A new Nature paper claims that pauses and cooling phases mean C02 may cause more warming than anyone thought.
Pause Excuse #431
It’s all so obvious. If researchers start with models that don’t work, they can find anything they look for — even abject nonsense which is the complete opposite of what the models predicted.
Holy Simulation! Let’s take this reasoning and run with it — in the unlikely event we actually get relentless rising temperatures, that will imply that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is lower. Can’t see that press release coming…
Nature has sunk so low these days it’s competing with The Onion.
The big problem bugging believers was that global warming paused, which no model predicted, and which remains unexplained still, despite moving goal posts, searching in data that doesn’t exist, and using error bars 17 times larger than the signal. The immutable problem is that energy shalt not be created nor destroyed, so The Pause still matters even years after it stopped pausing. The empty space still shows the models don’t understand the climate — CO2 was supposed to be heating the world, all day, everyday. Quadrillions of Joules have to go somewhere, they can’t just vanish, but models don’t know where they went. If we can’t explain the pause, we can’t explain the cause, and the models can’t predict anything.
In studies like these, the broken model is not a bug, it’s a mandatory requirement — if these models actually worked, it wouldn’t be as easy to produce any and every conclusion that an unskeptical scientist could hope to “be surprised” by.
The true value of this study, if any, is in 100 years time when some psychology PhD student will be able to complete an extra paragraph on the 6th dimensional flexibility of human rationalization and confirmation bias.
Busted climate models can literally prove anything. The more busted they are, the better.
More sensitive climates are more variable climates
University of Exeter
A decade without any global warming is more likely to happen if the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions, new research has revealed.
A decade without warming is even more likely to happen if CO2 is irrelevant. Did the experts forget to mention that?
A team of scientists from the University of Exeter and the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology in the UK has conducted pioneering new research into why both surges and slowdowns of warming take place.
Using sophisticated climate models the team, led by PhD student Femke Nijsse, discovered if the climate was more sensitive to CO2 concentration also displayed larger variations of warming over a decade.
When combined with information from simulations without any carbon dioxide increases, the authors were able to assess the natural variability of each climate model.
Thus they calculated the natural variability of an imaginary world.
The research is published this week in Nature Climate Change.
Femke Nijsse, from the University of Exeter, said: “We were surprised to see that even when we took into account that sensitive climate models warm more over the last decades of the 20th century, these sensitive models were still more likely to have short periods of cooling.”
Climate sensitivity, which sits at the very heart of climate science, is the amount of global warming that takes place as atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise.
For many years, estimates have put climate sensitivity somewhere between 1.5-4.5°C of warming for a doubling of pre-industrial CO2levels.
The study found that cooling — or “hiatus” — decades were more than twice as likely around the turn of the century in high sensitivity models (models that warm 4.5 ºC after doubling CO2), compared to low sensitivity models (models that warm 1.5 ºC after doubling CO2).
Here comes The Caveat:
Co-author Dr. Mark Williamson, A Research Fellow at Exeter: “This does not mean that the presence of a global warming slowdown at the beginning of the 21st century implies we live in a highly sensitive world.
This paper is just here to be a handy excuse, the bandaid du jour:
“By looking at all decades together, we get a better picture and find observations are broadly consistent with a central estimate of climate sensitivity”
Ms Nijsse added: “We still don’t exactly know how much the climate system will heat up, nor do we know exactly what the range of natural variability in trends will be over the coming decades. But our study shows that these risks should not be considered as separate.”
Here comes the new scary buzzword — “hyperwarming”
The paper also studied the chance that a decade in the 21st century could warm by as much as the entire 20th century — a scenario that the research team call “hyperwarming.”
Under a scenario where carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels continue to increase, the chance of hyperwarming is even more dependent on climate sensitivity than the long-term global warming trend.
Increasing the climate sensitivity by 50% from a central estimate of 3 ºC would increase the mean global warming to the end of this century by slightly less than 50%, but would increase the chance of a hyperwarming decade by more than a factor of ten.
The research was supported by the European Research Council (‘ECCLES’ project) and the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council.
Junk science bought to you by poor UK taxpayers.
REFERENCE
Femke J. M. M. Nijsse, Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford, Mark S. Williamson. Decadal global temperature variability increases strongly with climate sensitivity. Nature Climate Change, 2019; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0527-4
Business as usual. It is not raining; they are just pissing at my foot.
380
Everyone KNOWS that Ultrapissing is far bigger than Hyperpissing. Hyper is a big nothing burger. They can’t even get the expletives correct. Hyperwarming will be neutered by Ultracooling.
What NEVER changes is the neeeeeeeeeed for BIGGER guv and mooooooooorrrre MONEY via enforced theft.
Its always less expensive to hire these “scientists” to stare out of a window. Just don’t let them do anything.
250
but according to the latest propaganda peice from climate scientists, the MWP was only a local event…
80
Science is dead.
John 11:35
This lots stinks.
I pray that true scientists will soon rebel against these stinking dead-heads and rid us of them.
110
Professor Peter Ridd, in “The Australian” today, (Friday, 26 July 2019 – page 14) makes a very pertinent contribution of some 11 insightful paragraphs.
“We would not accept a rigged legal system where the prosecution, defence, judge and jury were the same person. We would not accept them excluding evidence they did not like.”
The legal system is far ahead of the science institutions he says.
He goes on to say: “All (scientific) evidence, no matter how solid it may seem, must be subjected to antagonistic scrutiny.”
I commend the article to you. It’s spot on in my view.
Science is dead.
70
From the Guardian 25th July – how do they make up this stuff – 99% consensus!!!!!
‘No doubt left’ about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts
Extensive historical data shows recent extreme warming is unprecedented in past 2,000 years
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99%, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts.
Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.
51
This has been pounded like sand by the State funded MSM in New Zealand, who advise that it is THE final nail in the skeptics lead coffin.
May I remind everyone as Saul Alinsky infamously said: Control the language, you control the people.
They’re trying too hard, way too hard, and don’t people know it.
What good ol’ Saul missed was habituation, boredom, business as usual, warmer sunnier winters are more pleasant and less murdeous, and that awkward thing, you can fiddle with the data but you simply can’t fiddle the weather or climate.
60
I see your “ultra” with “mega”.
Its only a matter of months before “Bazillion” is used by these kooks.
100
Then I’ll see your bazillion and raise you a gazillion!
70
I’ll see your gazillion and raise you a googolplex of googolplexes +1!
“Improbability drive 12.4 and falling…”
70
Another good catch Jo, showing that the depth of stupidity in our modern world knows no bounds.
It’s scientific stupidity to say that atmospheric CO2 levels do anything more than follow the situation imposed on the Earth by variations in solar input from that enormous Solar Input Device, SID, known as the Sun.
No vision for the future: our universities now focus intently on navel gazing. This helps avoid the unpleasantness of facing reality.
KK
360
I mean ..what can you say in the end. They just cant (more likely WONT) admit its all wrong about CO2. I suspect THEY know, they WONT say, as it is all a deliberate S C A M to eliminate hydrocarbon fuels and starve the poor countries (agenda 21/30 reduce the population to less than 500 million world wide [Maurice Strong]) by impossible sanctions and so called CO2 taxes and useless renewable
schemesscams.Get out the pitch forks!
170
Pitch forks versus broken hokey shticks? Sounds like a winner, but… generations of cognitive dissonance, thanks to the organised
crime pogromprogramme of dulling munchkins’ critical thinking ability, has resulted in mental mind-forkery like this:https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/395175/europe-heatwave-records-tumble-in-belgium-germany-and-netherlands
Accompanied by a stock photo of a cheap $2 home thermometer (made of plastic and mercury no less) reading 43˚C inside a car parked on a road: “The Belgian town of Kleine Brogel hit 39.9C the hottest since 1833. The southern Dutch city of Eindhoven beat the 75-year-old national record with a new high of 39.3C”.
“The highest temperature recorded in Paris of 40.4C in 1947 is expected to be surpassed on Thursday”. So many record hot days yet they all occurred before the 1950s rise in GHG/CO₂/UN BS – even one from 186 years ago (1833).
“Belgium has issued a code red weather warning for the whole country… Authorities launched a red alert in the Paris region… calling for ‘absolute vigilance'”. No wonder the munchkins and feeble of mind and history really-really-truly believe the
action battle catastrophe doomsdaywar has begun. Truth be told, they’ve lost already.160
I mentioned to an ‘educated’ someone recently that H2O was the monster greenhouse gas in the room. Shock horror. Greenhouse gases have been so inadvertently demonised by the climatistis of the Left that the poor muppet rocked back on her heels as the cognitive dissonance washed over her. Delightful.
91
…..but an indictment of the obvious.
60
‘Educated’ is one of those double-edged (s)words: from Latin educat-, ‘led out’. Can either mean led out from darkness/ignorance to light/comprehension, or, in the case of whacktivists and muppet slaves, proverbial lambs led to the slaughter.
The past few years on the radio, I’ve heard a character by the name of Nanogirl talking about ‘educating’ young NZ schoolgirls in the joys of science (engineering, biomedical, nano-tech, etc., her Masters and PhD subjects). Enthusiastic and vibrant, she had me there for a while until she used the terms ‘carbon pollution‘ and ‘melting of Antarctica‘ – whoah!
http://www.medickinson.com/nanogirl/
On one of her recent ‘Adventure’ audios for kids, she took a school class to the Chch Antarctic Centre where a paleontologist ‘educated’ the young’ns about the vast age, and climatic fluctuations, of the great frozen southern continent/archipelago. Apart from his hokey Koywoy uccent, he was spot-on geologically until he veered off into la la land ‘man’s CO₂ warming the seas melting the ice flooding the world stop driving cars and eating meat‘ nonsense/nonscience.
His spiel was winding up to Warp Factor 9 when he completely fried his synapses and spun out into hyper-super-ultra-?????? Referring to a past aeon when the planet was “as warm as today” and ice was minimal and sea levels higher, he somehow connected that to today’s *emergency/crisis* by blaming it on ‘the last time we melted it…’
40
Ask them for the unrefuted evidence of their ravings. Of course there is none..
20
First question. Where is the data that shows that their sophisticated climate models have been independently validated? Until that appears the models are not worth the computer time it took to run them (GIGO).
Next point, the Climate Alchemists will be claiming that they have been able to use their models to produce gold. In this modern era I suppose one could consider that they have, gold, money in their bank accounts, from paper taken from our pockets, tax.
When is the world population going to learn that unvalidated computer models are worse than useless?
380
Hi Ivan,
every time people talk of computers and models my thought go back to a talk by Dr Christopher Essex.
It should be a mandatory viewing in school science and mathematics classes.
A talk by Dr Christopher Essex – Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate, World Federation of Scientists, and Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, Canada – London, 12 February 2015
: http://www.thegwpf.com/chris-essex-believing-in-six-impossible-things-before-breakfast-and-climate-models/#sthash.Z3ybkLK1.dpuf
180
“. . . the authors were able to assess the natural variability of each climate model.”
“Natural” ?! my butt.
A whole slew of equations given funky data and millions of calculations per second on the fastest computers existing is not a “natural” anything.
Better: ‘the authors were able to asses the flakiness of the models’
Better yet: flaky models = Bad; flaky pie crust = Good
260
JFH
“Natural”
But only in their world founded firmly in mid-air
110
This seems appropriate somehow:
Isn’t it rich?
Are we a pair?
Me here at last on the ground
You in mid-air
But where are the clowns?
Quick, send in the clowns
Don’t bother they’re here
(Send In the Clowns by Stephen Sondheim)
190
I am wondering why ‘natural variability’ never has a value for [equilibrium]’climate sensitivity’ (ECS).
Is this another example of words only meaning what they wish them to mean (ala Alice in Wonderland) such as ‘global warming’ is only meant to refer to anthropogenic warming and don’t bother with any other possible source?
E.g., what is/are the ECS for the sun’s many influences?
100
‘A whole slew of equations..’ yes typical example of how the ‘maths’ used has NO connection to the real geophysical world we live in. All the models are just garbage in = garbage out from garbage mathematical meaningless models.
140
If they’re so concerned about this ‘hyperwarming’, I wonder how they account for glacial/interglacial transitions. Even Richard Alley is of the opinion that Pleistocene transitions were on the order of four, five, or even six Celsius degrees, in a time span of less than a decade (and in one of his presentations, he even went so far as to hypothesize that the transition time was on the order of just a year or two).
