reduce emissions.
Study co-author Kimberly Nicholas said: “We recognize these are deeply personal choices. But we can’t ignore the climate effect our lifestyle actually has. Personally, I’ve found it really positive to make many of these changes. It’s especially important for young people establishing lifelong patterns to be aware which choices have the biggest impact. We hope this information sparks discussion and empowers individuals,” she concluded.
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-effective-individual-tackle-climate-discussed.html
Most effective individual steps to tackle climate change aren’t being discussed
Science Daily · 1 day ago
21
After commenting that electricity prices are killing people, dedicated communist Adam Bandt hits back
“Coal kills people. Renewables save lives,” Mr Bandt said and trotted out the Green summary of Armageddon..
“Craig Kelly is just another ideologue, hell bent on hastening dangerous global warming. This latest foray isn’t unexpected, but it is certainly unfounded. If Craig Kelly and the Trumps in the government have their way, more people will die from bushfires, heatwaves, floods and famine as dangerous global warming accelerates.”
and then from the commentator, the new meme.
“Renewables do not need (more) subsidies.”
No, the apparently invisible RET is doing fine, thank you. $6Bn a year for absolutely nothing. Not even a tax to a government, just cash gone to strangers forever.
92
Again, Delingpole is onto Bandt’s alarmism and note the New York Times has hit Peak Alarmism. “we-are-all-so-totally-going-to-die”. Can we pay more carbon tax, please?
72
The trouble with David Wallace-Wells is that, despite a double barrelled name,
his got no class.
this is class;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OauiVnN1YUU
My uncle, being in the same line of business, knew this man and would recall to us youngsters many of his coups.
The current hucksters are rank amateurs.
30
An ‘orse, an ‘orse, my kingdom for an ‘orse. What different times. Never back a favorite.
20
12 Jul: Reuters: Julia Fioretti: EU parliament extends exemption for foreign flights from carbon emissions scheme
Before the extension of the exemption becomes law, the Parliament will have to find a compromise with EU member states in the Council of the EU, which backed the Commission’s proposal to extend it indefinitely…
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-carbon-aviation-parliament-idUSKBN19W1TQ?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews
12 Jul: CarbonPulse: COMMENT: Locking down Europe’s climate target
Europe’s carbon budgets are becoming dangerously unmoored from the 2030 target they were meant to protect. New rules are urgently needed to course-correct Europe’s carbon budgets and emissions to control for Brexit, unregulated aviation emissions and other unanticipated threats, writes Damien Morris, director of consultancy Futureproof…
PDF: 46 pages: Jul 2017: Futureproof: Hitting a moving target:
Ensuring Europe’s carbon budgets stay aligned with its greenhouse gas targets
About this report
This report was commissioned by the European Climate Foundation (ECF) to assess whether the EU’s main carbon budgets still cohere with the greenhouse gas targets they were designed to enforce…
This report explores whether the 2020 target is safely enforced, explores current threats to the 2030 target, and identifies general threats to future targets.
The views expressed in this report are those of Futureproof, not necessarily those of ECF…
Report author: Damien Morris, Director, Futureproof
https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/36f7b6_cd300ee786df4459b7939602128c3300.pdf
21
the farce continues:
10 Jul: ClimateChangeNews: Finland’s plan to increase logging is a danger to the climate
Finland’s government has attempted to discredit scientists who criticised its increased logging programme, writes Hanna Aho from NGO Fern
Over the past two years it has expended vast political capital lobbying the EU to weaken its rules on how members account for emissions from forests and land…
Now, in the hope of reducing unemployment, generating new investments and reviving a slowing economy, the Finnish government has turned to its forests once again: this time to feed the nascent bioeconomy (which is being driven by international climate policies encouraging countries to switch from burning fossil fuels to renewable energy).
To help achieve this economic salvation, Finland last year announced plans to increase harvesting its forests by 23% between now and 2030…
According to calculations by the respected Öko-institute, if other countries in the EU adopt Finland’s position and allow their forest sinks to go to zero, up to 376 megatons of carbon dioxide would go unaccounted for every year.
The climate impact would be equivalent to seven times Finland’s annual emissions, or to put it another way, like having 380 million more cars on the roads…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/07/10/finlands-plan-increase-logging-danger-climate/
11 Jul: CarbonPulse: Switzerland to raise national carbon tax by 14% in 2018
Switzerland will raise its domestic carbon tax by 14% next year after its emissions from fossil fuels again missed the country’s annual reduction targets.
it’s an annual thing!
Dec 2015: Le News: Big rise in Swiss carbon tax from 1 January 2016
Swiss law requires big reductions in CO2 emissions by 2020. Reductions are below target, so from 1 January 2016 the government is increasing the tax from CHF 60 to CHF 84 per tonne of CO2 emitted as allowed by law. In particular, those who heat with gas and oil will pay more in 2016. Electricity costs will rise too…
Jul 2014: Reuters: Switzerland threatens 40 per cent carbon tax rise if targets not met
12 Jul: ClimateChangeNews: Mantoe Phakathi: China signed African coal deal days before Xi low emissions pledge at G20
In the week China’s president called for development banks to support low emissions in poor countries, China Development Bank loaned $1.5bn to coal in South Africa
On Thursday, China Development Bank (CDB) announced the loan to Eskom, South Africa’s power utility, on 6 July to fund the completion of its 4,764 MW Medupi coal plant.
Two days later, a G20 climate action plan, released at the Hamburg summit and agreed by the Chinese leader Xi, called on multilateral development banks (MDBs) to offer “coordinated support for country driven long-term strategies for low greenhouse gas emissions.”…
Between 2010 and 2020, according to the International Energy Agency, 20% of new Chinese-backed power capacity in sub-Saharan Africa will be coal…
Phasiwe said Medupi was the last coal project that Eskom would invest in, adding the company was increasingly investing in renewable energies which for now make only 5% of the company’s power supply. Coal accounts for 80%…
He said Eskom has realised the need to embrace renewable energies and, as a result, the power utility has partnered with Stellenbosch Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies, which is researching how to store solar energy.
***“We don’t want to be left in the dark,” he said…
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/07/12/china-signed-african-coal-deal-days-xi-low-emissions-pledge-g20/
21
Geez don’t give the climate doomsayers ideas . Whip up some clouds and ta da global cooling .
Who knew ?
I like the train of thought though .
Now that the IPCC has nothing to do
maybe they can be mandated to produce scary cloud stories .
Think of the possibilities … cloud seeder terrorists take over control of the earth’s temperature .
Maybe even a Bond movie .
No one has all the answers or even right questions yet
so why pretend a trace gas(CO2) is the tail wagging the dog ? Real scientists and people with some
common sense know such pontification is rubbish .
What is rather sad is climate science has become politicized to the point where debate and discussion is
frightening to some in science . Forget the climate stock promoters their motivation is making a buck while doing the pluck .
Scientist need to re-establish their reputations as a group . Keep the lobbyist’s, promoters and globalists out of the room .
42
13 Jul: SBS: AAP: Labor state govts commit to renewables
Labor governments including Victoria, Queensland and the ACT have committed to renewable energy targets with former US vice president Al Gore.
While the federal government is split on energy policy, state Labor governments are pushing ahead with a plan for zero net carbon emissions by 2050.
The Left governments of Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the ACT have jointly declared they’ll lead the country towards a clean energy future.
“We have all committed to reducing our emissions to net zero by 2050,” their leaders said in a joint statement on Thursday.
Former US Democrat vice president Al Gore, who was in Melbourne for an environment conference, said the states’ plan was “extremely impressive”.
“This is an inspiring act of leadership,” he told reporters.
“I have a chance to see similar initiatives all over the world.”…
Victorian energy minister Lily D’Ambrosio said her state had a clear commitment to grow renewable energy by 25 per cent by 2020, and almost double that by 2025.
“Not only will this mean more energy generation in our mix driving down energy prices for all consumers, it will create up to 11,000 new jobs for our state,” Ms D’Ambrosio said.
She said states were forced to go it alone when the federal government “went backwards” on renewable energy policy…
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/07/13/labor-state-govts-commit-renewables
States sign climate leadership pact
The Australian -52 mins ago
21
Going back over weatherstation values for the past few days, my values follow the clouds just like the article.
We are on the Mid North Coast of New South Wales, Australia. It is mid winter, not that you would know it from the temps 😉
8th July
0725 1.5C Min average ~3degC overnight
1355 22.1C Max Clear skies for a few days
9th July
0715 1.3C min Clear skies
1525 23.4C max
10th
0615 1.2C Min Clear skies
1235 21.5C Max
11th
0715 1.1C Min av 4 – 5 deg overnight
1215 21.1C Max Late overcast, light rain, amount didn’t register. Cloud overnight, temp stayed high.
12th
0505 9.3C Min cloud cleared in morning
1505 20.0C Max late rain, 1645-1800 2.4mm, cloud overnight, temp stayed high.
13th
0645 7.8C Min
1235 22.1C Max Currently ~50% light overcast
21
13 Jul: ABC: State energy ministers threaten to lock Federal Government out of national plan for clean energy target
By political reporter Allyson Horn
State energy ministers have threatened to lock the Federal Government out of a national plan for a clean energy target.
Ministers from Queensland and South Australia have been rallying counterparts in other states to go it alone if the Commonwealth refuses to commit to the target proposed by chief scientist Alan Finkel.
Queensland Energy Minister Mark Bailey said time was running out to make a decision.
“If the Federal Government isn’t going to get on with it, which appears to be the case, then it might be up to the states to again drive energy policy,” he said.
“The Victorian Energy Minister and I have had discussions about this and it might be worth getting the Australian Energy Market Commission to do some design work, requested by the states, given the Federal Government is frozen on energy policy…
South Australia’s Energy Minister Tom Koutsantonis pushed the Commonwealth to make a final decision at Friday’s COAG energy council meeting.
“I mean, they’ve commissioned the report, the report’s come back, the report tells us we can lower power prices, we can increase power security and they’re fighting because they’re worried about the mining council and the coal industry,” he said.
But Federal Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg warned any state-based solution would be counter-productive…
“We’ve only received the report a month ago from the chief scientist and it’s appropriate that we have our internal considerations.