Note that this is just the transition into or out of glacial conditions. It still takes many thousands of years to either create or melt the continental-sized glaciers. Further, the Younger Dryas shows that there can be fits and starts (and stops) to each transition, but once in the temperature regime, the climate (for lack of a better term) stabilizes at that regime.
And, this does not negate the finding that carbon dioxide concentrations followed the temperature changes, and did not cause them.
Regards to all,
Vlad
190
“Increasing the climate sensitivity by 50% from a central estimate of 3 ºC would increase the mean global warming to the end of this century by slightly less than 50%, but would increase the chance of a hyperwarming decade by more than a factor of ten.”
Are they saying they increased the climate sensitivity from 3c +-1.5c to 4.5c +-1.5c to create the ‘hyperwarming’? If so, on what basis are they doing that…did they just pull that 50% increase from the dark regions where the sun don’t shine?
150
And this long cycle is the only true model of Earth’s “Temperature”.
The operative driver is the positioning of Earth in relation to the Sun, known in earlier scientific circles as “orbital mechanics”.
100
Snap frozen mammoths comes to mind when I read this talk of temperature drops of several degrees over timespans as wee as a decade.
Let us not lose sight of the circumstance that twice a year the earth spends eleven and twelve days transiting the taurid meteor stream at hazard of megameteor strike; such a catastrophe is likely what ended the extended cold of the Younger Dryas.
As to what snap froze those mammoths I’ve yet to read a convincing proposal.
I’d say more but am having trouble with phrasing it…
70
So its the CO2 calm before the storm now?
Considering how many “scientists” jumped on the CAGW bandwagon using an actual greenhouse as evidence to prove the hypothesis I wonder if they bothered to visit a working one, you know like on a farm, and asked if after so many hours of increased CO2 the whole system went chaotic destroying every living thing inside?……….thought not.
210
More modeling junk.
No science, no scientists!
Just playing with computer code to make it prove whatever they wish.
PhD student Femke Nijsse and her team from the University of Exeter are NOT doing science, they are just creators of a peculiar virtual reality. Hyperventilating about fictional “hyperwarming” just doesn’t cut it as science!
So, Femke Nijsse and your team, just sod-off with this idiotic junk, and get a real job in TV video effects or some-such, your ‘talents’ are wasted in doing this kind of computerized virtual reality drivel.
320
All the models are based on S. Arrhenius speculation on CO2 and water.
This Arrhenius 1906 paper (https://t.co/bQTC3or2H7 from https://friendsofscience.org) reveals the root misconception of the “Greenhouse” theory — The observed absorption of IR radiation by CO2 and H2O vapor is erroneously assumed to imply TRAPPING of radiant heat!
Back when Arrhenius was speculating all the physics of CO2 and water was largely unknown. The effects on Earth’s temperature was proposed as a pure CONJECTURE based on misinterpretation of simple lab experiments and a lack of understanding of our atmosphere’s convective nature, and all the other atmospheric thermodynamics.
Apart from the fact that changes in CO2 concentrations follow temperature changes throughout geologic time, it is ironic that the effect of water vapour in the atmosphere is still a hot topic —
Does it cause a positive or a negative feedback in the “greenhouse”?
Upper Troposphere water vapor is a major ‘wild card’ in global warming theory.
As recently as 2010, NOAA found that Stratospheric water vapour is also a ‘wild card’.
Today our knowledge of the physics of atmospheric water is still has vast gaps in it.
¯
¯
One hundred years later — so much settled science, eh?130
“Does [water vapor] cause a positive or a negative feedback in the “greenhouse”?”
Another question is whether there is even a single value answer to this question or does the magnitude and sign of water vapor feedback change as the state of the “greenhouse” changes?
70
“Does [water vapor] cause a positive or a negative feedback in the “greenhouse”?”
The $64million question there RicDre, IMO you’re quite correct, it can do both depending on the conditions.
When the science of atmospheric water is properly investigated we’ll know and be able to improve our understanding of the climate. Until then all we have is argument from ignorance.
50
Lots of CO2 has been added to the atmosphere since 1940.
The global average temperature is claimed to be up +0.6 degrees C. from 1940 through the end of 2018.
I’d say an honest margin of error is +/- 0.5 degrees C. because there were so few Southern Hemisphere measurements in 1940, but never mind error margins for now.
The global warming +0.6 degrees C. in the past 78 years is equivalent to a rise of less than +0.8 degrees C. in a century,
which is a harmless rate of warming — actually beneficial, if you recognize the ‘greening’ of our planet from more CO2 in the air.
Every said about future global warming is a leftist fantasy, unrelated to real science.
220
I wonder if this Femke Nijsse is the same one who enjoys editing so much of wikipedia’s climate content?
e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system
130
And maybe the same as https://www.couchsurfing.com/people/femkemilene
Where she says —
150
Also of note is that Peter M. Cox is professor of climate system dynamics within mathematics at the University of Exeter.
Until 2006 he was the Science Director – Climate Change at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, and before that he was at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (1990-2004).
170
Not sure if it is still true, but at one stage Exeter Uni had a greatest number of people on the IPCC trough than any other university in the world.
Its almost as if it was their only source of funding 😉
150
Yes, this IS the same Professor !
From http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/mathematics/staff/pmc205
80
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Femkemilene
Yep, one and the same. !
150
And despite all the evidence to the contrary about the ‘Climate Models™’, back in the early 2008(?) Dr Chris Huntingford, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH), said:
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/scientists-and-engineers-comment-on-the-un-climate-change-conference-2/
100
“Computer models of the climate system are now highly sophisticated and can differentiate between natural cycles and changes made by increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. These models show very clearly that the warming being measured around the world is almost certainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, and could not have happened naturally.”
TOTAL GARBAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
160
The problem with climate models is not that they are wrong, might be wrong, are partly wrong or are sometimes wrong.
The problem with models of stupendously complex and fluid systems is that have to be wrong.
200
Its simpler than that – the Elite are just doubling down and amping up the hysteria to hopefully terrorise the sheep back into conformity. Its too late though I think…war is coming as a distraction….hope im wrong…
80
I think they’re getting worried about the coming meeting in September, and upping the propaganda machine.
Cheers
Dave B
50
Yes, absolutely true, we can’t even model turbulent flow down a pipe over a few seconds, in a massively constrained fluid system yet we arrogantly think we can model the whole planets turbulent atmosphere over a century.
Then we take those atmospheric models which are all wrong , we know that because they are all different and we average all those wrong models and think we might get closer to the right answer. No science in that, if you average a bunch of wrong answers you Generally get a wrong answer, especially when they contain a common statistical bias ( the training to match historical warm up from the little ice age).
40
“A decade without warming is even more likely to happy if CO2 is irrelevant.”
Typo, should “happy” be “happen”?
70
“Climate Emergency! (Yawn…)”
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/07/24/climate-emergency-yawn/#comment-115014
80
From Chiefio
“So what is is now, what have I forgotten from the litany?
Global Warming
Climate Change
Climate Weirding
Carbon Pollution
Climate Disruption”
110
He forgot “Climate Catastrophe”
100
and ‘climate emergency’
80
In case of emergency, remain calm, do notP A N I C ! ! ! Signed: Greta the Fretter.110
Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous –
“The publication of the IPCC Special Report on global warming of 1.5 oC paved the way for the rise of the political rhetoric of setting a fixed deadline for decisive actions on [global warming].
However, the dangers of such deadline rhetoric suggest the need for the IPCC to take responsibility for its report and openly challenge the credibility of such a deadline.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4
120
The IPCC has to hose down international alarm over climate change and still keep their jobs. Its a sensitivity issue, the models got it wrong, we are saved from the worst case scenario but we must remain vigilant.
100
At first sight, it might seem that the idea that temporary cooling is more likely when climate sensitivity is higher and temperatures are therefore rising faster with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is simply silly.
I have not read that article, but I think I can understand how someone could come to such a strange conclusion. The first thing we have to keep in mind is that for these climate alarmists the most obvious conclusion from the fact that there has been much less warming than almost all models predicted, namely that climate sensitivity is probably quite low (maybe around 1.5, the lower end of the IPCC range) is completely out of the question. They would postulate anything in order to avoid such a conclusion.
So we are beginning to hear (I think this is quite a recent development, but the argument has become more frequent) that there was strong anthropogenic warming (high climate sensitivity) combined with strong cooling due to natural fluctuations in the last decades. Therefore, according to these people, it only looked as if climate sensitivity was low, but in fact, there was strong anthropogenic warming combined with almost as strong natural cooling. In such a situation, it might, indeed, be likely that sometimes this strong natural cooling was so strong that there was no overall warming, at all, and then, we could expect any time that the natural fluctuation goes the other way and natural warming adds to that alleged strong anthropogenic warming – that would then be that ominous “hyperwarming”, I suppose.
Of course, this idea that there was strong natural cooling in the last decades which made anthropogenic warming seem too harmless is pure speculation. None of these alarmists has any evidence for this and the longer this weak warming trend goes on the less likely it becomes. But if we try to put ourselves in the shoes of someone who absolutely cannot accept the idea of low climate sensitivity (to which the empirical evidence points) because that would be absolute anathema for them and go against all their dogmas, it is probably understandable that they come up with such ideas.
130
“Holy Simulation! Let’s take this reasoning and run with it”
I must admit that when I read “Holy Simulation!” I subconsciously added “Batman!” to the end of the statement. The perils of growing up in the 1960’s watching the Batman TV series here in the US, I guess.
121
Perhaps you were thinking of Indiana Jones and the Holy Simulation? Or that late (very late) night re-run Abbot & Costello meet the Swedish Zombie.
Oops! I think that might have been The Three Stooges meet the Swedish Zombie.
100
I just hooted with laughter at ‘Holy Simulation’!
90
“They may be drinkers, Robin, but they’re also… human beings”.
“It’s a low neighbourhood, full of rum pots. They’re used to curious sights, which, they attribute to alcoholic delusions.”
Sounds like a case of ‘klimatariat scientism‘ to me!
The Best of 1966 Batman/Bruce Wayne: [3′ 45″]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLZQ3OLEJWE
90
RicDre,
Yes we need someone with the talent and time to humorously re-dub some old Batman footage with anti-Alarm messages … 🙂
Any takers? 😉
50
It’s amazing to see how far these climate change social justice warriors will go. I see a similar pattern of behaviour as that of Comey and his co-conspirators who in effect tried to stage a soft coup against Trump by telling fibs to Trump that he wasn’t a subject of investigation despite recent evidence to the contrary that he was, with the result that nothing was found to impeach him. The similar pattern of behaviour is simply telling outright falsehoods with much gusto and drive while the evidence keeps coming up their stories are bogus. There can be only one reason to explain such a behaviour. They hate Western democracy so much they want to destroy it.
161
Climate Emergency is the chili pepper of climate science.
The situation is rather like the current fad in the US for which there can’t be too much chili pepper in your food. The hotter the better. The food itself is cheap, low quality, and improperly prepared. The chili pepper is added to hide the fact the food is tasteless and without significant nutritional value.
120
When yer out ter dupe,
everything yer do is
the matador’s red cape.
80
Not O/T – IMO
“Delingpole: Boris Appoints Brexit Mastermind Cummings to Drain the Swamp”
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/07/24/boris-appoints-brexit-axeman-tackle-deep-state/
100
“The research was supported by the European Research Council (‘ECCLES’ project)”
Quote…. :
Eccles
Played by Spike Milligan
The Famous Eccles, complete and utter idiot. An amiable, well-meaning man with no wits or understanding.
180
But, Spike’s Eccles was famous.
“The famous Eccles”.
80
Enter Bluebottle…
Now pimply young lad…just stand on this springboard….
100
You both beat me to it…’I’m the famous Eccles’.
110
The famous Eccles on draining the swamp can only end one way …
110
Little Jim?
00
WATCH LIVE! July 25: Heartland’s Climate Conference in DC, ALL DAY Starting at 8 AM ET
https://climateconference.heartland.org/
current au time Brisbane
1Hr 28min
80
The UN IPCC said that a doubling of CO2 from 400ppm [parts per million] to 800ppm would result in a global increase of temperature of about 2C degrees.
The increase is 400ppm. Right? and that is equal to 1 in 2500. Right?
That is 1 molecule of CO2 in every 2500 molecules of air.
How can 1 molecule of CO2 “trap” enough “heat” to heat the other 2499 molecules of Nitrogen[N2] and Oxygen[O2] 2 C degrees. The CO2 molecule would have to be nearly as hot as the surface of the sun.
110
The average level of knowledge required to understand CO2 is beyond the average person. So al you need is emotion and sound sincere and youve got your avrage punter as a rabbit in the headlights.
110
“Climate sensitivity, which sits at the very heart of climate science, is the amount of global warming that takes place as atmospheric CO2 concentrations rise.”
I sometimes wonder if this is the major problem with the climate models as they currently exist; they assume that climate sensitivity is a simple, linear relationship based on only two factors: the amount of CO2 in the air and a small positive feedback from water vapor. It seems more likely to me that in a complex, non-linear chaotic system that there are a lot more factors involved, that the relationship is non-linear and that climate sensitivity is not a single value but instead it’s value depends on the instantaneous state of the entire system.
130
Climate sensitivity is based on the difference in OLR leaving the surface at preindustrial CO2 of 275ppm doubling to 550ppm applied to the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. The difference in OLR of about 3.5W/m2 requires a temperature increase of 0.8C to compensate for the lower atmospheric transmission with increasing CO2. That figure is not very alarming so water vapour is given a positive feedback.
One issue is that the atmosphere over oceans has no relationship to the 1976 US Standard Atmosphere. Oceans dominate the energy supply to the climate system. Dry land loses almost all energy gained one day in the following night so does not store much energy.
Also there are very powerful negative feedbacks with increasing water vapour increasing reflective cloud formation and reducing sea ice increasing heat loss. These aspects are not modelled very well if at all. In fact the loss of sea ice is regarded as increasing solar absorption so is taken as a positive feedback. That is just the opposite of what happens as you can easily demonstrate with CERES data.
70
Rick, plus it’s variable, CO2 encourages photosynthesis, and photosynthesis absorbs sunlight, lots of it, reduces CO2, and increases transpiration, all of which reduce energy uptake. When you factor in photosynthesis the effect of CO2 is negative to surface temperature. This fact is not modelled in the climate models. Until it is evaluated we can’t even be sure CO2 increases temp.
Walk into a forest from a hot road and see what I mean, now increase foliage by 20%, equivalent to CO2 enrichment since 1990.
50
How strange – add enough CO2 to increase the atmospheric concentration from say 400 ppm to 401 ppm, and some models go crazy. Heating, cooling, weird things can happen – not in the real world, but in some weird models. If there is consensus, then surely by now there must be one model that can be proven to be correct after 40 years of data?
130
Yes, and there’s No Core Mechanism that links CO2 levels with the Climate Temperature Disaster.
CO2 is actually a victim, like everything else in the modern world.
CO2 levels simply respond to the FORCING effect of the variations in Solar input.
There are several potential models in there related to the 24 hour cycle, the one year cycle and the 110,000 year cycle.
Think of the supercomputer time they could allocate to those.
Then, some enterprising professor could integrate all three time scales to create the mother of all models.
But all that would be too logical and real.
KK
100
I hear that the Russian climate model has been the closest to what happened over the last decade or so, but that doesn’t bother factoring in CO2 at all.
140
“If there is consensus, then surely by now there must be one model that can be proven to be correct after 40 years of data?”
One model to rule them all? (apologies to J. R. Tolkien)
70
These models contain no physical entities and break thermodynamics, that probably why they go crazy, but they ‘believe’ they are correct.
This is how allot of modern science works nowadays (its not just applied to Globull Warming either) its like this : ‘We know our models are correct, any data that doesnt agree with our model is bad data and must be discarded. Any paper that proports to have contradictory results to our model will be automatically rejected on grounds of bad data, or incorrect conclusions’.
120
Correctly you write: “contradictory results to our model will be automatically rejected“. Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise found exactly the same thing:
Dutch “Marcel Crok studied chemistry in university and then became a science journalist… Crok’s aricle [anti-hockey stick and anti-consensus] won an award… Last December, Crok spoke at a TEDx event”…
https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2019/07/22/marcel-croks-climate-adventures/
“How [did] the TED organization respond? By attaching a disclaimer to the video:
“NOTE FROM TED: We’ve flagged this talk, which was filmed at a TEDx event, because it appears to fall outside TEDx’s curatorial guidelines. The sweeping claims and assertions made in this talk regarding climate change only represent the views of the speaker and are not corroborated by scientific evidence“. Emphasis mine.
Soooooo… when observed, recorded, scientific data & history (along with biology & geology & chemistry) shows how faux the hokey schtick grow, it’s branded – nay excommunicated! – as “sweeping claims and assertions” by TEDx’s comptrollers. I knew they were evil.
100
Oops! re 2nd paragraph above: “Crok’s article” not ‘aricle’. But all you smart cookies figured that out, eh. It’s TEDx which is a crock. Bring back the Medieval Warm Period NOW!!!
Bonus link: https://www.news24.com/Green/News/pics-snowfall-rain-and-bitter-cold-hits-cape-mountain-ranges-20190724
“The snowfall over the western parts of South Africa on Tuesday night and the adjacent interior may have stopped for now, but the cold and rainy weather is expected to continue… ‘We’re not going to get a break from the cold weather. It’s winter. There’s another cold front brushing past us tomorrow’… In Cape Town, water storage of the six major dams is measured at 69.6% on Wednesday”.
So I take it that water-crisis-drought-panic-end-of-the-world thingy is over, or at least 70% on the mend. CO₂ saves the day again huh?
40
In hindsight, the models can tell,
Why temperatures rose and then fell,
Because more CO2,
Makes a really weird brew,
That can pause anytime, a warm spell.
230
Priceless!!!!! One of your best, EVAH!!!!
80
Pursuant to reading the “paper” referenced, the following miracles occurred:
1. The birdcage is re-papered
2. The fresh fish are wrapped.
3. I’ve discovered a new and universal climate model: Multiply anything by Zero and Add the answer you want.
Certainly, perpetual motion, anti gravity boots, and the cloak of invisibility are soon to follow.
Sarc Off.
Cheers.
180
No no, if you get on YouTube, perpetual motion, anti gravity boots are real, someone has a vid to prove it!
90
Well The Journal of Irreproducible Results did prove that. as you age, time does go faster.
80
And in answer to that, I plan to travel very fast so that the Fitzgerald contraction will apply and Ill stop aging! 😉
50
Starting with an orb that has a surface of individual black bodies. Half is illuminated with a spread of temperatures of 0 to Tmax. Half is 0.
Keeping things simple, with T as a function of fraction of surface area (a) is linear for half the area. That gives a Tmax four times the mean.
Integrating from a=0 to 0.5 and you get 0.1 (4Tmean)^5
That gives the same emissivity of a black body of constant temperature = 0.63 (4Tmean) or a mean temperature 2.5 times hotter.
Using the spread of temperatures at the equator of the Moon and SST of Earth and you would expect a difference of 30K if everything else was equal, just the spread of temperatures differed.
And the modelling starts with the atmosphere must warm the surface and extra 30 K. Its a joke from the beginning.
50
The whole business relies on the flimsiest correlation that industrialization happened and CO2 is going up so industrialization caused CO2 to go up. Of course we were simultaneously coming out of the Little Ice Age, but according to Michael Mann and the IPCC, that didn’t happen. So the motor car increased CO2 by 50% and this and this alone caused Global Warming. The sun is not involved.
No one ever discusses why CO2 is going up. Not scientifically. It is just correlation equals causation. No proof. No measurement.
Worse this special engine CO2 stays in the thin atmosphere forever, thousands of years according to some in the IPCC. For that to be true, air must not enter or leave the vast oceans which cover 3/4 of the planet. This is despite the fact that all fish breathe. And Carbon Dioxide is 40x more soluble than air, which is why the ocean is stuffed with the stuff and we use CO2’s great solubility every day in soda water, lemonade, beer, champagne. But it stays in the air, aloof and menacing. There is no way CO2 is in equilibrium and beyond our control, not since mankind took over the weather.
Then amazingly we are asked to believe that increased aerial CO2 can go into the oceans but causes ‘ocean acidification’. This despite the fact that all the world’s oceans are alkali, not acid. Like spending causes debt.
Science? Man made CO2 caused Global Warming is a science free zone. They call it Climate Change now but when you ask a question, that is a thin veneer over the man made Global Warming. And 1C has a massive effect on the weather.
Now we have to believe that the reason the ocean surface is slightly warmer in places is that the oceans stole the heat from the atmosphere, which is difficult if the air does not actually get hotter.
And now unbelievably CO2 also causes temperatures to stay constant. Probably. For a while.
I would suggest you couldn’t make this stuff up, but I would be obviously wrong.
180
I need to add an observation on the Great Barrier Reef. Somehow the warmer water is caused by coal which causes warmer water around the reef.
However there is much hotter water in the Red Sea where the coral is fine. And as the Reef is 2500km long, the temperature variation from one end to the other is 5C
and as much again from summer to winter.
Surely coral can survive such variations, less than summer to winter or one end of the reef to the other?
However it will take $444million gifted by Malcolm and Lucy Turnbull to help save the Reef. No one knows how this work and Mr Morrison has not asked for the money back and
no one even proposed a solution or asked for the money and $100million of that will go on administration of the unspecified rescue mission, but clearly the Reef has to be saved.
The $1-2Million spent shutting up Dr. Peter Ridd is well worth it, considering how much cash is at stake for the university, 2/3 of whom are administrators like every other university.
They need their holidays too. Perhaps in some tropical paradise?
The universities are out of control. Canberra is out of control. That money should be paid back. It was gift of public money to friends of Lucy and more money than Malcolm or Lucy have ever seen and not their money.
So what are we Australians getting for our $444million. How’s it going, this rescue mission? How are they saving the world with our cash?
180
MalEx444.
How has this “allocation” gone unremarked and unscrutinised.
If this incident is typical of government integrity and honesty then we as voters living in this Democracy must demand urgent change for the better.
KK
110
I wouldn’t go as to say it’s typical but it certainly is too frequent. Look at the stalling tactics by the government to change the deeming rate for pensioners. It was eventually changed but didn’t go far enough. Of course the allocation of monies to “save” the reef ought to be returned but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen. As far as I’m concerned it’s gone. Still waiting for PM Morrison to exit the Paris agreement on reducing our emissions. Let me guess. He can’t be bothered because we are reducing them anyway. Oh wait a minute! Isn’t that the real issue? Why are we reducing them so much so fast when we know for a fact it will have zero impact on the climate and all it will do is make energy more expensive and less reliable? If this is the calibre of leader we are going to keep getting then this nation is well and truly stuffed longer term.
130
For those still suffering the delusion that Morrison is our saviour and the great achiever. He didn’t win the election: it was gifted to him when Shorten shot himself in the foot, then Bob Brown shot him in the other foot.
Scott Morrison branded himself the “PM for drought” when he took office in August, declaring the drought the “most urgent and pressing need”. Well slap my bottom and call me Marmaduke: the newly-released Ozzie drought policy is a dud. “Urgent and pressing” have been replaced by “down the track and vague”. Who would have thought that an ex-advertising man — whose stock-in-trade is empty puffery — could let us down with spin? ME.
For those several who might be interested, the Morrison government has had its Future Drought Fund bill passed, promising $100 million per year in perpetuity for “initiatives to build drought resilience”, whatever that means.
For once I partly agree with Joel Fitzgibbon. Labor wanted immediate aid; the Libs/Nats have given long-term aid. Their drought package won’t begin funding anything for another full year. I wonder what Barnaby had to say about this. I’ll bet it wasn’t printable.
In the words of Fitzgibbon:
“ . . . this Bill will deliver no money to farmers for two years, and those farming families need money now” . . . “They [the government] also haven’t clearly defined how they intend to spend the money . . .”
As I alluded to the other day, Morrison will establish another parliamentary committee on rural and regional issues additional to the Senate’s existing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs. So now 2 competing committees to really stuff things up. Bonzer cobber!
https://www.theland.com.au/story/6287475/future-drought-fund-to-pass-final-hurdle-in-parliament/?cs=4941
https://www.theland.com.au/story/6281179/more-talk-but-wheres-the-action/
80
I see Morrison as a victim of what typically happens to most leaders when they achieve top office; delusion of grandeur and ignorance of how to deal with real issues. Turnbull was classic but Morrison is not a lot better. Still he could surprise us down the road. I’m prepared to given him some more time but I doubt he will do much good. History is on my side.