“There have been lots of issues raised with the modelling around Finkel, and so we’re not prepared to commit either way.” …
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-13/ministers-consider-state-based-clean-energy-target-plan/8705072
21
13 Jul: Sky News: with AAP: (Barnaby) Joyce rejects Liberal MP’s energy death claim
Joyce: ‘Our first focus has got to be making sure that people can afford power, now I suppose that’s one of the issues that Craig was discussing
‘Whether I agree with the idea that it’s responsible for the deaths of people, no I don’t,’ he told Sky News.
Mr Joyce said the Coalition was focused on delivering affordable power for consumers.
Mr Kelly also said the World Health Organisation has made it clear that winter mortality rates increase if people can’t afford to heat their homes.
The Liberal backbencher repeated his assertion that Australia should not be party to the Paris climate agreement.
Labor’s energy spokesman Mark Butler said Malcolm Turnbull needs to sack Mr Kelly as the chair of the Coalition’s climate committee…
‘It sends a message that instead of taking a sober, evidence based approach to energy policy at a critical time at the national debate, and the Coalition instead intends to continue its four-year crusade against renewable energy.’
‘If Malcolm Turnbull is going to retain any credibility he needs to act and he needs to sack Mr Kelly as the chair of the Coalition’s energy policy committee.’
‘This is another appalling intervention,’ he said.
Mr Butler conceded households and businesses are facing high power and gas bills, but he put that down to ‘policy paralysis’ at the national level…
http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2017/07/13/-people-will-die–due-to-renewables–mp-says.html
31
Nothing to see here…move along……
“Mr Butler conceded households and businesses are facing high power and gas bills, but he put that down to ‘policy paralysis’ at the national level…”
There is no policy paralysis, its all been thoroughly planned….
Now add in the new car carbon tax, energy price hikes and cost of living increases, zero wage growth and it wont be long before we see some significant society problems in this country……
Good thing all the gummints have parmilitary police and schools that can act as temporary internment camps…..seriously…peopel think I’m loopy calling this out, but as time goes on, it seems mroe and more likely.
Malcomlm Turncoat is a socialist and is committed to “the cause” as is both sides of the parliament it seems.
The pollies will wring their hands and the sheeple will be angry, but it will eventually boil over…..and then all hell will break loose…..you will see the true ugly face of the NWO puppet govt…
60
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/335002/live-winter-white-out-across-aotearoa
You want clouds? I’ll give you clouds… Thanks to the ‘Gore Effect’ reaching all the way across the Tasman Sea, New Zealand is freezing as it slowly becomes buried under metres of gobull norming powder. The above link originally mentioned the rising prices of power here in the home of endless hydro-electricity, especially on the COLDEST night of the year so far (the page keeps updating). I heard on an earlier news item c/- the state radio broadcaster, that power was now being charged out at $500 to $600 per Mw/H, 10x the normal cost. Welcome to the Brighter™ Future.
11
AUDIO: 13mins48secs: 13 Jul: 2GB: Chris Smith Show: Is gas to blame for rising power bills?
The Australia Institute (Rod Campbell) says gas, not renewables, is pushing up electricity prices. But Liberal MP Craig Kelly disagrees.
http://www.2gb.com/podcast/is-gas-to-blame-for-rising-power-bills/
rally being organised for August 20 at Belmore Park (near Central Station) in Sydney, under the name “Power to the Australian People”. seems very disorganised at the moment. hopefully it will get its act together. take a listen, tho I can’t find anything up on Facebook pages as yet:
AUDIO: 8mins14secs: 2GB: Chris Smith Show: Power to the Australian People
CATA has put out a call to arms, for Australians to reclaim their power.
Interview with Jim Sternhell, CATA
http://www.2gb.com/podcast/power-to-the-australian-people/
as for Marc Morano, who wasn’t on Bolt Report last nite, but who will be on the show tonight, according to Bolt Blog’s latest Tips page – there’s not a word about him or “Climate Hustle” in the MSM, and I can’t even find personal accounts of his visit.
41
FOR CRAIG KELLY, IF ANYONE CAN GET THIS TO HIM:
Nov 2013: UK Spectator: Our enemy is not global warming. In Britain, people are dying of the cold
Everyone talks about the human cost of climate change. What about pensioners dying in the cold?
Fanciful predictions of all the deaths that will result from climate change, decades into the future, are regularly thrown into public debate. Less attention has been given to a real statistic from the here and now, released by the Office of National Statistics this week, which shows the effects of one of the policies designed to tackle climate change: high energy prices. It emerged this week that there were 31,000 ‘excess’ deaths in England and Wales last winter, almost a third more than the previous year. Almost all were, in effect, British pensioners who died of the cold…
The 2003 heatwave was blamed for 2,000 deaths, and treated as a national emergency. Sir David King, then chief scientific officer, declared that this meant climate change was ‘more serious even than the threat of terrorism’.
Since then, some 280,000 Brits have died from the cold and barely 10,000 from the heat. We have been focusing on the wrong enemy…
Yet still the government seems little bothered by the link between green levies, which are already jacking up our heating bills, and rising winter deaths. Whenever the Climate Change Secretary is presented with the charge that climate levies are hurting the poor he always makes the same claim: that one of the main roles of the levies is to subsidise home insulation schemes for low-earners, and that by doing so their energy bills will actually fall. This is a dubious assertion in that it relies on the elderly and the poor all being able to access subsidised insulation schemes. Many cannot…
The green schemes always look better on paper…
For years the Prime Minister has stuck to the conceit that the Climate Change Act would cut energy bills in the longer run by bringing forward investment in renewable energy which, though it might be more expensive now, will steadily fall in price while the cost of fossil fuels soars. It is becoming more apparent by the day that this assumption is deeply flawed. Fossil fuel prices are no longer soaring…
If David Cameron really wants to tackle ‘green crap’, sooner or later he is going to have to tear up the Climate Change Act — and replace it with a policy aimed at lowering bills and saving lives.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/11/winter-fuel/
32
FOR CRAIG KELLY:
Apr 2015: UK Independent: Simon Read: Fuel poverty killed 15,000 people last winter
Tories have pledged to insulate just one million homes if they win the election
An estimated 15,000 people died unnecessarily between December and March because they were living in homes they couldn’t afford to heat, new figures show.
Fuel poverty campaigners reckon the number of excess winter deaths surged last winter to 49,260, of which around 14,780 were due to people living in cold homes.
The Energy Bill Revolution estimates that the average number of excess winter deaths over the previous five years was 27,830, so last winter saw an increase of 77 per cent above the five year average…
The new figures follow research published two weeks ago that revealed that some 14.3 million households turned off heating at some point last winter to cut energy bills.
Some two-fifths of consumers said they left their oven door open after cooking and a quarter wore a coat, scarf or hat indoors to keep warm rather than turning on their heating, according to the uSwitch survey.
Ann Robinson of uSwitch, said: “It’s unacceptable that people should feel forced to gamble with their health to try and cope with sky-high energy bills.”…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fuel-poverty-killed-15000-people-last-winter-10217215.html
32
FOR CRAIG KELLY:
12 Jul: Financial Post Canada: Mark Milke: Climate policies helped put 54 million Europeans into ‘energy poverty.’ Canadians are next
(Mark Milke is an author, policy analyst and writer for Canadians for Affordable Energy)
According to the EU, 54 million people already cannot afford their energy bills
Europe has become a continent where families are often asked to pay exorbitant amounts for basic needs, including energy. That has led to what is known as “energy poverty.” Many are not able to afford household power bills, especially in winter but also during summer heat waves.
The number of Europeans affected by this problem is high. According to the European Union in its 2015 report on rising energy costs, fully 11 per cent of its member states’ population — that’s 54 million people — already cannot afford their energy bills. The EU further estimates that fully one-quarter of residents, or 128 million people (and that includes the existing 54 million), are at risk of being energy poor.
Romania’s energy poverty, for example, clocks in at between 40 and 50 per cent of the population. Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Belgium, Malta, Slovakia, Italy, Ireland and even the United Kingdom record energy-poverty rates of between 20 and 30 per cent of their populations.
Such energy-poverty rates have led to what the EU references as “excessive mortality rates” in some of the same countries during winter, when some consumers cannot afford to properly heat their homes. Seventeen of 26 EU member states find the problem so prevalent that they even have energy poverty defined as an explicit concept in law…
***Oddly, in its 2015 study, the EU ignored one major factor in energy poverty: Its own role in killing off affordable power in attempts to meet ambitious carbon dioxide reduction goals in the 1992 Kyoto Protocol. Such objectives have been a staple of both EU and member-state policies’ ever since.
For a good example of how government policy led to the creation of energy poverty and then subsequent policy attempts to deal with the government-created problem, consider the U.K…
Who’s to blame? In Britain, successive governments pushed out cheaper energy sources such as coal. The country was the first to commit to phasing out coal-fired electricity…READ ALL
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/climate-policies-helped-put-54-million-europeans-into-energy-poverty-canadians-are-next/wcm/36b177aa-55e2-4d78-b71c-f6a5bb51c144
***IT’S TIME TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE LITIGIOUS CAGW MOB. WHAT WE NEED TO SEE IS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE GOVT FOR CAGW POLICIES THAT HAVE LED TO EXORBITANT ELECTRICITY PRICES AND EXCESS DEATHS.
SURELY THERE ARE FAMILIES WHO HAVE LOST MEMBERS DUE TO THESE INEXCUSABLE POLICIES WHO WOULD JOIN IN.
32
FOR CRAIG KELLY:
12 Jul: Financial Post Canada: Mark Milke: Climate policies helped put 54 million Europeans into ‘energy poverty.’ Canadians are next
(Mark Milke is an author, policy analyst and writer for Canadians for Affordable Energy)
According to the EU, 54 million people already cannot afford their energy bills
Europe has become a continent where families are often asked to pay exorbitant amounts for basic needs, including energy. That has led to what is known as “energy poverty.” Many are not able to afford household power bills, especially in winter but also during summer heat waves.
The number of Europeans affected by this problem is high. According to the European Union in its 2015 report on rising energy costs, fully 11 per cent of its member states’ population — that’s 54 million people — already cannot afford their energy bills. The EU further estimates that fully one-quarter of residents, or 128 million people (and that includes the existing 54 million), are at risk of being energy poor.