60
Your ‘ex-advertising man’ Scomo444 was (in a previous incarnation) responsible for our ‘100% Pure NZ’ brand BS psyche promo jargon dribble which
most, a lot,some realised was pure advertising b.s. gimmickry – catchy and successful yes, but otherwise bollocks – yet even today, 20 years on, muppets and GangGreen and young Euro-backpackers still quote it as scientific fact. Like, hellooooooo.I’m tellin’ ya, beware: once an advertising man, always a . . . . . . . .
60
The only good thing about Scomo444, is that the alternative would have been worse.
Scomo was given three years to do brilliant stuff for us but he decided it was too risky and he’d rather work towards reelection.
80
Yes the alternative would have been far worse but then again we would be out of our misery a lot quicker. Every cloud has a silver lining.
60
“Every cloud has a silver lining.”
Or
‘Every clod has a slivery lining.’
🙂
50
G’day TdeF,
Someone has discovered the LIA and MWP and decided they weren’t global events.
…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/climate-change-nothing-like-this-over-past-2000-years-scientists/11345022
…
I suppose we should be grateful that after what, 20: years?, they deign to acknowledge them.
Cheers
Dave B
80
David, Australian . Brainwashing Corporation, hard at work
Doing it’s chosen job
To maintain the faith of the believers.
NOT my ABC !
50
Yes and there has been no consensus. So now it is down to consensus, not science.
What this means is that if someone says something and all his friends agree with him, then it’s true.
Conversely if someone like Dr Ridd says it’s not true then he needs to be fired.
He has not behavied in a ‘collegiate’ manner, which means agreeing with his workmates.
What happened to the truth? Why does consensus matter? Peer review? After all the IPCC said 400 million people were going to die from thirst by 2035 except when questioned by the Indian government they had not a shred of data to prove any of this. Peer reviewed though. Ultimately they put it down to a typing error and everyone agrees that it was a typing error.
70
Hi all,
This is off topic, but a must watch, outlining and exposing .the insanity raging in government. I expect the views of so many Australian’s,and by none other than Senator Malcolm Roberts
Charity does start at home… but doesn’t
Link via, M Smith news
Senator Malcolm Roberts – One Nation calls for urgent repeal of Phelps/Labor medivac law
Wednesday, 24 July 2019
130
Charity does start at home… but doesn’t
Michaels typed link did not activate, so here it is
https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/07/senator-malcolm-roberts-one-nation-calls-for-urgent-repeal-of-phelpslabor-medivac-law.html
90
There must be a climate emergency, the CEOs of BHP and Rio Tinto say so, and they would know based on the businesses they manage depending so much on coal revenue.
80
Rio Tinto sold out of the coal business. Surprisingly there was no shortage of buyers for what Rio Tinto thought was a dying business.
As for BHP they have the Greta Thumberg of C.E.O.s
90
BHP adds to its litany of shocking decisions – HBI, Magma, Billiton, etc, etc, etc.
Oh for the days of Brian Loton and Jim McNeil.
100
I heard him speak on the radio yesterday.
Luckily I was driving or I would have given him a boot up the backside.
Do all ceo’s these days have to bend to whatever shape Greta demands.
From a great set of recent posts it seems very likely, perhaps with 97% certainty, that we here have a very clear picture of where the world is at the moment.
That’s Done: the important issue now is to Fix de Bloody Problem.
What can we as individuals do to counter the combined weight of schooling, universities, media and political malevolence that has the very clear intention of enslaving us fully.
As a start we Must exit the United Bloody Nations.
KK
120
Another example of choosing academic qualifications and career path above common sense and world wiseness.
80
What the so-called climate ‘scientists’ cannot refute is quantum mechanics, particle physics and the fundamental physical laws… and they show that CO2 does not and cannot cause ‘hyperwarming’… in fact, at prevalent average global temperature, it causes cooling. CO2 can only cause minuscule warming below ~288 K and at low altitudes, due to the Equipartition Theorem.
I’ve written a paper on it… the core of the text which disproves the CAGW hypothesis:
———-
The radiative cooling of air via solely translational mode energy converting to radiation
CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) -> CO2{v20(0)} + C02{v21(1)} -> CO2{v20(0)} + CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1
You’ll note the above interaction is a direct conversion of translational mode energy (which we perceive as temperature) to 14.98352 µm radiation. This directly cools the air, and the effect is significant, since nearly all the translational mode energy is converted to radiation, leaving the CO2 molecules at a very low temperature, whereupon they absorb energy by colliding with other atmospheric constituents. The effect begins taking place significantly at ~288 K, the temperature at which the majority of the molecules will have sufficient translational mode energy to convert to vibrational mode energy.
288 K also happens to be the stated average global temperature… that is not a coincidence, it is a mechanism long known (study linked below), partly a result of CO2 radiative emission ramping up at ~288 K. As CO2 concentration increases, this effect will become more pronounced, increasingly damping any temperature excursions above ~288 K by increase of radiative emission via this interaction, and below ~288 K by reduction of radiative emission via this interaction.
It is not necessary for CO2{v20(0)} to collide with another CO2 molecule for this interaction to take place, any other molecule will do… the Equipartition Theorem dictates that all atmospheric constituents at the same temperature will have the same translational mode energy. So in reality, the above interaction could be represented thusly:
X (at 288K+) + CO2{v20(0)} (at 288K+) -> X + C02{v21(1)} -> X + CO2{v20(0)} + 667.4 cm-1
where X is any atmospheric molecule.
Further, you’ll note that if a CO2 molecule is already in the CO2{v21(1)} vibrational mode quantum state, a collision at just 0.1 K higher temperature (ie: ~288.1 K) can excite it to the CO2{v22(2)} state, whereupon it can emit a 14.97454 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v21(1)} state, and a 14.98352 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v20(0)} state.
Even further, you’ll note that if a CO2 molecule is already in the CO2{v22(2)} vibrational mode quantum state, a collision at just 0.1 K higher temperature (ie: ~288.2 K) can excite it to the CO2{v23(3)} state, whereupon it can emit a 14.96782 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v22(2)} state, a 14.97454 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v21(1)} state, and a 14.98352 µm photon to de-excite to the CO2{v20(0)} state.
This implies that for temperatures above ~288 K, more of the translational energy of atmospheric molecules will flow to CO2 vibrational mode quantum state energy, rather than vibrational mode quantum state energy of CO2 flowing to translational energy of other atmospheric molecules, simply for the fact that at and above that temperature, the combined translational energy of two colliding molecules is sufficient to excite the CO2 vibrational modes. This increases the time duration of CO2 vibrational mode quantum state excitation and therefore the probability that CO2 will radiatively emit, breaking LTE. Therefore the energy flow is to CO2, not from it.
In other words, at and above ~288 K, the combined translational mode energy of two molecules is higher than C02{v21(1)} vibrational mode energy, and therefore energy will flow to CO2 from other atmospheric molecules’ translational mode energy during molecular collision, simply because CO2 can radiatively emit that energy and break LTE, rather than that energy flowing back to other molecules.
———-
Two other blurbs from the text, showing energy flow from vibrationally-excited N2 to CO2:
———-
The Interaction of O3, N2 and CO2:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190702035313/https://i.imgur.com/0fpVtzQ.png
Satellites see CO2 and (a bit of) water vapor radiating at the temperature of the lower stratosphere (at the ‘characteristic-emission surface’ altitude, or just less than one optical depth from TOA for any given wavelength) all over the planet. This is because ozone (O3, excited by incoming solar radiation) and collisional processes excite nitrogen (N2) to its {v1(1)} (symmetric stretch) vibrational mode, and N2 then transfers energy to the {v3(1)} (asymmetric stretch) mode of CO2 via collision as shown in the image, whereupon the vibrationally excited CO2 partially de-excites by dropping from the {v3(1)} (asymmetric stretch) mode to either the {v1(1)} (symmetric stretch) mode by emitting a 10.4 µm photon, or to the {v20(2)} (bending) mode by emitting a 9.4 µm photon.
This is the same method by which a CO2 laser works… the laser filling gas within the discharge tube consists of around 10–20% carbon dioxide (CO2), around 10–20% nitrogen (N2), and a few percent hydrogen (H2) and/or xenon (Xe), and the remainder helium (He). Electron impact vibrationally excites the N2 to its first vibrational mode quantum state {v1(1)}, the N2 collides with CO2, the CO2 becomes excited in the asymmetric stretch vibrational mode quantum state {v3(1)}, and de-excites to its {v1(1)} or {v20(2)} vibrational modes by emission of 9.4 µm or 10.4 µm radiation (wavelength dependent upon isotopic composition of the CO2 molecules) as described above. The helium is used to fully de-excite the CO2 to the {v20(0)} ground state after it’s radiatively de-excited to maintain population inversion (which is necessary for stimulated emission), but this is unimportant to the process of energy transfer from vibrationally excited N2 to CO2 in the atmosphere. The process by which the N2 becomes vibrationally excited (in the case of a CO2 laser via electron impact; in the atmosphere via translational-to-vibrational collisional processes and via vibrational-to-vibrational collisional processes with solar-excited O3) is similarly unimportant… the concept of energy flowing from N2 to CO2 is the same. Laser wavelength can be tuned by altering the isotopic ratio of the carbon and oxygen atoms comprising the CO2 molecules in the discharge tube, with heavier isotopes resulting in longer wavelength emission.
———-
This, of course, assumes that N2 in the atmosphere is vibrationally excited to at least its first vibrational mode quantum state. And a good percentage of it is…
https://web.archive.org/web/20190702044012/http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1964IAUS…18…19D
Vibrationally Excited Molecules In Atmospheric Reactions
“It follows from the solar ultraviolet intensities quoted by Watanabe and Hinteregger that the production of N2* through Eq. 21 will be of the order of 1010 cm-2 sec-1. Most of the N2* will be in low vibrational levels.”
We can again use the Boltzmann Factor to determine the vibrationally excited population of N2 due to collisional processes. It can be vibrationally excited by a UV-excited O3 (ozone) molecule in the stratosphere, and via collision with another molecule with sufficient translational energy.
N2{v1(1)} (stretch) mode at 2345 cm-1 (4.26439 µm), correcting for anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction
1 cm-1 = 11.9624 J mol-1
2345 cm-1 = 2345 * 11.9624 / 1000 = 28.051828 kJ mol-1
The Boltzmann factor at 288 K has the value 1 / (2805.1828 / 288R) = 0.10266710 which means that 10.26671% of N2 molecules are in the N2{v1(1)} excited state.
“But wait!”, you may exclaim, “The energy differential in your calculations between N2 and CO2 isn’t 18 cm-1 as most graphics show!”
{Sigh} I just covered that above. Because I’ve accounted for N2 anharmonicity, centrifugal distortion and vibro-rotational interaction, this lowers the quantum state energy differential between N2 and CO2 to a mere 4.3 cm-1.
Considering the total molecular energy Etot (sans translational mode energy, which according to the Equipartition Theorem should be equal at equal temperatures):
CO2{v3(1)}: Etot = 1174.7 + 2349.3 = 3524 cm-1
N2{v1(1)}: Etot = 1176 + 2345 = 3521 cm-1
… gives a differential of only 3 cm-1 per VR Molecules Pro molecular modeler. This is equivalent to a 3333.333 micron photon, or 0.0003722 eV with an equivalent Wien’s Displacement Law temperature of only 0.8694 K. In other words, the tiniest thermal fluctuation would overwhelm the CO2 / N2 energy differential.
That’s why N2{v1(1)} and CO2{v3(1)} are so closely collisionally coupled, they are nearly perfectly resonant. Random thermal energy variations (ie: the speed distribution of molecules) completely overwhelm the energy differential. A mere 20.453 m/s speed differential (for CO2, moving at a mean average of 372.227941 m/s at 288 K) or 25.194 m/s (for N2, moving at a mean average of 458.5489 m/s at 288 K) is enough to overwhelm the energy differential. The Maxwell Speed Distribution Function gives a far wider speed distribution than that. Thus, since CO2 is the only molecule of the two which can emit radiation (and thus break Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium conditions), the net energy flow is from N2 to CO2 (with a bit of the energy (3 cm-1) coming directly from translational mode energy of the molecules, thereby cooling the atmosphere directly).