Romania’s energy poverty, for example, clocks in at between 40 and 50 per cent of the population. Spain, Portugal, Estonia, Belgium, Malta, Slovakia, Italy, Ireland and even the United Kingdom record energy-poverty rates of between 20 and 30 per cent of their populations.
Such energy-poverty rates have led to what the EU references as “excessive mortality rates” in some of the same countries during winter, when some consumers cannot afford to properly heat their homes. Seventeen of 26 EU member states find the problem so prevalent that they even have energy poverty defined as an explicit concept in law…
***Oddly, in its 2015 study, the EU ignored one major factor in energy poverty: Its own role in killing off affordable power in attempts to meet ambitious carbon dioxide reduction goals in the 1992 Kyoto Protocol. Such objectives have been a staple of both EU and member-state policies’ ever since.
For a good example of how government policy led to the creation of energy poverty and then subsequent policy attempts to deal with the government-created problem, consider the U.K…
Who’s to blame? In Britain, successive governments pushed out cheaper energy sources such as coal. The country was the first to commit to phasing out coal-fired electricity…READ ALL
http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/climate-policies-helped-put-54-million-europeans-into-energy-poverty-canadians-are-next/wcm/36b177aa-55e2-4d78-b71c-f6a5bb51c144
***IT’S TIME TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE LITIGIOUS CAGW MOB. WHAT WE NEED TO SEE IS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE GOVT FOR CAGW POLICIES THAT HAVE LED TO EXORBITANT ELECTRICITY PRICES AND EXCESS DEATHS.
SURELY THERE ARE FAMILIES WHO HAVE LOST MEMBERS DUE TO THESE INEXCUSABLE POLICIES WHO WOULD JOIN IN.
52
FOR CRAIG KELLY:
shilling for the renovation business, but couple of honest points:
6 Apr: EurActiv: Adrian Joyce: Energy poverty: A blight on the EU
(Adrian Joyce is campaign director at Renovate Europe)
Across Europe, an estimated 54 million people cannot afford to heat their homes in winter, and the same number are either behind with their electricity and gas bills, or live in damp and leaky homes. These problems are worst in Central and Eastern Europe – affecting 73% of Bulgarians, for example – but they are also rife in countries such as Ireland and the UK…
There is no end in sight to the spiral of energy prices and network charges. In fact, EU states’ climate change policies have come to be primarily funded by utility bills – a regressive measure that increases the risk of energy poverty for vulnerable customers. It also undercuts the ‘polluter pays’ principle and, in the long term, gambles with public acceptance of the renewables revolution…
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/opinion/energy-poverty-a-blight-on-the-eu/
PDF: 8 pages: May 2016: European Parliament: Energy poverty: Protecting vulnerable consumers
SUMMARY
Between 50 million and 125 million people in the EU are at risk of energy poverty – unable to keep their homes warm or pay their bills. The underlying causes are generally considered to be low incomes, ***HIGH ENERGY PRICES and poor energy efficiency of the living space, with market conditions and social environment also playing a role…
The consequences of living in cold homes are numerous, leading to an excess number of winter deaths, respiratory problems, increased hospitalisations, greater incidences of mental diseases, as well as negative effects on
social life, relationships and education of children…
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/583767/EPRS_BRI(2016)583767_EN.pdf
22
Friday, 6 October 2000, Anna Salleh – ABC Science Online:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/10/06/196029.htm
Clouds won’t counter global warming
“Don’t count on clouds to come and rescue us from global warming, says a NASA researcher, who claims that the minimum amount of warming predicted by scientists should be revised upwards by half a degree Celsius.”
Study finds link between cloud changes and global warming abc, 1 Jan 2014
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-01/an-unsw-study-on-role-of-clouds-on-climate-change/5180574
“We found that there’s a, what we call, feedback operating with clouds.
Chief investigator Professor Steven Sherwood says while their findings don’t support an increase in temperatures by the turn of the century above the forecast upper level of five degrees, the lower predicted level of a two degree increase can be discounted.”
IPCC’s Latest Super-Flop: Scientists Say Aerosol Impact On Clouds “Almost Double That Estimated in Latest IPCC Report”
http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/06/ipccs-latest-super-flop-scientists-say-aerosol-impact-on-clouds-almost-double-that-estimated-in-latest-ipcc-report/
Thursday 23 April 2015
Changes in water vapor and clouds are amplifying global warming
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/23/changes-in-water-vapor-and-clouds-are-amplifying-global-warming
41
In spite of the tears and gnashing of teeth by the green blob, this test is what I call “A smell test experiment”. It is a simple, back of the envelope calculation/observation test to verify if the proposed hypothesis has even a ghost of a chance of being right. Any hypothesis worthy of the name must first pass such a test.
One proposed hypothesis tested by this experiment is “the CO2 level controls the temperature of the atmosphere.” If that were the case, hold atmospheric CO2 constant and see if the temperature is constant. The temperature was found not to be constant by a wide margin.
A second proposed hypothesis tested is: “everything else being constant, significant variation in cloud cover will cause a significant variation in the temperature of the atmosphere.” It most emphatically does so even without variation in atmospheric CO2. In fact, every farmer on earth, since farming began, knows this to be true because he lived and lives with it all the time.
In face of this simple experiment, is their even the slightest possibility of a trace increase in a trace gas (CO2) will have a measurable effect on atmospheric temperature? To put it bluntly: hell no! The signal to noise ratio off the charts by orders of magnitude.
Note that a absurdly simple three week observational experiment, by an unpaid technically oriented person, costing only a bit of time and very little cash totally and completely discredited the life’s work of thousands of climate scientists and politicians who spent or caused to be spent countless trillions of dollars of wealth over the past 30+ years investigating catastrophic climate change.
Clearly, the purpose of the climate scientists was NOT science nor was the propose of the politicians to stabilize the climate and thereby “save the earth”. The lost opportunity engendered by the staggering waste of wealth cost far more than the wealth squandered. Every drop of blood and every life lost due to the profligate and totally unnecessary and pointless expenditure of wealth is on the heads of these many so called scientists and politicians. Its actual and willfully planed genocide on a global scale. The crimes against humanity of the Nazis and Communists pale by comparison.
Why do we still allow them to exist? Why do we still feed them? Where is our outrage against this crime beyond all crimes?
111
Who will bell the cat when your
political parties no longer offer
a choice, when your education system,
(producing medja acolytes,)has been
taken over by Saul Allynski-ites?
It’s difficult to trump 18c constraints
on free speech and guvuhmint subsidy-
taxing-energy for the productive economy
that released serfs from slavery
in Britain and in our once free
southern land, and this serf asks how we’ll
regain our freedom. Taking to the streets
is a last straw action non-condusive to
liberty… rule of law and trial ‘n error
a proven democratic option. We need a clear
voting choice and we ain’t got it.
40
Yes we do. We can stop feeding them.
They need us vastly more than we need them. Every value they seek to acquire or control is produced by the likes of us. They offer us nothing but slavery and death. They can’t survive on their own. We can!
It won’t be easy, painless, nor without loss but the alternative is extinction of all we hold as a value: our lives and all that makes them possible.
He who is free never submits. He who submits was never free. Stay free!
50
I do me best to speak for the open society, LG.
bts. https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/25th-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/
20
Yes, you present an interesting premise and it is essentially correct as far as it goes. Though I would ask a deeper question: “why do things work out so much better that way than rigid top down command and control?”
Why does Plato’s notion of the wisest of all deciding everything for all others not work even better? Cannot the truly wise make better decisions than any of the vulgar masses? Why then not force everyone to follow the truly wise rather than their own council? Yet, every time Plato’s notion is tried, in whatever form, the results are soon reduced to a state vastly worse than an uncultured uneducated mass of mere tradesmen and merchants freely making and trading value for value at mutual benefit.
Consider that the proposed central authority is to define the mental box by which all others are to be constrained by. The central authority is limited to, no matter how well intended, the knowledge it has on hand to construct the mental box. The members of the group must stay inside that box which defines what is true, what thoughts are possible, and what actions can be taken. Nothing can happen that is not defined by that box.
There is a vast array of detail about the situation of each individual along with his knowledge, desires, capabilities, experiences, and motivations to act that will significantly impact the performance of the group. Much of which changes rapidly while the central commands are being written, published, and put into action. The result is any command is obsolete and largely unworkable even before it is written. This is a sufficient explanation of why top down command and control always fails.
Now consider the individual who is charged with following the command as written – or else…. What relevance can he give to his knowledge, desires, capabilities, experiences, and motivations. None! All these things come from the top down and he has no choice but obey without any purpose than mere survival. Why then would he learn a new skill or the details of a new technology? Wouldn’t this lead to a sense of “Why bother. It won’t change anything anyway.”? The pride of accomplishment vanishes. The joy of living doesn’t even get started.
The result is that nothing new happens and even the same old same old never gets well done. Poverty, despair, destruction, and death are the consequences.
41
Deep question and response.
Lionell you might be interested in reading
some of Robyn Eubanks blog essays that analyse a
radical transformation of policy and practices in
K-12 education in US schools over recent decades.
http://invisibleserfscollar.com/rewiring-students-brains-at-a-neural-level-to-constrain-guide-and-motivate-desired-future-behaviors/
In my own post, ‘Gullibility and Obedience,’ I
find parallels in Australian K-12 values
education permeating all aspects of curriculum
to make over students by way of internalized learning.
20
I saw the traffic and have been working today on the Global Education Leaders programme that explains exactly why there are such parallels. It started in 2010 and Rob Randall, CEO of Acara, was at Harvard last September laying out the Australian Case for the Three Dimensions of the Australian Curriculum.
It also pulled up this paper on the so-called New Learning Paradigm that most parents are likely unaware of as well. http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_1_January_2015/3.pdf
The title is “redesigning the 3R’s and Core Academic Subjects to Improve Learning, Teaching and Assessment in the New Learning paradigm”. The author is with the University of New England in Armidale. It reads like what I know is going on elsewhere in the world behind parents backs.
20
Thx for comment and reference Robin.
Your posts are a detailed trail of top-down
moves by stealth to makeover students’ brains,
not education but indoctrination..
10
Lionell, your essay can be simplified to an old Soviet joke “They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work”.
But I also want to comment on your original comment, re “A smell test experiment”:
You’re correct that over a time period of a couple months “all things are equal”. But the original question and assumption was that CO2 added heat to the atmosphere over decade scales.
Or to put it another way: “as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, it will trap more heat and affect the atmosphere”.
There are so many factors at work simultaneously that it has been impossible to weed out the affect of just the CO2, if there is any at all. But it is true that the climate has become more moderate since the 70’s; so something has changed. Just what is still debatable.
20
I said “everything else being constant” not “all things are equal”. They are not equivalent statements – not even close. If you are going to use my words against me, please quote them correctly.
You continue with:
This is absurd as stated. CO2 by itself cannot add heat to anything unless something else increases its temperature. Clearly, it is that something else that is adding heat and not CO2. At best, the CO2 is nothing but a medium of exchange or in simpler terms it is only a middle man that contributes nothing to the transaction.
I will explain again and in different words, why the CO2 argument is so totally undercut.
A large variation of temperature is closely associated with the variation of cloud cover. If this causation cannot be tracked to a high degree of accuracy and precision, how can the effect of a trace increase in trace atmospheric components be measured. Especially without the overwhelming variation due to variations in cloud cover swamping the ability to measure the presumed fraction of a degree per decade change. It cannot. The attribution is by assumption only supported only by a long series of increasingly improbable and untestable assumptions. There is no there, there.
As you so correctly pointed out: “There are so many factors at work simultaneously that it has been impossible to weed out the affect of just the CO2, if there is any at all.” Why then prattle endlessly about man’s burning fossil fuel causing a runaway global warming? That notion doesn’t even pass the laugh test let alone the smell test. It is absurd on its face by the smell test alone.
20
Eternally sorry, I paraphrased instead of quoted.
Cloud cover (increased humidity) may well be the reason for the lower temperatures, but clouds don’t change on their own; clouds, like temperature is an effect of some other change.
No need to explain further, I was trying to use the original wording of the likes of Gore who pushed the original panic upon the population. I’m well are CO2 is a trace gas at near saturation for its influence on temperature (for want of better wording).
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
20
Greg, we are discussing proper method and not one of the many lower level conjectures of how something might possibly work.
It is simply not possible to know every thing at once all the way down to the fundamental bottom level. You must start at the top and work yourself very carefully down to the fundamentals. There is no other way IF your goal is to understand the complex issues involved.
The scientific process is done from the top down. You can’t properly go into the lower level details until until the upper layer is clearly identified. The next step must be based upon a clearly true principle that does not go beyond the evidence. Otherwise you are back to pure random speculation based not upon knowledge but upon random emotional preference.
There is a general principal of hierarchy of cause and effect of variation in any complex system. There are a few really big unknowns descending to an almost infinite number of small and mostly insignificant ones. If truly understanding the system is your goal, you work on a few really big ones until it is clear that they are understood at their level of presentation. Then and only then do you start worrying about the lower level stuff.
It is true that we can measure the level of CO2 on the top of a mountain on a south pacific island. That measurement seems to be generally increasing. What does that have to do with global average temperature? We don’t know and can’t know until we know a hell of a lot more about how the thermal engines of the atmosphere works that we do not know. It is a first error of method to presume that the level of CO2 is a temperature control variable at all let alone the primary one. It is totally inappropriate to assert that a trace variation of a trace component have more than a trace impact until the chain of cause and effect above it is known.
A very simple experiment identifies the atmospheric temperature is greatly impacted by cloud cover. From that, we know it is vastly more important to study the mechanisms that cause cloud cover to very than it is to study a fractional percent variation in a trace atmospheric component. Again, IF it is our goal to understand why the atmospheric temperature varies as it does.
If your goal is not to understand but simply to DO research without end, you start with the small stuff and endlessly claim more research (money) is required. All the while failing to produce any meaningful result.
Which pattern fits the so called climate research today?
20
Greg:
“What” since the 70s is well known. The Great Pacific Climate Shift. Now called the PDO Flip. It has now flipped back, and the AMO flip is next. There are peer reviewed papers on this, btw.
It is a roughly 60 year cycle (inside other cycles up to 1800 year lunar tidal ocean mixing, also peer reviewed btw. Citations at my site)
Trying to fit a linear trend to that with 150 years data is a fool’s errand, so clearly the right staff have been working on it…
00
…Deep question alright: Why do things work out
much better in societies with limited government
control, ‘than one involving rigid top down command
and control?’
You raise the problem of defining ‘the mental box’
by which others are to be constrained but which
also constrain the group that construct that box. Limits to experience there so however ‘wise’, or
perhaps ‘clever’ rather than wise, the group suffers
the hubris problem of thinking they’re above trial
and error practice, of adapting to circumstances and experiencing the consequences of their actions, and
hubris of requiring others go along with their Great Leaps Forward and Five Year Plans.
… So contrary to advancements in science, reading
Karl Popper, science advancing, bold guesses, yes,
but posed in testable hypotheses that can be falsified by reality, in contrast with cli-sci hind-casting and adjustments.
And then there’s all those creative innovations and adaptations from below, the wheel in its variations, pyramid and cathedral building, James Watt and the
steam engine. Trial and error, messiness and fizz
all the way down. Forget top down efficiency re
human innovation and adapting to circumstances.
Serfs think trial and error rules in human affairs
as in Nature.
https://beththeserf.wordpress.com/2014/12/19/23rd-edition-serf-under_ground-journal/
10
Dang, why do the lines do that? Serfs have
this problem adapting to wordpress line lengths. (
00
There are two major reasons distributed decisions beat centralized.
First is simpler to explain. Power corrupts. Central authority acts in the interests of central authority and their friends. Most people are left out, so get shafted. The average decision is worse for the most people.
Second is more technical. It is data flow constriction. It is simply not possible for one central authority to gather all the data needed, evaluate it, and make all the needed decisions in a timely manner. 300 Million people have far more data flow and decision speed even just for how much toilet paper to buy than a desk of goverment employees. Destributed computer nets are used to solve the biggest parallel problems for the same reason. It is a general property of both men and machines.
00
I would add a not so subtle point.
A Central Authority will soon presume it is god on earth and will start to dictate to reality what is to be true and false. Having the considerable brute force machine of government to use at their disposal, they force their dictated truth upon all of the governed with absolute faith that their use of brute power will make it so. All who disagree will be silenced using the same brute force. When, not if, their dictated truth does not work, they repeatedly do more of the same until their entire edifice of government collapses and the economy of the governed lies destitute and in ruins.
It is not the devil that makes man do this, it is the infantile belief that brute power is the universal magic that will make all whims come true. Adults understand that magic is inoperative in this universe and that it takes persistent thoughtful action to achieve their goals. A petulant two year old child does not.
The ugly truth behind brute force is all it can do is kill people and break things. It cannot invent. It cannot build. It cannot create anything of value. It can only destroy. See the collapse of ALL great and not so great civilizations of the past for instructive detail.
00
As I understand it, this paper shows that not only is the signal to noise ratio (annual to diurnal) of putative global warming outrageously small, but the primary temperature-related heat transfer mechanisms themselves vary drastically over short, non-periodic timespans. This can’t be modeled with a single mechanism basis and probably can’t be modeled at all, ever. It is thoroughly chaotic.
30
Lionell:
You got it. Spot on.
I call them simple observation studies. What can I observe and what does it tell me?
Smell test is the informal conjugation… 🙂
00
Why are so few people incapable of doing this? I have no idea except that we are a herd animal at heart or at least a tribal animal and will take the apparent authority’s opinion over what we can plainly see for ourselves.
00
I suggest the reason is they have been brainwashed not to trust their own eyes and mind. They cannot stand on their own, face reality, and say “This is what I have seen. This is what I know to be true.” They rely on a collective of similar brainwashed minds to know what to see and say. Sadly, there is no there, there.
00
Lionell,
If you’re still looking this far back I beg to disagree slightly. Parents tend to want to knock independent thought and curiosity out of their children because that independence of thought and curiosity tends to represent additional danger to the child, not to mention additional annoyance to the parents. And children are definitely a source of frustration and annoyance to their parents. They may not resort to corporal punishment or any kind of abuse but the child eventually gets the message that he better go along with the authority figure, the parents at first, then teachers and college professors and the government. And that gets reinforced by the fact that the child doesn’t catch any criticism — or flak is maybe a better word — by going along. And here we are in 2017… 🙁
Some of us have been lucky enough to keep that independence of thought and curiosity so we know to ask questions. I know my curiosity as a young boy couldn’t have been extinguished with a fire hose. And I read books way over my head and soon found out that I could understand enough of what I read to begin to understand the world around me. Electricity, vacuum tubes, radio, TV, motors and engines, airplanes, all of it became mine just because I went through books on the subject and found out that though I didn’t begin to understand the math, there were always good prose descriptions of how those things worked.
00
Eventually as Chiefio said, you learn to become an observer and ask what the things you observe are telling you.
00
Very good point!
10
Total global cloudiness is a function of the ‘loopiness’ of the jet stream tracks which in turn is a function of the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles and that gradient appears to be affected by solar influences:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
The loopier the jets the longer the lines of air mass mixing and the more clouds, simple.
63
13 Jul: Adelaide Advertiser: Matthew Warren: South Australia’s battery deal with Tesla Motors Elon Musk needs to be dissected
(MATTHEW WARREN IS CEO OF THE ENERGY COUNCIL OF AUSTRALIA)
A 100MW battery is still small in the scale of the 3200MW South Australian market demand. It’s unlikely to bring down power bills or significantly improve system security. It’s a start, not the full solution.
The Tesla battery will be paired with Neoen’s Hornsdale wind farm in the Mid-North, as this will help it avoid the necessary safety and performance approvals needed when large electricity infrastructure is connected to the grid. This is critical to Tesla honouring its “100 day” challenge.