Given that CO2 constitutes 0.041% of the atmosphere (410 ppm), and N2 constitutes 78.08% of the atmosphere (780800 ppm), this means that 14.7969 ppm of CO2 is excited to its {v1} mode quantum state via collisional translational-to-vibrational (t-v) processes, whereas 80162.3936 ppm of N2 is excited via the same t-v processes. This is a ratio of 1 vibrationally excited CO2 to 5417 vibrationally excited N2. You’ll note this is 2.845 times higher than the total CO2:N2 ratio of 1:1904, and 195 times more excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not).
Similarly, 4.1984 ppm of CO2 is excited to its {v3} mode quantum state via collisional translational-to-vibrational (t-v) processes, whereas 80162.3936 ppm of N2 is excited via the same (t-v) processes. This is a ratio of 1 vibrationally excited CO2 to 19093 vibrationally excited N2. You’ll note this is 10.028 times higher than the total CO2:N2 ratio of 1:1904, and 195 times more excited N2 molecules than all CO2 molecules (vibrationally excited or not).
———-
81
BIG.
60
What does it mean?
20
One would expect that to apply to ALL the other planets and moons in the solar system? Main ones of interest are Titan, Venus and Mars.
40
But it also CANT warm a warmer surface regardless of the quantum states.
60
It depends upon atmospheric pressure and composition, of course. N2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas on Saturn’s moon Titan. The cold, dense upper atmosphere of Venus makes CO2 a ‘greenhouse’ gas (due to collisional broadening and temperature being far below 288K, with an average of only 114 K +- 23 K, per the Venus Express probe)… on Earth, N2 is not and cannot be a ‘greenhouse’ gas, and CO2 is only an exceedingly weak ‘greenhouse’ gas at low altitudes and below ~288K, with the main effect that of increasing Convective Available Potential Energy, thus convecting energy higher in the atmosphere where the CO2 molecule has a greater chance of undergoing radiative emission and the resultant radiation has a higher chance of going out to space (due to the decreasing atmospheric density with increasing altitude, CO2 radiative / collisional de-excitation ratio increases and mean free path length for radiation exponentially increases with increasing altitude).
And you are correct that the radiation cannot warm an already-warmer surface, at best it can only prevent that warmer surface from attaining a lower temperature by ‘shielding’ a cooler background (ie: space)… from the paper:
———-
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (in the Clausius Statement sense… “No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a cooler to a hotter body”) states that energy cannot flow from a lower-energy region to a higher-energy region without external work being done upon the system… not directly, not via excitation of a molecule’s vibrational, rotational and/or electronic mode quantum states then transferred to translational motion of other molecules via collisional de-excitation, not ever. This implies that ‘backradiation’ cannot warm an already-warmer object… all it can do is prevent that object from attaining the lower temperature it would otherwise attain sans that ‘backradiation’ against a background colder than the atmosphere (in this case, that background would be the temperature of space). At any temperature higher than that radiation’s equivalent Wien Displacement Law temperature, the radiation is reflected.
———-
The planet has an average temperature of 288 K, with an equivalent Wien Displacement Law radiation wavelength of 10.062 µm, whereas CO2 emits at 14.98352 µm (lower energy), 10.4 µm (lower energy) and 9.4 µm (higher energy)… thus the only ‘backradiation’ which can warm the surface above its average 288 K temperature comes from CO2 vibrationally excited to its {v3(1)} (asymmetric stretch) vibrational mode quantum state (the highest vibrational mode) by collision with N2 vibrationally excited to its {v1(1)} vibrational mode quantum state (which picks up its energy via collision with O3 (ozone), which becomes excited by absorbing solar insolation), whereupon that CO2 radiatively de-excites to its {v20(2)} (bending) vibrational mode quantum state via emission of 9.4 µm radiation. Since O3 is prevalent in the stratosphere, this radiation primarily originates in the stratosphere, and since only approximately half of it is downwelling, only approximately half of it can warm the planet’s surface above its 288 K average temperature. The other half of the radiation is upwelling, has an exponentially increasing mean free path length with increasing altitude due to decreasing atmospheric density, is in the Infrared Atmospheric Window, and thus has a nearly unfettered path out to space. That shedding of energy to space is a cooling process. The Wien Displacement Law equivalent temperature for 9.4 µm radiation is 308.3 K (35.124 C, 95.22 F). Any object above that temperature will have higher energy than the radiation, thus it will not have many available energy states which absorption of the photon can cause excitation to (because those energy states are already excited), and will thus reflect the radiation, not absorb it. That reflected radiation will then be upwelling, with an exponentially increasing mean free path length with increasing altitude, is in the Infrared Atmospheric Window, and thus has a nearly unfettered path out to space.
———-
A passive body (without an internal source of energy) can absorb radiation from another body which is at a higher temperature but it can only emit radiation with an equivalent energy at or below its own temperature. Thus the energy of emitted radiation can only be less than or equal to the energy of incident radiation. This means that energy cannot flow from a cooler to a warmer body simply because any radiation from the cooler body incident upon the warmer body will experience an energy already higher than that radiation’s energy, thus that radiation will be reflected, not absorbed. Since gasses cannot really reflect radiation, for a gas the radiation would be scattered.
———-
For those who doubt the above, I encourage you to investigate the Schrodinger equation, the Law of Conservation of Energy and photon reflection at a potential step. A potential (the photon’s energy) of a lower energy will be reflected from a potential of a higher energy (the potential step of a higher-temperature object), unless that object is exceedingly thin, whereupon photon tunneling can occur (which still isn’t absorption, since the photon ‘borrows’ energy from the surroundings to tunnel, then pays that energy back in accordance with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and thus tunneling cannot increase the energy level of the material being tunneled through). The (mathematically imaginary) photon angular momentum will not be imparted to the object, as reflection does not entail photon absorption / re-emission.
20
“This does not mean that the presence of a global warming slowdown at the beginning of the 21st century implies we live in a highly sensitive world.”
Massive Model Failure suggests at the very least, Curry and Lomborg would disagree with that statement.
80
” implies we live in a highly sensitive world.””
Yes, most of these poor AGW and SJW petals do live in a highly sensitive state of existence.
Mentally sensitive to the merest small word.
Mentally sensitive to the smallest amount of CO2.
Mentally sensitive to the simplest brain-washing.
Mentally, they are confused and barely functional.
I feels sad for them…
… when I can stop laughing at them 😉
50
Unless some one or organization does something positive about this garbage, we just have to live with it and hope it doesnt send us all broke, because it will kill us all with insanity before long. It is so entrenched and big it needs a BIG response. Im disappointed at the many scientists who are too scared off by losing their jobs to speak out more forcefully. There are a few brave ones.
1. Rip into the models and PROVE they are deliberately misleading and wrong.
2. Charge the IPCC with everything legal that can be thrown at it.
3. Sack all the warmists and replace them with ones that can help prepare for what is far more likely and damaging..the next LIA.
110
There we have it.
CO2 caused the pause.
CO2 caused the cooling.
Co2 caused the warming.
The CO2 horsesh*t has to stop. If it doesn’t, we’ll all finish up being as stark raving crazy as Prince Charles and Al Gore.
140
Wouldn’t mind having their bank accounts and holiday houses and hordes of servants – methinks there’s a method to their madness.
100
That’s “carbon pollution”.
sarc.
50
“We still don’t exactly know how much the climate system will heat up, nor do we know exactly what the range of natural variability in trends will be over the coming decades. But our study shows that these risks should not be considered as separate.”
Its a sensitivity issue, so we should go back to the basics and question the assumption that CO2 is an invisible blanket. The hiatus in world temperature over the past two decades is a strong indication that the models have failed to forecast correctly.
The plateau in temperatures has been caused by strong El Nino, which is a natural variable, not enhanced by industrial CO2. To these clowns I say show me your positive feedback because there are many negative feedbacks to prove the climate system can also cool down.
90
“By looking at all decades together, we get a better picture and find observations are broadly consistent with a central estimate of climate sensitivity”
Broadly consistent? That sure covers a lot of ground. Before we base decisions affecting the entire world’s economy on these Climate Models, shouldn’t we expect the observations to be narrowly consistent with a central estimate of climate sensitivity? Or at least middle-of-the-road consistent?
70
Broadly speaking, ice cores are dodgy because of a chemical reaction, good old post by David Middleton where he looks at other proxies.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/
90
This is like stumbling through the desert.
Each time we reach the next dune, absolutely sure that this one is ‘Peak Stupid’, and that surely over the next one is an oasis of sanity, we have some coddled schmuck wanting to double-down and prove that modern society’s greatest failing seems to be an unnatural interruption of the ‘Darwin Awards’.
So, which are the most insane? The rambling, well-fed idiots with their sandwich boards proclaiming our imminent demise at the hands of angry Carbon(Dioxide) gods; or their shameless enablers that entertain their fantasies with our money; either too corrupt or too foolish (or both) to resist their madness.
130
I worked on Geological Subsurface models. Amazing how you could tweak the input parameters to please the boss.
110
Hehe, I did the same John, the prettier they looked and the more you spun them, in both meanings of the word,the more believable they were
90
Assistamce please.
Allan Jones must have mentioned wing turbine low frequency noise and a 1980’s reference this morningng as a local breakfast radio announcer was debunking sameto the tune of no effects.
I’m sure that there has been very recent work that he needs to know about but I haven’t time atm to look – various crices of drought and grazing.
Anyone able to contribute references please as it would be good to get back to him pronto?
TIA
Ian
80
This problem of VLF pulsing was known about in the Iron Curtain countries 20 years ago.
I suspect that for insurance and liability reasons in the West it was deep sixed and only referred to by NASA as an issue in interplanetary space travel.
For the same reasons, disinformation, it is currently called “noise”.
It isn’t noise, it’s a dangerous health issue.
KK
100
Last night on Sky Alan Jones pointed out the $700,000 a year per wind turbine paid to operators by our government with our monies.
100
Sorry I’m late to the party Ian. Try these:
Resonance of human body parts
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/human-body-resonant-frequencies.501607/
Adverse Impacts On Brain Activity
https://notrickszone.com/2017/04/26/new-paper-on-infrasound/
“Heart-Jamming” Wind Turbines …New Medical Research Confirms Infrasound Negatively Impacts Heart Health
http://notrickszone.com/2018/10/24/heart-jamming-wind-turbines-new-medical-research-confirms-infrasound-negatively-impacts-heart-health/#comments
80
And some more:
Occupational Health Expert Exposes Serious Hazards Of Infrasound From Wind Turbines
http://notrickszone.com/2018/11/07/occupational-health-expert-exposes-the-serious-hazards-of-infrasound-from-wind-turbines/#comments
Railway infrasound effects on body parts etc
http://www.esveld.com/Download/TUD/Esveld_presentation.pdf
Health Risk To Humans From Wind Turbines: “Micro-Seismicity”
http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/31/new-study-sees-new-health-risk-to-humans-from-wind-turbines-micro-seismicity/
70
Thanks
Ian
50
Sorry also Ian – only just saw your request.
I believe one of the best links is to Prof. Alves Pereria’s presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu8z7dyQA9Y.
Other worthwhile links are:
Flinders University: Recent study: https://www.flinders.edu.au/wind-farm-noise-study/ Also includes links to other articles.
notrickszone has many articles on wind noise: https://notrickszone.com/2018/10/24/heart-jamming-wind-turbines-new-medical-research-confirms-infrasound-negatively-impacts-heart-health/
And another: http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/31/new-study-sees-new-health-risk-to-humans-from-wind-turbines-micro-seismicity/
Peter Mitchell’s report in 2016 is definitely worth reading: https://waubrafoundation.org.au/resources/wind-turbine-noise-simple-statement-facts-australian-experience/
Mr Mitchell’s report is also chock full of useful links.
A physics viewpoint, showing how infrasound can be measured, is: https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.883019
Also with lots of links.
An article from stopthesethings: https://stopthesethings.com/2018/12/10/green-energy-guinea-pigs-wind-industrys-american-victims-monitored-for-infrasound-effects-on-heart-health/, also with further links.
And the Finnish study in 2019: https://stopthesethings.com/2019/02/01/home-wreckers-finnish-study-finds-wind-turbine-infrasound-unsafe-for-residents-living-within-15-km/
One problem is that both wind farm operators and local councils insist on using the wrong measurement, dBA, which is intended only to measure sound energy in the human ear range.T%he Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting explains dBA.
50
Thanks
Ian
Sent in, likely will be “ignored with a large ig”
30
Looks like my post with lots of links didn’t make it here Ian, so all I can advise is to look at Alves Pereria’s YouTube presentation, and look up Peter Mitchell’s very good PDF.