100MW of new instantaneous power (with a discharge of around an hour) will be useful to help keep the lights on in some potential blackout situations (assuming the battery is charged and ready at the time). But it is still relatively small and would almost certainly be overwhelmed in more extreme situations, like the statewide blackout last September, or long and protracted heatwaves…
There are also potentially valuable lessons about how different applications of storage work. How does a storage device attached to a wind farm operate differently to a solar linked battery, or a stand-alone battery? How do longer discharge technologies like pumped storage compare to chemical batteries? What is the optimal capacity and discharge duration? Is an hour enough? These are valuable questions that we will not find many answers to with a single 100MW Tesla battery located alongside the Hornsdale wind farm.
SA finds itself unwittingly at the leading edge of renewables integration. It is both a challenge and an opportunity. If the state wants to really position itself as a smart adaptor of new technologies, it needs to be smart in the way it charts the unknown waters it finds itself in now.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/matthew-warren-south-australias-battery-deal-with-tesla-motors-elon-musk-needs-to-be-dissected/news-story/efc1c9c528e52f96ff3976b08aaca56c
13 Jul: Renew Economy: John Grimes: Finkel: Let’s not be railroaded into a bad deal on clean energy
John Grimes is chief executive of the Australian Solar Council and the Energy Storage Council
The last decade of climate wars has ground everyone down. People, understandably, want to see a resolution. They want to see a consensus on climate and energy policy and they have looked to the Finkel Review to provide that consensus…
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council, as peak national bodies for the solar and energy storage industries, strongly supported the Finkel Review as an independent exercise and we appreciated and applauded the consultation process undertaken by the Review.
The preliminary Finkel Review report stated “we have a once in a generation opportunity to reform the national electricity market” and we agreed.
We expected a blueprint for energy market reform, but the final Finkel Review report fell well short of that mark.
Instead of a blueprint, the Finkel Review delivered a set of piecemeal recommendations that do not represent a design for a 21st century electricity market or pathways to the necessary transformation of our electricity system.
The Finkel Review has five major shortcomings…ETC
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council is currently undertaking a comprehensive analysis of the Australian energy storage market and we estimate 120,000-500,000 battery storage systems are likely to be installed in Australia by 2020.
CSIRO and Energy Networks Australia have forecast there could be almost eight gigawatt hours of storage in Australia by 2020…
Coal and other fossil fuel generators, are intermittent generators: they provide firm power only when they are generating – and in Australia that is around 85% of the time. The other 15% is provided by providing additional capacity into the network…
The world is moving to transform grids to intelligent distributed two-way energy flow systems because they offer increased security, reliability and quality of supply at a lower cost than new fossil fuel or nuclear based generation…
We urge COAG Energy Ministers to take a different approach and develop a plan for the orderly closure of coal-fired power stations. We believe the model from the ANU, developed by Professor Frank Jotzo and others, offers a better path using market based mechanisms…
The Australian Solar Council and Energy Storage Council calls on all Energy Ministers to endorse the following measures:
Establish a plan for the orderly closure of coal-fired power stations…
Commit to at least 50 per cent renewables by 2030…
http://reneweconomy.com.au/finkel-lets-not-be-railroaded-into-a-bad-deal-on-clean-energy-77145/
21
from cached version. too good to be true?
13 Jul: E&E News: Umair Irfan: Renewable surge won’t mean lights out for India — study
A report (LINK) published yesterday from Greening the Grid, a program led by both the U.S. Agency for International Development and India’s Ministry of Power, found that India’s power system could accommodate a surge of renewable energy, provided that grid operators and power producers coordinate their efforts…
Today, India has 29 GW of wind and 9 GW of solar power, but the aim is to boost wind to 60 GW and solar to 100 GW in five years. Other renewables like biomass and hydropower will also contribute toward the renewable energy target.
“There is a huge amount of political will and momentum behind reaching these targets,” said Jacquelin Cochran, manager of the markets and policy group at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the lead author of the new study.
However, India’s electricity demand has grown 7 percent annually over the past several years and will rise further as its 1.2 billion residents gain access to power and seek a higher standard of living. About 25 percent of the population doesn’t have access to electricity at all…
The research team that issued the new report included NREL, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and Indian national and state-level grid operators…
The researchers constructed a simulation to see how renewable energy would interact with India’s existing power infrastructure, especially coal plants, which provide 60 percent of India’s electricity. They then looked at load balancing across India’s power markets and then projected how stability would change in the future in 15-minute increments as power demand and renewable energy penetration rose.
They also assumed that there wouldn’t be any dial-backs in demand.
“In our model, we don’t consider load curtailment; we assume all load will be met,” said Cochran.
The results showed that India could in fact keep the lights on and keep air conditioners humming with high levels of wind and solar power.
“I was expecting there to be more challenges for higher rates of renewable energy development,” said Cochran. “From a balancing perspective, this should be a good signal to developers.”
The new renewable energy did require concessions from coal-fired power plants, namely lowering their minimum operating capacity from 70 percent to 40 percent and ramping up and down a bit more to match the load and minimize the curtailment of wind and solar.
“The results are a bit sensitive to the flexibility of the coal system,” Cochran said. “The impact on the thermal fleet is an important question.”
The team also found that energy storage didn’t have much value for grid stability, at least on the 15-minute time scales that it studied. Cochran said storage could play a role in load balancing in shorter increments.
Christopher Clack, a grid researcher who was not involved in the study, said the results echo findings from past studies in the United States, namely that national-level grid coordination ameliorates problems of intermittency.
Once enough renewables take root over a wide enough geographic area, sunny and windy weather in one region can offset clouds and stillness in another.
“That’s something that keeps coming through as a theme in the report, that bigger areas help in integrating renewables,” said Clack, CEO of Vibrant Clean Energy LLC, a company that models high renewable energy penetration on the power grid.
However, he noted that while 175 GW of new renewable capacity is a big addition, it would only increase renewable energy’s share of India’s generation mix to 22 percent, leaving a lot of room between the 2022 renewable goal and the country’s Paris target.
On the other hand, as a developing economy, India has an advantage over mature grids in the transition toward renewable energy, particularly in laying out high-voltage electricity transmission networks.
“This is the beauty: They can leapfrog what the U.S. has done,” Clack said. “They can see ahead of time where they want to build.”
Cochran said the research team is now looking into figuring out the optimal build-out for India’s grid, finding the right mix of sources on the conventional power generation side and coming up with contingencies to prevent, handle and recover from future blackouts.
https://www.eenews.net/climatewire/stories/1060057299/feed
PDF: 183 pages: June 2017: NREL Colorado (USAID): India Renewable Integration Study
An NREL grid integration study has confirmed the technical and economic viability of integrating 175 gigawatts (GW) of renewable energy into India’s electricity grid by 2022.
(LINK PDF) Greening the Grid: Pathways To Integrate 175 Gigawatts of Renewable Energy into India’s Electric Grid
http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/india-renewable-integration-study.html
21
I was reading this and told myself I would stay out of it. But I can’t escape this simple rather concise summary of what the problem is. A theory, any theory, if it’s to be useful must meet two conditions:
1. It must be falsifiable
2. it must accurately predict future behavior of whatever the theory deals with
A theory that doesn’t have those two things is nonsensical. And I admit that certain theories as of yet at least cannot be tested or completely tested, relativity being one example. So they continue to be debated and tested and finally the question gets resolved or the theory is abandoned in favor of a better one.
——————–
Newton’s theory that two bodies attract each other with a force depending on their respective masses, i.e; gravity is a simple example.
1. It is falsifiable easily. All you need to do is drop that proverbial apple and show that it isn’t attracted to the Earth — it doesn’t fall to the ground and bingo, no gravity.
2. It is predictive. It correctly predicts the behavior of not only any object you drop in the future but the behavior of the planets, the solar system and the galaxy in which we live.
——————–
Does the theory that CO2 is warming the Earth live up to those two requirement? No, it does not. No prediction ever made has come true. I’m not even sure how you would falsify it because I’m not sure how you would show that any warming you measure was or ws not caused by CO2. The default falsification, that no prediction has come true has always left me feeling unsatisfied because there’s no evident way of showing that CO2 can do what it’s being blamed for.
Global warming has become a joke. 🙁
I’m sure some of you will show me any error in my thinking. So please don’t hesitate. But it appears to be that simple to me.
61
Hi Roy,
The GHE has a prediction: It is that the earth-atmosphere average temperature would be about 33 degrees C less if not for the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases. Look at my comment #16, this post, and follow it back to the previous essay referred. There you will find simple, reproducible, observations (measurements) which prove the prediction false. Look and see.
Have a good day, Jerry
22
That 33C is very contentious too. I’ve read a good many critique on it.
So the underlying assumptions have not yet been resolved. They are way ahead of themselves, and making fools of themselves.
32
Hi Gregg,
The 33C prediction has a long history and it is still part of the most recent editions of successful introductory meteorology textbooks. It is no different from bodies twice as heavy fall twice as fast. It only took the experiment of comparing the fall of a body twice, or better 10 times, as heavy as another to see this contentious prediction to be false.
In the observational science founded by Galileo the test of every prediction is experiment (observation and/or measurement). We can never prove an idea (GHE) to be true but we certainly can prove it to be false.
When you write: “So the underlying assumptions have not yet been resolved.”, it seems you consider that ideas can be proven to be true or false by reason (argumentation) and this was the method of the Greek philosophers whose fundamental ideas of physical science were proven to be false by experimentation.
I am a doubter and I doubt if you have ever made the effort to look at the data to which I have drawn your and other’s attentions. Hence, you seem to insist on using the same methods as the fools to whom you refer. Look and see.
Have a good day, Jerry
02
Does the fact that that CO2 lags temperature by 800 years disprove the hypothesis in its entirety?
http://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/amp/
12
Now that is good evidence that CO2 isn’t to blame for warming anything. I had forgotten about that inconvenient fact for the global warming hypothesis.
11
Thirty years ago, Marseilles lay burning in the sun, one day.
A blazing sun upon a fierce August day was no greater rarity in southern France then, than at any other time, before or since.
Everything in Marseilles, and about Marseilles, had stared at the fervid sky, and been stared at in return, until a staring habit had become universal there. Strangers were stared out of countenance by staring white houses, staring white walls, staring white streets, staring tracts of arid road, staring hills from which verdure was burnt away. The only things to be seen not fixedly staring and glaring were the vines drooping under their load of grapes. These did occasionally wink a little, as the hot air barely moved their faint leaves.
There was no wind to make a ripple on the foul water within the harbour, or on the beautiful sea without. The line of demarcation between the two colours, black and blue, showed the point which the pure sea would not pass; but it lay as quiet as the abominable pool, with which it never mixed. Boats without awnings were too hot to touch; ships blistered at their moorings; the stones of the quays had not cooled, night or day, for months. Hindoos, Russians, Chinese, Spaniards, Portuguese, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Genoese, Neapolitans, Venetians, Greeks, Turks, descendants from all the builders of Babel, come to trade at Marseilles, sought the shade alike — taking refuge in any hiding-place from a sea too intensely blue to be looked at, and a sky of purple, set with one great flaming jewel of fire.
The universal stare made the eyes ache. Towards the distant line of Italian coast, indeed, it was a little relieved by light clouds of mist, slowly rising from the evaporation of the sea, but it softened nowhere else. Far away the staring roads, deep in dust, stared from the hill-side, stared from the hollow, stared from the interminable plain. Far away the dusty vines overhanging wayside cottages, and the monotonous wayside avenues of parched trees without shade, drooped beneath the stare of earth and sky. So did the horses with drowsy bells, in long files of carts, creeping slowly towards the interior; so did their recumbent drivers, when they were awake, which rarely happened; so did the exhausted labourers in the fields. Everything that lived or grew, was oppressed by the glare; except the lizard, passing swiftly over rough stone walls, and the cicala, chirping his dry hot chirp, like a rattle. The very dust was scorched brown, and something quivered in the atmosphere as if the air itself were panting.
Blinds, shutters, curtains, awnings, were all closed and drawn to keep out the stare. Grant it but a chink or keyhole, and it shot in like a white-hot arrow. The churches were the freest from it. To come out of the twilight of pillars and arches — dreamily dotted with winking lamps, dreamily peopled with ugly old shadows piously dozing, spitting, and begging — was to plunge into a fiery river, and swim for life to the nearest strip of shade. So, with people lounging and lying wherever shade was, with but little hum of tongues or barking of dogs, with occasional jangling of discordant church bells and rattling of vicious drums, Marseilles, a fact to be strongly smelt and tasted, lay broiling in the sun one day.
http://www.victorianlondon.org/etexts/dickens/dorrit-0001.shtml
21
Nothing a few clouds couldn’t fix.
10
dear mod please delete this post. the format didn’t work
awaiting moderation
00
O/T
Science fiction movie maker and global warming multi millionaire Al Gore is sueing Al Jazeera.
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/50145
12
Unfortunately for all those with a financial interest in Al Jazeera, I believe Saudi Arabia and some others have demanded that Qatar dump it, as in kill it off, not sell it off or hide its true ownership and cut all ties to Iran, accusing Qatar of destabilizing the region. So if this demand has the weight I think it might have, that would be very unfortunate for poor Mr. Gore who sunk a lot of money into Al Jezeera.
And good old Donald Trump is in this up to his ears. I wonder how this president the whole liberal world hates so much can manage to get things so right so often.
10
O/T
Science fiction movie maker and global warming multimillionaire Al Gore is in Australia promoting his latest work of fiction. Among his propaganda sessions he has specialised sessions for teachers where he teaches the latest lies about supposed anthropogenic global warming with around 300 teachers in attendance at a time. Naturally most of these teachers will be of a Leftist persuasion and will fall for his garbage hook, line and sinker. Education departments should at the very least demand that another point of view be also taught, one based on truth. The success of his first movie was basically based on the fra-udulent “hockey stick” curve of Michael Mann in which data was altered to try and “prove” past temperatures were relatively stable and level until the last century where they rapidly increased. He also fra-udulently failed to say that CO2 LAGS natural temperature increases by 800 years. This is for the simple reason that as temperatures naturally increase, the solubility of CO2 in the oceans, which contain 98% of available CO2, decreases. CO2 is now only being released due to the medieval warm period of around 800 yrs ago due to the massive thermal mass of the oceans – there is a lag. When temperatures naturally decrease the CO2 will again be absorbed into the oceans.
http://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/amp/
22
Australian socialist politicians have signed an agreement with Al Gore to reduce emissions, state and territory Labor leaders signed.
They all conveniently ignore that since the Kyoto Agreement was signed (and much later ratified by Rudd Labor), using direct action initiatives that the Howard Coalition government established, Australia has met the Kyoto emissions reduction targets to date and is set to achieve or exceed the next.
The goal posts keep moving.
41
Gore has no standing in Australia. Why would these traitorous fools sign an agreement with him?
32
DM. o/t, but …
NT barramundi die in cold Victorian waters
“Victoria Fisheries Authority confirmed all but 1500 of the 7,000 fish dropped into a discharge pond connected to the now defunct Hazelwood power plant late last year have died.
Winter water temperatures dropped to 12C — less than half of the desired 26C to 32C temperature range the native Northern Territory fish prefer.”
http://www.ntnews.com.au/lifestyle/tragic-mass-nt-barra-carnage/news-story/6239a8f38f2aa01f7595b705a5c7a5d5
20
Green killers.
11
I just read at Bolt’s Blog, post from one of those strange leftists, that Barramundi have died in South Australian waters because of climate change.
LOL
30
Barramundi are a tropical fresh water fish and only lived in the cooling pond at Hazelwood because (a) they were put there and (b) they could live in the artificial warmth of the cooling pond. Now the Green morons shut down Hazelwood all the fish are dying.
11
TonyfromOz & others might like to hear Jones at 1hr39mins in.
mentions COAG, then says he’s received a summary re NSW being headed in same direction as SA, without getting the same attention. says he will study this further and say something further on Monday. mentions latest AEMO report on NSW’s Dept of Resources & Energy website (which I can’t find), & closures of coal plants, plus unworkable renewable energy target:
Download audio: 14 Jul: 2GB: Alan Jones Show
http://www.2gb.com/podcast/alan-jones-full-show-july-14th/
11
13 Jul: Australian: Rachel Baxendale: Labor calls for Kelly to be sacked for ‘scaremongering’
‘Coal kills, not renewables’
The Greens said it was coal, not renewable energy, that kills people.
Greens climate change spokesman Adam Bandt hit back at Mr Kelly after Labor branded his comments “appalling”.
“Coal kills people. Renewables save lives,” Mr Bandt said.
“Craig Kelly is just another ideologue, hell bent on hastening dangerous global warming. This latest foray isn’t unexpected, but it is certainly unfounded.
“If Craig Kelly and the Trumps in the government have their way, more people will die from bushfires, heatwaves, floods and famine as dangerous global warming accelerates.”…
(Barnaby) Joyce said he disagreed with Mr Kelly’s view that Australia should follow Donald Trump in opposing the Paris agreement which 19 out of 20 countries at the G20 meeting in Germany last week endorsed.
“Once we come to an agreement, we comply with it, and we’ve come to an agreement in regards to Paris and we’ll agree with it because we’re an honourable country, we do the right thing, and that’s what we’re going to do,” he said.
“It’s not excessive. It’s 26 to 28 per cent by 2030. When you look at other countries, really some of them don’t even have to start complying to these agreements until 2030.”…
Assistant Trade Minister Keith Pitt said he agreed with Mr Kelly that the renewable energy subsidies had affected wholesale energy prices.
“It’s very easy to fit into the market when you’re subsidised to the tune of some $90 a megawatt versus your competitor without, but the reality is we have the mix that we have and we need ensure we have a stable platform,” Mr Pitt told Sky News.
“I’m an electrical engineer, I majored in power systems and this is something from a technical viewpoint I know very well, but the politics are incredibly difficult.”
Mr Pitt said dealing with affordability was key.
“Craig Kelly’s a good friend of mine, I know him well, and I think he’s absolutely passionate about getting electricity prices down in this country,” he said.
“How you go about that, well that’s up to the individual, but I think the point that needs to be made is there’s been a massive increase in things like disconnection for non-payment of bills, we have pretty much the agricultural sector telling us for some years that they just can’t afford the price to pump water onto irrigated crops.
“We’ve had many, many industries across the country now coming to the absolute crunch point, and it does need to be dealt with.”…
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/renewable-energy-policies-will-kill-people-says-craig-kelly/news-story/686f72a50aa9e62778ef5a25dec3559a
01
climate was cooling right up until the Industrial Revolution, then global warming began. theirABC never misses a CAGW trick:
AUDIO: 13 Jul: ABC PM: Scientists take cores from trees, coral, ice and lakes to study climate change
Scientists say they have put together the most comprehensive database of climate records for the past 2000 years…
Featured:
Dr Steven Phipps, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania
Krystyna Saunders, scientist
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2016/s4701439.htm
stephenphipps.com: Steven J. Phipps
I studied physics at the University of Oxford, before completing a PhD in climate system modelling at the University of Tasmania in 2006. As part of my PhD project, I developed the CSIRO Mk3L climate system model, a fast and portable global climate model designed primarily for studying climate variability and change on millennial timescales. I continue to develop and maintain the model, as well as to train, support and mentor users…
11 Jul: Nature: A global multiproxy database for temperature reconstructions of the Common Era
Reproducible climate reconstructions of the Common Era (1 CE to present) are key to placing industrial-era warming into the context of natural climatic variability. Here we present a community-sourced database of temperature-sensitive proxy records from the PAGES2k initiative. The database gathers 692 records from 648 locations, including all continental regions and major ocean basins. The records are from trees, ice, sediment, corals, speleothems, documentary evidence, and other archives. They range in length from 50 to 2000 years, with a median of 547 years, while temporal resolution ranges from biweekly to centennial. Nearly half of the proxy time series are significantly correlated with HadCRUT4.2 surface temperature over the period 1850–2014…
http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
11 Jul: Phys.org: Scientists upgrade database tracking global temperatures across millennia (Update)
A consortium of international scientists led by a climate expert from USC have upgraded an open-source global database tracking the Earth’s temperatures since 1 A.D. that further confirms that the Earth is warming at a rate unprecedented in recent geologic history…
The increasing amount of data, and the quality control applied by the 98 author led to a more accurate database, Emile-Geay said.