Also wind farm operators and the local councils try to ignore the problem by referring to the human sound measurement dBA. (Wikipedia has a good definition of dBA and how it’s measured.) But infrasound is not in this measurement range.
Will come back tomorrow with links to more articles if required.
50
Next time I’ll be more patient…
30
In comment 3.1 above, graham dunton included a link to a talk by Dr Christopher Essex titled Believing in six impossible things before breakfast and climate models (thank you graham dunton!) which I have seen before, but decided to watch again.
One of the things Dr. Essex talks about (around the 58:25 mark) is that starting with AR4, the Climate Models were “Computationally Stabilized” by tweaking their parameterizations to remove the instabilities that normally occur in non-linear models and in so doing, he believes they over-stabilized the Climate Models resulting in the removal of natural variability from the Climate Models. If this is true, it might explain why they had to increase the climate sensitivity by 50% to get the Climate Models to display natural variability because that increase was necessary to overcome the computational stabilization that had previously been inserted into the models.
110
RicDre,
Indeed the lack of basic understanding of atmospheric water was a major problem back in AR4 (and still is today).
So instead of getting some basic science on the physics and math of atmospheric water done, they just parameterized it and adjusted to fit. However there was a problem for as they set water’s (parameterized) response it would fail at either the poles, or the equator, or both with various settings. The work around (aka HACK) was too elevate the parameterized particulate numbers to fudge the overall model output.
This has been this way with the models ever since then. Water is not properly represented and particulates are fudge to fit the required numbers!
Now is “that’s the way to do it”?
100
RicDre,
“…tweaking their parameterizations to remove the instabilities that normally occur in non-linear models and in so doing, he believes they over-stabilized the Climate Models resulting in the removal of natural variability from the Climate Models.”
And it has got more so since about 2000. Here are two extracts from a 2017 paper on Climate Models and the attitude of researchers to adjust parameters (whether really justified or not).
From: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1
Titled ‘The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning’
and
50
tom0mason:
Thank you for the information about Climate Model parameterizations, it provides insight into how and why they make adjustments to these parameterizations and their rationalizations for making those adjustments.
50
RicDre,
You’re welcome.
It is instructive to note that all the physical properties that are subjected to ‘parameterizations’ are the ones we do not have proper scientific evidence for. We can not scientifically describe how these work and interact with other parts of the climate system so they get ‘parameterizatized’ and ‘tuned’.
Basically ‘parameterizations’ flag-up what is scientifically deficit in our knowledge about climate, and IMO these should be thoroughly investigated before we try and make models.
Building models without real validated knowledge is a recipe for delusion.
40
Ooops
‘parameterizatized’ should be ‘parameterized’
30
‘Parameterized’ should be ‘curve-fit’.
They’re curve fitting on in-series data to arrive at the closest approximation of the in-series data without regard to the underlying processes which caused that output. That curve-fit will invariably fail for out-of-series data unless they blindly stumble upon the exact mathematical algorithm with exactly models the underlying processes… which they’ll not do for such a complex, non-linear, coupled and chaotic system as the atmosphere.
In other words, in even calling their models “models”, they are disingenuous. They are not models, they are curve-fits.
And curve-fits have absolutely no predictive value whatsoever, except in the case that the curve-fit algorithm somehow accidentally exactly models the underlying process. And it would have to be accidental… the mere fact that they are curve-fitting rather than modeling the atmosphere proves they don’t understand the underlying atmospheric processes. If they did, they’d model them, rather than curve-fit them.
Any stock or futures trader can tell you that curve-fitting will fail for out-of-series data.
10
“with exactly models” should be “which exactly models”
10
Is this an example of ultra- or hyper- stupidity?
70
How about Stupor-Stupidity!
A blend of super-stupidity and a ‘state of near-unconsciousness or insensibility’. Plus it contains their necessary double SS or ⚡⚡
10
The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we have been experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science.
40
Have anyone gone to her twitter account? She say she is “PhD researcher on climate change | Wikipedian | interested in sustainability & social justice | tweets in Dutch and English”.
Why am I not surprised?
But the interesting thing in her feed is that she is “updating” Wikipedia with her nonsense… This is going to be so funny in a few years…
40
The misanthropes at the ABC are at it again:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-07-25/population-growth-world-overshoot-day/11320990
Earth Overshoot Day is the sin of consuming beyond your notional allowance that an NGO made up. Needless to say, Australia and other westernised countries are the main culprits. These Neo-Malthusians need to wake up and realise that we ain’t buying what they’re selling… one thing that is definitely in oversupply.
Why are we still forced to fund this ridiculously biased organisation?
140
“The Pause still matters even years after it stopped pausing. ” Hmm, so you think the models are not good enough, the inference is that you have a better one. This better model would be great to see. Disparaging a model for not meeting your model is fine, but I would like to see your model make some testable predictions
217
Sir … sir … there has been massive model failure. The hypothesis has been falsified, so its a blank canvas.
The coupling of CO2 and temperatures was a cunning move, junk in junk out, assisted by adjustments and UHI, might be better to look at precipitation.
90
No, el gordo, I must disagree, the current models are not as accurate as those on this site would like, but then they are modeling a very complex system. My understanding that the models have made great strides in the way they incorporate clouds, CO2 flux etc. My point is that if you believe that the current models are kaput, that can only be in reference to your own model. So for example, we are in agreement about the effects on Australia of El Nino, but it is a model, it uses historical data to make predictions of the future, and those predictions are limited to only about 6 months ahead. Climate models are making statements 20-30 years ahead, and are bound to be imprecise
116
” the current models are not as accurate as those on this site would like”
More GARBAGE from PF
The current models are NOT ACCURATE IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER
They vary hugely from one model to another and the ONLY one that comes close to REALITY is the Russia one with a very low climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2
ALL the other models are basically USELESS
They have NOT made huge strides because they STILL incorporate fallacies like warming by atmospheric CO2.
They are perennially WRONG and will continue to be that way until they get rid of the anti-CO2 mantra from their design.
They serve NO PURPOSE except mindless propaganda.
—
“if you believe that the current models are kaput, that can only be in reference to your own model.”
Again with the silly fantasy logic.
This car doesn’t work, so John must have one that does.
Its a BS piece of dumb logic.
The climate models don’t work AGAINST REALITY, the ultimate model.
They are a FAILURE.
PERIOD. !
150
The problem is politicians form policy off these imprecise models.
120
That is their job Heywood, also making policy for say defense, which has a timeline of 30+ years for capital purchases like ships, planes and subs. Those threat models are equally imprecise, so you are saying that we should not spend on that area.
121
We’ve now had “Climate Models” since the 1970’s
Almost 50 years.
Since when have any of your beloved “Climate Models” been right Peter ?
NEVER !
With each passing year we discover new factors that effect our planet’s climate
That are not built into your models.
For example UHI in all the major cities of the planet
Due to massive ‘citification’ of the global human population.
Turning now to ” Defence models” (??? )
Predicting our future defence needs
Is based on the behaviour of humans & nations in our region.
Frankly that is far far more understood, predictable
And accurate.
Though on occasions our ‘worthy’ Commonwealth government has completely failed to act on them.
For example in the 1930’s -1941 as regards Japan.
120
So your model is better?
19
WOW, PF cannot read or COMPREHEND anything.. Dumb as a cow pat !!!
The climate models are WRONG.
They have been gauged against REALITY and been found sadly lacking.
Would drive a car with no brakes and jamming accelerator, just because there wasn’t another car? Only a total idiot would do that.
The climate models as they are, are doing IMMEASUREABLE DAMAGE.
Gullible politicians actually believe the clowns that produce these FAILED models, and it is leaving many once-developed countries with decimated electricity supply systems and skyrocketing cost.
If the solar scientists are correct and the world dips into a cooling trend, places like UK and Germany are going to be in desperate trouble because they have got rid of what could have provided that electricity.
Using the current non-science FAILED “climate” models is DANGEROUS and will almost certainly lead to even greater hardship for a lot of people, because they are just PLAIN WRONG. !
But you DON’T CARE, do you PF.
So long as the socialist agenda takes hold.
Don’t forget, little boy.. YOU will STILL be at the bottom of the ladder.
80
“Those threat models are equally imprecise”
But they are, at least, usually based on something real and tangible.
Climate models.. not so much !
90
I saw a photo of Grumpy Cat shortly before looking at more of the comments here and I was thinking we hadn’t seen Heywood for a bit. Lo and behold, here you are! Greetings.
60
It has been a while. I pop in occasionally 🙂
10
🙂
10
Absolute BS there Peter Fitzroy,
It’s not “the current models are not as accurate as those on this site would like, but then they are modeling a very complex system”… It’s that they are utterly inaccurate, if it were not for modelers constantly ‘TUNING’ their modeled results would be even farther from reality. They are a waste of time and money!
The Climate Models™ as they are today (and more so with past versions), are just a tool to scare people with, especially politicians. They have NO legitimate use in SCIENCE of investigating climate as NOT ENOUGH RESEARCH has been done to correctly understand the basic processes of how our climate operates. These models are constructed on foundations of ignorance!
These modelers just tweak and ‘tune’ their models to get the results that their Overlords pay them to produce.
See the paper referenced above (https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00135.1 Titled ‘The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning’)
90
‘ … the models have made great strides in the way they incorporate clouds …’
Link?
80
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00451.1
18
“systematic error estimate 20-50%”
You are one funny little anti-science clown, PF !!
And again we see this taking the mean of 50 odd WRONG models, with a HUGE range or results, and syphoning out something they PRETEND is real.
Quite HILARIOUS, PF. 🙂
But you don’t have the scientific comprehension to see just how DUMB that really is, do you.. Just post the link, zero comprehension required 😉 !!
80
And of course the LATEST REAL SCIENCE (2019) about cloud observation invalidates the hype about those virtual reality computer models, including that 2012 ametsoc document referenced above.
A Russian paper https://journals.eco-vector.com/0205-9614/article/view/11444 titles ‘Cloud cover changes “explain the linear trend of global temperature” since the 1980s’
And see https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf from an expert reviewer for the IPPC’s last climate report (AR5, 2013).
40
Peter, did you read the Abstract of the paper that you linked to? Firstly it’s old – 2012. Secondly, the Abstract seems to be saying that the paper details differences between CIMP3 and CIMP5. There is no indication in the Abstract that the paper offers any solutions. Please correct me if I’m wrong, as I’ve only looked at the Abstract.
50
The best model so far is the Russian model. This model is never referenced by the UN-IPCC because it does not play-up the effects of CO2 and man’s contribution to the world warming.
The Russians have an upgraded model called INM-CM5 and this paper spells out how it works, ‘Simulation of observed climate changes in 1850-2014 with climate model INM-CM5’ published May 8, 2018 by Evgeny Volodin and Andrey Gritsun in Earth Systems Dynamics. https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2018-21/esd-2018-21.pdf
An interesting point is to note is within the model —
Carbon Cycle Module
The climate model INMCM5 has а carbon cycle module (Volodin 2007), where atmospheric CO2 concentration, carbon in vegetation, soil and ocean are calculated. In soil, а single carbon pool is considered. In the ocean, the only prognostic variable in the carbon cycle is total inorganic carbon. Biological pump is prescribed. The model calculates methane emission from wetlands and has a simplified methane cycle (Volodin 2008). Parameterizations of some electrical phenomena, including calculation of ionospheric potential and flash intensity (Mareev and Volodin 2014), are also included in the model.
And is based on this https://malagabay.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/co2-budget.gif
The model is not perfect but it is much better than ANY of the others.
For a more complete assessment of this model see https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/10/22/2018-update-best-climate-model-inmcm5/
50
‘Four different measurements reflect the difficulties in determining the role of water in the atmosphere; Relative Humidity, Absolute Humidity, Specific Humidity, and Mixing Ratio. Relative Humidity is the only one the public knows, but it is also the most meaningless.’
Dr Tim Ball
70
and?
112
Comprehension of anything even basic, is NOT your strong suit, is it little PF.
110
Now, let’s get back to the very basis of your religious anti-science brain-washing.
That question you have spent ages running around like a headless chook trying to avoid answering..
Do you have any empirical evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2.
90
“you have spent ages running around like a headless chook trying to avoid answering”.
Andy, I’ve had some experience at watching them. Doesn’t last long but make sure you step back.