Version 2 of the database from PAGES 2k was announced on July 11 in Scientific Data, a Nature journal…
Temperature summaries based on the data showed that the Earth experienced a long cooling trend up until the 19th century, with a sharp uptick starting around the time of the Industrial Revolution.
This shape was first published in 1998 by climate researchers Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, Raymond S. Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst, and Malcolm Hughes of the University of Arizona. They dubbed the shape of this uptick, the “hockey stick,” and it has been a lightning rod in public perceptions of global warming ever since…
https://phys.org/news/2017-07-scientists-database-tracking-global-temperatures.html
01
a comment has gone into moderation, which begins: climate was cooling right up until the Industrial Revolution, then global warming began
(claims “scientists” via ABC):
Fairfax, likw theirABC, always finds the pro-solar member of the public to quote:
13 Jul: Goulburn Post (Fairfax): Louise Thrower: Energy Australia revisits Brayton gas plan
Residents breathed a sigh of relief when Energy Australia pulled the pin on its gas fired power station plans near Marulan in 2012…
AGL is also reviewing its gas fired power plant at Dalton, which won approval in 2012. The company is asking the State Government for a 12-month extension of the approval while it investigates. The proposal has reignited community angst.
Energy Australia executive Mark Collette said the tightening market, the 2022 closure of the Liddell coal-fired station in the Hunter Valley and this year’s shutdown of the Hazelwood plant sparked his company’s review…
“The projects would be capable of responding quickly to fluctuations in demand and providing secure and affordable supply for large numbers of households and businesses across the state, and nationally,” he told The Post…
He pledged community consultation, saying it could only proceed with that support…
Dairy Road landowner of the past 45 years, Ken McNally hopes that happens. Residents last time formed the Dairy Road Community Alliance in response to the plan, which goes back nine years. The group will re-form under a different name.
He told The Post some people were “shocked and horrified” the plant was back on the agenda…
“The main concerns are the pollution with particles in the air, noise and the adverse impact on biodiversity,” he said…
But he’s also worried about visual amenity with earlier planned 30 to 40 metre high stacks to be visible from his home 2.5km away…
More than that he believed energy companies should be pursuing renewable sources such as solar and battery storage. A neighbour establishing an eco-tourism operation was spending $60,000 hooking up her home to solar panels.
“There are far better options than a gas-fired power station,” he said.
“…Solar is becoming more and more the type of energy we expect, so my message to the company is ‘renew your hope’” …
http://www.goulburnpost.com.au/story/4788533/gas-fired-power-station-back-on-the-boil/
01
The Goracle goes cold on marc Moranos film despite a free copy…..
Oh no….
http://climatechangedispatch.com/face-to-face-morano-confronts-gore-with-climate-hustle-dvd-in-australia-gore-refuses-to-accept-departs-in-suv/
“Former Vice President Al Gore was confronted by climate skeptic Marc Morano at the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne Australia on July 13th. Morano presented a DVD copy of his film ‘Climate Hustle’. During the inconvenient encounter, Gore refused to accept the DVD of the film and walked on by to his waiting Lexus RX450h SUV “hybrid.” (Video after the jump)”
31
13 Jul: Youtube: 5mins03secs: Marc Morano on Sky News TV Australia – The Bolt Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7p0zHA6TjE
Morano is particularly funny when describing how the CAGW mob never apologise when their predictions prove to be WRONG.
here’s another perfect example, with the writer avoiding the term “climate scientists” in the headline and limiting it in a number of cases within the text of the article. lol:
13 Jul: ClimateChangeNews: Scientists say east Africa will get wetter, so why is it drying out?
Despite models predicting increased rainfall with climate change, the region has collapsed into drought – a puzzle known as the East African paradox
By Lou Del Bello
What has become known as the ‘East African climate paradox’ (LINK) is a quirk that has been exercising scientists for the best part of a decade, but is still far from being explained. Why do models project more rain while data on the ground show less and less by the year?
“It could be that the paradox is not even a paradox,” says Alessandra Giannini of the International Research Institute for Climate and Society in the US, who specialises in climate trends in monsoon regions.
Just as one particularly cold winter doesn’t disprove the existence of long-term climate change, events such as the strong El Niño experienced in the region in 2015 could cloud the picture, she says. While in the long run the region’s climate might get wetter, in the short-term other phenomena could bring a few years of drought.
“Maybe the underlying wet trend has not emerged yet,” says Giannini. “We can’t really say that the models are wrong. What we are looking for is an explanation that includes elements of all these processes, that can explain everything, drought now and possibly long-term wetter conditions.”
“In any kind of projection it’s very important to look at the uncertainty” says John Marsham, climate scientist with the University of Leeds in the UK. Reflecting the chaotic nature of the climate system, models do not always return the same result, even when they run on the same inputs.
“Within the wide range of models available, some will not say [the weather] is going to get wetter. In addition, the apparent mis-match between the recent drying trend and the wetting in many model projections could be due to the current trends being generated by climate drivers that our models are not capturing,” says Marsham…
Depending on the forcings included in the blueprint and the computing power of each model, which determines it’s complexity, the results might vary. Models also deal slightly differently with factors such as ***clouds or climate sensitivity, namely the amount of warming for any given amount of greenhouse gas…
Scientists have come up with an array of different explanations for the paradox (LINK), ranging from natural variability of the climate that models struggle to capture, to patchy observational data due to poor infrastructure and records in the region…
Dave Rowell, a scientist with the UK’s Met office whose work focuses on African climate change and models, explains that if we accept the hypothesis that the recent decline in rainfall is caused by aerosol emissions, as we start to clean up pollution and remove these tiny particles, for example with better filters, the picture may change.
“If we keep burning fossil fuels releasing more carbon into the atmosphere, greenhouse gases would become the dominant forcing, with models then suggesting increased rainfall over East Africa,” he says…
“There is always the risk that someone will use the uncertainty as an excuse for not acting, and that to my mind is the opposite of what we should do,” says Marsham.
“On the contrary, we are well aware of the challenge of predicting rainfall in the tropics and this mismatch doesn’t mean that the models are wrong. This is an interesting mystery to solve, and in doing so we will understand a lot more about the climate system in East Africa.”
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/07/13/scientists-say-east-africa-will-get-wetter-drying/
01
But Pat,
They tell us the the acience is “IN”, so there is no uncertainty…
Cheers,
Dave B
00
13 Jul: CarbonPulse: Germany should set a national CO2 tax for power -report
Germany should implement a national tax on power sector emissions to meet its domestic emission reduction targets efficiently, according to the German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE), after publishing a study it had commissioned by Energy Brainpool.
13 Jul: CleanEnergyWire: Benjamin Wehrmann: German carbon tax most efficient way to meet climate goals – study
Germany should implement a national tax on carbon emissions in order to meet its own emission reduction targets in the an efficient and straight forward way, the German Renewable Energy Federation (BEE) proposed based on a study by consultancy Energy Brainpool. The national carbon price had to complement the existing European Emissions Trading System (ETS) to push the price for emitting one tonne of CO₂ to 25 euros by 2020, up from the ETS’ s current five euros per tonne, the BEE said. Economists and environmentalists praise it as a”market-based solution” while others warn of yet another “German solo attempt”. [UPDATES Reactions to BEE study; calls for Franco-German initiative]
BEE deputy head Harald Uphoff said a national carbon tax for Germany could serve as an intermediate solution until a common European approach is found. He explicitly backed the initiative by French President Emmanuel Macron to introduce a European carbon floor price, arguing that a price of 25 euros per tonne could bring down emissions in Germany’s power sector by one-third by 2020.
A CO2 tax on electricity is “a market-based solution” for reaching climate protection targets that will also prop up wholesale power prices, allow for lowering Germany’s renewables (EEG) surcharge, Uphoff said. The surcharge, which is calculated based on the difference between wholesale prices and the set price owners of renewable power installations receive, is paid by customers with their power bill…
Finding alternatives for the EEG surcharge that is meant to finance the expansion of Germany’s renewable energy capacity has emerged as one of the key energy policy debates in the run-up to the country’s federal elections in September. Many experts say that electricity has to become more competitive with other energy sources in order to take the next step in the Energiewende — the country’s dual move of phasing-out nuclear power and reducing carbon emissions – by increasing the use of renewable power in transport and heating. Germany’s economics ministry has tendered a study to find alternative funding options, ranging from a rededication of income and corporate taxes to renewables quotas for utilities…
Andreas Kuhlmann, Chief Executive of the German Energy Agency (dena) said it would be wise for Merkel to consider Macron’s proposal despite criticism that France could benefit relatively more from the carbon price, given its high share of CO2-free nuclear power. “Not everything that doesn’t benefit Germany from the start has to be a bad thing,” Kuhlmann said.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-carbon-tax-most-efficient-way-meet-climate-goals-study
01
for the record, given Trump’s response was to a journalist’s question (the very first question – no surprise) but is being reported as if he volunteered the quote:
13 Jul: White House: Remarks by President Trump and President Macron of France in Joint Press Conference | July 13, 2017
(from opening remarks, scroll down)
PRESIDENT MACRON (AS INTRPRETED): Next, climate. Well, here we know what our disagreements are. We have expressed them on a number of occasions. But I think it is important that we can continue to talk about it. I very much respect the decision taken by President Trump. He will work upon implementing his campaign promises. And as far as I’m concerned, I remain attached to the Paris Accord, and we’ll make sure that, step by step, we can do everything which is in the accord…
(Paris Accord not mentioned in President Trump’s opening remarks)
FIRST QUESTION FROM PRESS:
Q (As interpreted.) A question for President Macron regarding what you said on the occasion of the press conference together with Chancellor Merkel. Do you still hope that President Trump — or did you still hope that President Trump could turn his mind regarding the Paris Accord?
And now, President Trump, is it possible for you to come back to the Paris Accord and change your mind?…
PRESIDENT MACRON: (As interpreted.) Well, regarding climate — well, we have a number of disagreements, which are in particular due to the commitments taken by President Trump vis-à-vis his — during the presidential campaign. So did I. I’m aware of the high importance that that is, but we therefore talked about our disagreement. And we actually discussed the matter even before President Trump reached the decision.
Next, should that have an impact on the discussions we are having on all other topics? No, absolutely not. This is the reason why we share the same views and some major common goals on many other topics or all other topics, which we’ve been discussing today, and we shall move forward together…
Next — well, of course, President Trump will tell you about it, but he’s made a number of commitments, and we’re going to be working together, and my willingness to continue to work with the United States and the President on these very major topics. I understand that it’s important to save jobs. That being said, we shall leave the United States of America work on what is its roadmap, and continue to talk about it.
So today there is nothing new, unprecedented, otherwise we would have told you about it. But I believe there is a joint willingness to continue to talk about this and try and find the best possible agreement. As far as I’m concerned, I remain extremely attached to the framework of the Paris Accord, which has been a major international breakthrough, and it is within that framework that I’m working on priorities, including for the European Union…
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I think that I can reiterate. We have a very good relationship, a good friendship. And we look forward to dinner tonight at the Eiffel Tower. That will be something special. And, yeah, I mean, something could happen with respect to the Paris Accord. We’ll see what happens. But we will talk about that over the coming period of time. And if it happens, that will be wonderful. And if it doesn’t, that will be okay, too. But we’ll see what happens…
(NO OTHER MENTIONS)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/07/13/remarks-president-trump-and-president-macron-france-joint-press
01
Why is it so, there are too many people in the world, so let’s do something about it via a scare campaign …
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/GWHoaxBorn.pdf
00
The science data really is settled.
There is no global warming. The “hockey stick” is a fictional construct.
And CO2 is not a significant driver of CO2. There is no plausible mechanism by which the 16ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere which are of anthropogenic origin of the total of 400ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause the warming that is falsely claimed.
Furthermore CO2 concentration in the atmosphere lags temperature change by 800 years.
Global mean temperature correlates most closely with solar activity and Milankovitch cycles.
How much more obvious does this have to be before someone takes notice before our civilisation is destroyed by expensive and in efficient “green” energy schemes?
13
Off topic, but can anyone explain why AEMO shows total wind generation at 1545 on 14/7/17 to be 1814 MW, while anero.id web site shows 2200 MW, reportedly taken from AEMO data?
20
I am not really sure what point this article is trying to make. But if it is saying climate change does not happen on the scale of days, that is correct. The climate people look at years, decades and the standard is to use a 30 year baseline to measure any climate change.
Chiefio needs to explain:
– why new high temperature records are happening more frequently than low temperature records
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools/records
– if CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are insignificant, how the global mean temperature is much higher than -18C if it were heated by sun alone?
http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/radiation/
12
No, I need not explain either of your two “talking points”. They were not the subject of my observation.
I have done many many postings looking at things on longer scales. The 60 year ocean AMO PDO cycle, for example, that shifted in one go West Coast California temperatures by most of the observed “warming” of the 20th century in just 1975/76 when the PDO flipped. (it has now flipped back and we have skiing in mid-July, a very very unusual degree of cold…
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/07/16/mid-july-after-the-4th-looking-for-fun-what-to-do-ski-squaw/
I’ve also looked at the 1800 year long lunar tidal cycle and other longer cycles:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/lunar-resonance-and-taurid-storms/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/
This time I decided to look at smaller time scales. Why? Because on small time scales many key parameters are functionally constants That means, by definition, they are not causal to the changes observed.
So on a 1 month basis, you see changes in temperatures. CO2 is effectively constant, so it isn’t the cause. Similarly orbital parameters, insolation / TSI top of sky, etc. etc. What was clearly observed to change was clouds. In inverse direction to temperatures. A simple, clear, and easy to repeat observational study.
More clouds, colder day. No clouds, hotter day. QED.
Now I also noted that where I am and this time of year many other things are also not causal as they don’t change. We don’t have moist convection (thunderstorms et. al.) variation. We don’t have significant wind changes. Essentially, a lot of weather confounders are not here. (It is why people move to California, the constant pleasant weather 9 months of the year or more).
I then note that we have essentially no usable cloud data for the 150 years of warming to be able to rule out cloud changes as causal. Now when your MAJOR and HUGE causal change of temperature has poor historical data, you can NOT assign causality to something with far far less impact.
BTW, the use of a 30 year “baseline” is a horrid one. The PDO / AMO cycle is 60 years, more or less. It is well known to exist and well known to shift global temperatures. Taking 1/2 of a sine wave as our baseline GUARANTEES wrong results. You will have all sorts of wrong and spurious trends. We need at least a 120 year and preferably about a 400 year long set of data to properly prevent spurious trends from cycles being sampled as linear trends.
FWIW, IIRC, most cold records have been set since 1932 (or near then). You can play all kinds of fun statistical games with selective observations.
Similarly, using a Global Average Temperature is a great example of “lying with statistics”. First off, it isn’t “global”. All temperatures are local to a single spot. Second, it isn’t a temperature. It is a STATISTIC ABOUT TEMPERATURES. It is basically a mathematical lie. You simply can not average an intrinsic property, like temperatures, and have it mean anything:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/intrinsic-extrinsic-intensive-extensive/
Yes, 100% of all the “stuff” done with “average temperature” is a farce from the basic physics and statistics point of view simply because an average of an intrinsic property is NOT that property. I know, it is an obscure point, but it is still a true one.
Any average OF temperatures is NOT a temperature and can have NO information about heat gain or loss in it. Basic physics.
(Don’t believe that? Read the link. I’m not going to argue it here. Simple example: You mix two pots of water, one at 10 C the other at 0 C. What is the change of heat and what is the final temperature? The change of heat is zero. The final temperature can not be known – you are missing the mass of water in each pot, and is the second one frozen or not. You must have the extrinsic property of heat to have the average mean anything.)
So your link about GAT is really silly… There IS NO global mean temperature. (There may be a global mean OF temperatures, but it is a statistic about the samples, not a temperature.)
22
E.M.Smith.
No need to apologize. If you are unable discuss the points I raised then don’t. No one is able to do everything.
22
Nobody was apologizing. You raised some off-topic point, and got put down. Have a little tantrum and get over it.
22
Well said!
At the risk of tarnishing your wonderfully concise statement, I’m going to elaborate so perhaps some others can see how the process runs.
I made no apology as I’d done nothing wrong. (FWIW, I despise “apology tours” especially done by political hacks). The demand for an apology tour is a typical progressive / socialist troll behaviour. Just ignore it. But add one to the Troll Behaviour Count.
As per the off topic questions raised, do note they were raised with a ‘demand’ that I address them. Another common Troll Tactic. Raise a point NOT relevant, likely not even appropriate, then “claim victory” with a vague odour of “the folks demanded at must be incapable”. It’s a subtile variation on “Have you stopped beating your spouse?!”. Never ever answer, either yes or no. At most, point out the question is absurd and ask why would one ever ask it. But add another Troll Count point.
Note that I did point out the absurdity in the demanded questions, which was promptly ignored. Another Troll Flag (they never even acknowledge counter points, especially very valid ones). At this point, with a Troll Count of 3, they are a confirmed Troll.
So, in conclusion:
I pointed out that a 30 year baseline is foolish in the context of long cycles. It was ignored, so confirmed a very valid attack point. (more on long cycles in a very nice series of highly technical articles pointed to by links here:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/surprisingly-good-technical-series-on-climate/
Note that any point you make which is studiously ignored, means they have no counter in the Troll Talking Points, so that “negative space” is strong confirmation the point is valid.
I pointed out that playing statistical games on other statistics was really dumb with a counter example that most record lows have happened “recently”, also ignored so also confirmed a valid attack point.
I pointed out that an average temperature does not exist, only an average OF temperatures, AND that an intrinsic property can not be averaged and have any real meaning. This, too, was ignored; and is an absolutely critical point that everyone in “climate science” ignores every single day. I can’t say if it is from ignorance, inability to grasp the fundamental point that Global Average Temperature is a physical farce and absolutely useless as it is unphysical. (i.e. a statistic, NOT a temperature) but there it is.
In short, I showed where the offered Red Herrings were stinking, and then ignored the bait.
So, in best Troll Style Book fashion, the response was to hurl insults “to the person” with claims of incompetence and inability. This, BTW, is why I ban “insults to the person” at my site. It shuts down most Trolls rather hard. They can’t function without the insult crutch. The intent is to draw you into an upset emotional state and either get you to blow-out, argue points you had not already prepared for (but were on their ‘counter argument’ guide / decision tree), or at least waste your time. Being a centered soul and leaning Buddhist, and generally emotionally flat anyway, I choose to remain at peace, centered, and not respond to insults. This too frustrates the Troll… which causes me to smile…
Nothing like a small Buddhist smile at the hurling of insults “to the person” to cause balance in the universe.
😉
22
Argument by verbosity. Don’t give up your day job.
22
It’s the PhD in Religion that causes that: no such thing as quality in philosophy, quantity is King.
Will I get in trouble if I calculate an average line length for Smith’s posts?
Will he go off on a long rant about how each message’s line length is an intrinsic property of the message and so the messages can’t be averaged?
The bottom line is that all these things “I pointed out…” are basically personal opinion only and are variously trivial or plain wrong.
30
I see Harry Twinnotter remains limited to insult as only skill set.
Craig Thomas (was if in Conspracy Theory, the movie, that they said assasins always have two first names? Or something else ? 🙂 launches The Non Sequitur barge…
FWIW, the Ph.D Religion vastly post dates my prolix nature. By many decades. So no, you are quite wrong there. Also, as amusing side point, I had at least 2 orders of magnitude fewer words used in it than in my Econ bachelor’s.
To the best of my knowledge, no one has characterized line length as intrinsic nor extrinsic, so I would say nothing about averages of them. Besides, it isn’t interesting at all.
You have my condolences that all the things you pointed out are either trivial or wrong. Better luck next time.
FWIW, I use as many words as it takes to clearly and unambiguously carry a thought. No more. No less. With a margin of error, of course. (Nobody can perfectly match all readers levels at the same time).
Unfortunately, some thoughts take more and longer words than others. If my sentences were to long for you, or the words to big, I’m sorry. I’ll try to write to a lower level when responding to you.
02