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/vegans-save-a-cow-kill-1000-mice-eat-less-red-meat-get-anemia/#comment-2163190
50
“Hmm, so you think the models are not good enough, the inference is that you have a better one.”
Yet another idiotic anti-science zero-logic comment from PF.
The climate models are GARBAGE.. Period.
They have been consistently PROVEN WRONG.
Very strange that anyone would think that something PROVEN to be wrong, is in some way “worthwhile”.
I suppose it does explain your continued idiotic comments here..
When you are monumental failure.. just keep doing the same thing.. that’s the PF way. !!
110
So what is your prediction, what is your model? Disparagement is easy
214
I predict it will follow a NATURAL path into the future, whatever that may be.
Solar cycles say some cooling heading our way.
But I don’t PRETEND to have a crystal ball like these “climate science” propagandist fools do.
As you are WELL AWARE, there is NO EVIDENCE that CO2 has anything to do with it.
The climate models have PROVEN themselves WRONG against nature and against REALITY.
Get over it.
130
So odd that you STILL thing something that is PROVEN to be monumentally WRONG is worth paying any attention to whatsoever.
Quite a bizarre state on non-mind. !!
110
Suppose you had a car where the brakes had been PROVEN to be faulty.,
Would you still drive it !!
WOW !!!
120
As all the models do not work
Throw the crap out Peter.
AND
Sack the idiots who have wasted our taxes
Playing around with them for decades.
COMMON SENSE !
90
common sense is still a model, what will you use it to predict – hotter, colder?
09
trolling mindlessly still , hey PF.
desperately seeking attention.
so pitifully sad.
70
Peter Fitzroy,
So what is your prediction, what is your model?
We do not need predictions — it is your failing that you believe we do. IMO we need contingencies based solely on climate history.
We don’t need to waste money on models until we understand all the basic physics of how the chaotic climate system operates and can measure all of them with high accuracy!
Within any chaotic system, such as weather and climate, the initial conditions matter as to the evolution of the system. Any incorrectly assessed condition, or mathematical formulation error results in the evolution being far from the reality of a real physical chaotic system (like weather and climate).
These fráuðulent but sophisticated ‘Climate Models™’ do just that, evolve to incorrect results.
120
so your model is of a chaotic system, in which nothing can be predicted? It is still a model, and your non prediction is still a prediction. so to falsify your model any prediction made by another model which is validated will force you to dump your model
111
“in which nothing can be predicted?”
Just like climate models.. They predicted
They GOT IT WRONG !!
Models can occasionally right, just by dumb luck.
Climate models can’t even manage that. !
Scientific comprehension is NOT part of your mental capability, is it PF. !!
80
I had to read this twice:
“validated will force you to dump your model”.
But it was “dump”.
A bit like getting confused over “hope” and “dope”.
50
Peter Fitzroy says “models are used everywhere” indeed they, and all-to-often they are misapplied, misused. Most model work in a limited field of study, with limited degrees of freedom; ultimately only models that have all relevant parameters correctly formulated and applied are deemed worthy of use for real-world applications.
Indeed I’ve worked with many types of models for much of my life. The fact they work adequately was because they worked within well known and defined physical properties that could be set within very strictly defined ranges of freedom.
None of them were perfect and any of them could often give stupid outputs when checked against reality.
Economic models have parameters that often are poorly or badly ill-defined, and are notorious for being inaccurate.
But why waste my time explaining this to you? You do not understand why, when, and how models should be used!
What is your PhD subject, knitting?
80
So you accept models in one field, but not another, (I’d make a joke about you and knit wit, but its late and you are witless)
17
Peter Fitzroy,
As I said “they worked within well known and defined physical properties that could be set within very strictly defined ranges of freedom.” this is not the case with Climate Models™.
Models can be used and are deemed worthy when all required parameters are correctly known, measured, and mathematically characterized (whether chaotic or not). Just parameterizing all the aspects that are unknown is fudge, and allows far too much tweaking to be done to get the models to fit the required politics.
These Climate Models™ are nowhere near the required level of sophistication as THE BASIC SCIENCE HAS NOT BEEN DONE!
I know this is a waste of time explaining to you as you don’t not have the intellectual ability to see the difference.
60
Poor PF, he KNOWS he has lost, but has to keep yabbering
In doing so he clearly shows that he is clueless about validation and how models are MEANT to work.
Scientific comprehension is not at all easy for the little minded tyke, .. poor thing ! 🙂
10
SACK YOUR MODEL MAKERS PETER
THEY ARE ADULTS PLAYING A KIDS GAME
FOR ADULT SALARIES
PAID BY TAXPAYERS
SACK THE FOOLS
60
models are used everywhere, economic models with set interest rates are an example, shall we ditch those?
15
@Peter Fitzroy
Peter frankly I despise someone who constantly tries to win debating points by changing the topic being argued.
You could not win any points on Climate models.
So you’ve just gone from discussing your childish climate models to economics.
How childish is that ?
50
Economic models are tested on a daily basis.
They don’t always get it right because its a somewhat chaotic market.
Nor do they even pretend to look more than a few months ahead with any accuracy.
Climate models have FAILED at every step and PRETEND they can look way into the future.
One is a realistic effort.. the other is just crystal ball gazing.
20
and so Peter Fitzroy, with the comment “so your model is of a chaotic system, in which nothing can be predicted?” shows that you are ignorant about climate, computer modeling, and chaos theory.
60
did I say that? Do not put words in my mouth
08
You numpty,
You said in the first sentence “so your model is of a chaotic system, in which nothing can be predicted?” , it’s right here http://joannenova.com.au/2019/07/the-pause-in-global-warming-shows-co2-may-be-more-powerful-say-hello-to-hyperwarming-wierdness/?replytocom=2166882#respond
This is where you flim-flam about models again.
I repeat we don’t need models we need individual nation states making contingency plans, based on prior history, for their people and their welfare.
NO UN, NO UN blessed modeled cráp.
50
‘So what is your prediction, what is your model?’
The climate system is cyclic and non linear, so the coming decades should mimic the 1950s and 1960s, wetter and cooler.
90
Very good, what values do we assign? could it be that if we return to the average values of the 50′ and 60’s then you are right. Will 2025 suit as a date?
010
You STILL don’t comprehend do you, PF.
So funny ! 🙂
You still think we should be able to “predict” in a chaotic, sort of cyclic, non-linear system.
Would be easier to teach logic to a piece of slime mould.
110
And AndyG55,
Chaotic systems show quasi-cyclic variations about their all of their loci of pseudo-stability.
30
Solar indications are for a cooling trend.
Cycling indications of both the AMO and PDO shifting to their cooling phase.
Lots of warmer air being pumped up to the Arctic region where it will cool.
CO2 has zero proven effect on climate.
So what do you think could drive further warming, apart from UHI and data adjustment?
Maybe another El Nino burp, releasing solar powered warming from the oceans?
You do know the only warming since the COOLER period of the late 1970s has come from El Nino events, don’t you PF?
Events that climate models FAIL to model or to predict. 😉
90
Ah, no I don’t, and my evidence is the opposite
According to three papers published in Nature and Nature Geoscience on Thursday, international teams of scientists used seven different statistical techniques to reconstruct global temperature during the so-called Common Era starting 2000 years ago.
Pause
Unmute
Current Time
0:18
/
Duration
1:47
Fullscreen
A new report claims that Earth’s rapid warming in the late 20th century was far more widespread than any temperature variations during the previous 2,000 years.
The scientists studied variability over decades and centuries, including well-known periods of shifting temperatures such as the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. They found no era had the spatial extent or intensity of the heating over recent decades.
“Periods of warming and cooling have happened in the past but they were nowhere near the magnitude or the speed of the current warming,” said Benjamin Henley, a University of Melbourne researcher and co-author of one of the papers. “The main, overwhelming impact on the climate has been in the recent decades, since about 1950.”
The papers build on a major global effort to reconstruct past climate using a range of data sources, such as tree rings and coral cores, that was published in 2017.
011
Yep, the AGW crowd are using all their pseudo science to magic away the MWP
There has been NO WARMING since the 1970s that didn’t come from El Nino events. So he is flat out LYING about warming trends (unless he is using the much fabricated GISS rather than REAL temperatures.)
There was COOLING from 1940-1970.
We do not have the resolution of daily data in the past to say anything about steepness of warming.
Henley has always been a RABID AGW activist/believer, and that is what drives his pseudo-science.
20
Little PF, there are MANY parts of the globe that are NOT WARMING now and haven’t for many years.
In fact, it was probably warmer in the 1930s,40s that now and almost certainly warmed faster from 1900 up to the 1940’s in the NH
https://i.postimg.cc/fTYk2zrk/Instrumental-Temperatures-World-10-Regions-1900-2010-Lansner-and.jpg
Seems they forget to say that THERE IS CURRENTLY NO GLOBAL WARMING
20
Cooler NOW than for most of the last 10,000 years
https://notrickszone.com/2017/05/04/there-has-been-no-man-made-global-warming-in-the-southern-hemisphere-equatorial-regions/comment-page-1/#comment-1205654
30
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C38.038185000000055&z=1
Medieval warm period EXISTED.
Little Ice Age EXISTED
Get over it.
20
yes you do, how else can you dismiss the models?
011
“how else can you dismiss the models?”
You put them AGAINST REALITY
The only test needed.
They have FAILED.
End of story.!
80
Peter Firzroy, I name you for what you are : TROLL
Your role here is simply to make
Nonsense comments that
Annoy & distract others here.
And thus demean this blog.
MODERATORS PLEASE TAKE NOTE !
ANDY PLEASE TAKE NOTE
70
Yes Bill, I have noted, and drawn attention to most of PF’s idiotic troll-like posts.
Everyone is well aware he is a mindless troll.
Even he has to have a purpose in life.
70
A troll? I’m averaging a hat tip every month. Neither you or Andy are in that league
010
You ‘believe’ in consensus ruling climate science, well it may well be useful to take a vote on whether you are perceived by the majority of readers and commenters here whether or not you are a troll.
I vote you are a troll.
60
Yes, you draw attention to the idiocy, lies and maleficence of the AGW agenda.
This is good. Gives us all something to laugh at.
Otherwise you get chopped down at every point, because you are just plain ignorant.
You are a troll, no doubt abut that being your over-riding purpose for coming here.
Unless you INTENTIONALLY come to make a MOCKERY of yourself and the general AGW cluelessness.
20
Now , where is that empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
SADLY LACKING as always , isn’t if PF.
Duck and weave in your continued evasion, little trollette. 😉
20
We all occasionally make mistakes here and make fools of ourselves: maybe 1% of the time.
Feter PitzRoy is different, and like you I’ve commented on this situation: he seems to be a 97 percenter.
I think he insults everyone here.
Apparently it’s got something to do with freedom of speech. He’s done very well today, so many comments without actually saying anything.
But we must admit that it takes enormous courage to come on here and expose his deepest inadequacies.
Truly courageous.
KK
50
They are dismissed because when compared to what really happens they FAIL TO VALIDATE!
50
Isn’t it obvious that AGW is a religion? Basic dogmas are not to be questioned, therefore the world is warming due to human emissions of GHGs (faith), therefore the “pause” (as compared to predictions of venerable GCMs) can not be due to too high climate sensitivity parameter in GCM’s (considerably higher then actually measured by “deniers”), it must be that that climate sensitivity parameter is even higher – which conveniently corresponds to the current hype “it is even worse then we thought”.
100
Pants on fire…..doubling down…
MWP was local only…..apparently….ROFL..
Rear guard action…..they really are desperate…
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/climate-change-nothing-like-this-over-past-2000-years-scientists/11345022
“Climate scientists writing in the journal Nature have found there is no evidence for “globally coherent warm and cold periods” over the past 2,000 years prior to industrialisation.
“That’s significant, because climate change deniers have sometimes pointed to epochs like the so-called “Little Ice Age” or “Medieval Warm Period” to argue that the current global warming is one among multiple similar global climate events.
“Climate scientists writing in the journal Nature have found there is no evidence for “globally coherent warm and cold periods” over the past 2,000 years prior to industrialisation.
“That’s significant, because climate change deniers have sometimes pointed to epochs like the so-called “Little Ice Age” or “Medieval Warm Period” to argue that the current global warming is one among multiple similar global climate events.
“But what the research actually shows is that other “peak warming and cooling events” over the past two millennia appear to have been localised, whereas the human-caused global warming observed over the past 150 years is unparalleled in its global scale (not to mention its absolute temperatures).ut what the research actually shows is that other “peak warming and cooling events” over the past two millennia appear to have been localised, whereas the human-caused global warming observed over the past 150 years is unparalleled in its global scale (not to mention its absolute temperatures).
71
Trouble for these poor petals, is that the current warming is not happening everywhere either.
They have just hung themselves out to dry.. and its raining !!
120
Hyperwarming? sounds more like hyperstupidity! Actually it sounds like a PHD student setting up their post doc career as a research scientist in a university department dependent on the CO2 hoax for grant money.
Human emissions of CO2 have increased without halt for nearly 300 years or so, yet temperatures have risen, fallen, flattened and generally varied as they always had. As Jo indicates, that energy supposedly trapped by all the extra CO2 has to go somewhere, it can not just disappear for decades at a time. What if variations in our local star have something to do with temperatures on Earth?
Que the headline “Climate scientists shocked to discover…..the SUN.”
80
DonS:
You are forgetting that all those attending Climate Conferences, Working Meetings on Climate etc. all (so I am told) are using carbon offsets to counter the effect of all that extra CO2 from the air travel. Then there are the increasing emissions from countries like China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia etc. etc. which should have caused extra warming.
Since all that extra CO2 doesn’t result in warming it follows that those carbon offsets must have a greater sensitivity than thought. More Climate Conference (and offsets) will result in global cooling!
The obvious solution is to ban all Climate Conferences and meeting for 5 years (or possibly 10 years) with the associated air travel. Those interested should use e-mail or Skype or native runners with a message in a forked stick in order to communicate.
Should there be obvious Global Warming (not just minor tweaks in the databases) then future policy can be set with confidence. Until this confirmation climate policy should follow the Chinese (or Indian, or Indonesian, or Russian, or Vietnamese etc) policy.
50
CLIMATE CHANGE MODELLING – PSEUDOSCIENCE IN ACTION
How many scientists does it take to change a planet’s climate?
Judging from an earlier paper that claimed to explain The Pause published online on June 19 2017 – “Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates” – by Benjamin Santer, Matthew England, Michael Mann and others – at least sixteen, being the number of authors.
The Santer et al. paper is revealing. It tries to explain (in six pages) the divergence between actual global temperatures and those projected by climate models during the past two decades. A stunning admission, one confirming what sceptics had been suggesting for years: the models were not infallible.
The divergence arose, the paper concluded, because one could not predict correctly the magnitude of certain so-called natural forcings, including solar intensity, volcanic activity and internal variability. As for model “sensitivity” to atmospheric carbon dioxide, it apparently was correct.
“We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”
It was a cheeky, fallacious argument. For if model projections (aka “predictions”) could be explained away on THIS occasion by evoking “systematic deficiencies”, nebulous phenomena such as “internal variability”, or the poor quality of real-world data, presumably they could be explained away on ANY future occasion by the gatekeepers of climate-truth and their masters. In other words, the CO2 warming hypothesis hard-wired into the models was unfalsifiable. Heads we win, tails you lose.
“What started as simply a relationship between carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere and the temperature of our planet has morphed into pseudoscience, primarily because it is no longer falsifiable.” (M Bharadwaj 12 October 2017)
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2017/12/climate-elfs-cheer-santer-pause/
80
As always, if dinner is spoiled, add more chili peppers. If the customers are still not happy, add still more chili peppers. Repeat until the customers are no longer able to complain or until there is no more other people’s money to spend on more chili peppers.
What could go wrong? Nothing. It was wrong from the get go.
70
L.G., I diced quite a few fresh hot chili peppers into my chili con carne Mexican a la beef ‘n’ bean nachos brew tonight, mmm.
“What could go wrong?” I’ll let you know tomorrow…
50
If you like hot chili peppers, it might be OK for you. I view adding chili pepper to food as an assault best left to individual taste. It is impossible to remove once added. It is almost always added in excess to the point of totally obliterating the taste of the underlying food. I can’t stand more than a slight touch. Then only for some food dishes.
I find a mild salsa to be approaching too hot. Medium is over the top too hot. That is why I used it as a metaphor for excessive top down governmental meddling into one’s life. Easy to overdo, inexpensive to add more of, and absolutely ruins everything it touches.
50
Cheers Lionell, I got the metaphor, was simply having some fun ‘n’ games (and sharing non-vegan recipes) because sometimes all this political/sciency stuff and big equations about tiny numbers makes my eyes water and vision blurry – as did last night’s Chili a la Greg which, once again, thankfully, I survived. Plus there’s more for tonight!
As for governments spending other people’s moolah, President Cindy – in the muddle of an ’emergency’ – has again flown the coop to fly in a ‘gas-guzzling polluting’ aeroplane to Tokelau to visit her dad who’s the Administrator/Commissioner of the islands to have a ‘conversation about climate change‘ or sumpthink or other. Drowning in it. Provecho!
20
“A decade without any global warming is more likely to happen if the climate is more sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions, new research has revealed”
Imagine the devastation when it is 10 decades without global warming.
50
richard:
you mean as in the seventeenth century during the Little Ice Age? All that air pollution mentioned by visitors must have been due to something or other than fires light by the locals trying to keep warm. Whatever the cause (and some sceptics claim that increasing coal shipments from Newcastle might have been it) by the early 1700’s it was possible to view the sun with the naked eye. As the city grew things didn’t improve ( e.g. Dickens and The London Particular fogs) until the Clean Air Acts of the mid 1950’s.
40
For the record, in December 2017 Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ peer-reviewed Molar Mass version of the Ideal Gas Law definitively refuted any possible CO2 connection to climate fluctuations: Where GAST Temperature T = PM/Rp, any planet’s near-surface global Temperature derives from its Atmospheric Pressure P times Mean Molar Mass M over its Gas Constant R times Atmospheric Density p. Absent any carbon-factor, proportional CO2 is a non-issue.
More recently, Russian researcher Valentina Zharkova’s “Climate – Solar Magnetic Field” (C-SMF) hypothesis (October 2018), citing Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark’s 2005 “Cosmic Ray – Cloud Cover” model, provides historical proof-positive that –absent major astro-geophysical exigencies (axial precession, geothermal currents; cometary/meteorite strikes, plate-tectonic volcanism)– Earth’s semi-millennial atmospheric/oceanic circulation patterns reflect ambient Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to the virtual exclusion of all else.
Meantime, global temperatures have been trending downward for the past 3,300 years. If this continues, despite Klimat Kultists’ bleats-and-squeaks a looming 70+ year Grand Solar Minimum to c. AD 2100 –following a 500-year Little Ice Age from AD 1350 to 1850/1890 and its 140-year “amplitude compression” aftermath to c. 2030– likely portends geophysically induced (plate tectonic vs. climatological) 102-kiloyear Pleistocene glaciations up to 2½ miles deep.
Not only is this long-term, cyclical climatic downturn centuries overdue (per above, Earth’s latest Holocene Interglacial Epoch ended in 12,250 + 3,500 – 14,400 = AD 1350 [Roman calendar, adjusted for the 1,500-year Younger Dryas “cold shock” of BC 9950 – 8450]) , but geophysical records from the mid-Pliocene 3.60 million YBP attest that continental-landmass dispositions have driven serial 102-kiloyear Pleistocene Ice Ages interspersed with median 12,250-year remissions for eras long preceding hominid evolution.
80
Something we should all be very aware of.
The dangers of a cooling trend are FAR greater than a small amount of warming
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/24/record-cold-cripples-food-crops-future-food-security-at-risk/
Warming would actually OPEN UP vast areas of land to food production.
Crops are MUCH more sensitive to cold than to heat.
100
There you go with those facts again, Andy. Poor Fitzroy’s already had his dose for the day – head will be spinning…
90
The whole business of models is absurd. These ‘researchers’ have no idea. In their view the model is always right and their models are so sensitive. Obviously that’s better than being right.
A model represents a hypothesis. It is likely to be wrong and is only right when it gets everything right in the past and in the future. After 30 years of models getting nothing at all right, it is amazing that people present models as fact. They are predicting sea rises which don’t happen. Temperature rises which don’t happen. And when random things happen, completely unpredicted, that is used as proof the random models were right.
Reality is a set of facts, not models. Models are only models when they are proven. Until then they are a guess and often wrong. After 30 years of model predictions the future is now the past and they were all wrong.
Now the big problem was leaving out the oceans? Duh! Oops? What about the solar cycles? What about cloud cover? What about ocean currents? What about volcanoes? What about long term ocean oscillations considering the oceans?
Consider that the oceans are 340x the weight of the atmosphere (1 atmosphere per 10 metres and the average depth is 3.4km) and vastly high heat capacity, considering dry air is an insulator. The heat capacity of water is 4,200 Joules per kg per degree where the heat capacity of air is 1,000Joules per kg per degree. So 340x the weight and 4x the heat capacity. The heat capacity storage of the owater is 1400x that of the thin air above and these mad modellers ignored the oceans?
Really, what weather would there be without water? No, it’s all Carbon dioxide we are told. It’s exasperating that anyone quotes these incredibly sensitive models. Why not use models which are proven? In the odd world of climate necromancers, all models are correct.
To draw conclusions from something which is no more than conjecture translated into a computer program would never have landed a man on the moon. Science has taken a huge leap backwards in 50 years and Man Made CO2 driven Global Warming so far has turned out to be wrong in every prediction.
But who cares? Let’s believe what the computer says. Flipping coins might be better than these sensitive models. And what does sensitive mean? Random illogical rubbish more like it.
40
better late than never, I guess. perhaps ABC had to walk to Tasmania to do their piece on Bob Brown and wind:
VIDEO: 7min34sec: 25 Jul: ABC 7.30 Report: Why is the father of the Australian greens opposing a massive renewable energy project?
Posted Thu 25 Jul 2019
Former Greens leader Bob Brown has come out swinging against a wind farm proposed for the north west corner of Tasmania. Its developers hope it’ll help provide power to the Australian mainland as well as Tasmania. Supporters say it’ll create jobs in an area desperate for them and they’re questioning why Bob Brown is opposed.
https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/why-is-the-father-of-the-australian-greens/11347954
if u don’t want to watch the above, most of it is here:
25 Jul: ABC: Bob Brown’s opposition to wind farm on Tasmania’s Robbins Island labelled ‘the height of hypocrisy’
7.30 By Carrington Clarke
“We have alternatives for renewable energy. We don’t have alternatives for extinct species of birds,” Dr Brown told 7.30.
“We’re in an age where it’s predicted 30 per cent of Australia’s birds will go to extinction this century because of human pressures. And we have to think about biodiversity.”
Supporters of the wind farm say it will create much needed green jobs in an area crying out for employment.
Robbins Island is one of the windiest places on earth…
John Hammond’s family has owned the island for more than a century. He says it is the perfect place to generate clean green wind power…
In partnership with the Hammond family, renewable energy company UPC wants to build a $1.6 billion wind farm on the island…
(UPC chief operating officer David Pollington) argues projects like Robbins Island are good news for consumers in Tasmania and on the mainland.
“We’re confident that we can produce energy at a lower rate than is currently the average price in the market,” Mr Pollington said.
“So we should be helping depress the price of electricity for consumers.”…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-25/bob-browns-opposition-to-wind-farm-labelled-hypocrisy/11345200
24 Jul: Guardian: The attacks on Bob Brown for opposing a windfarm are exhausting and hypocritical
There are better and worse places to build turbines. Australians should be encouraged to take part in such debates
by Richard Denniss
(Richard Denniss is chief economist at the Australia Institute. He was a strategy advisor to Bob Brown when he was a senator)
How many wedge-tailed eagles is a black-throated finch worth? No doubt there’s an economist out there willing to have a crack at answering that question, but the right of Australian politics seem to have already figured it out without so much as community survey: eagles are important and finches are not…
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/24/the-attacks-on-bob-brown-for-opposing-a-windfarm-are-exhausting-and-hypocritical?CMP=share_btn_tw
40
I think it was George Box who once said: “All models are wrong. Some are useful.”
Guess which category the alarmist models fit into?
And, by the way, “The Onion” is world-class journalism…
Cheers,
Mike
40
Eyes glaze over and shut down all senses. Might be something interesting on the telly…
50
The media sounding off again.
Headline from today’s Economist:
“Extreme weather. Greenhouse-gas emissions are increasing the frequency of heatwaves. And it will get worse in future.”
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2019/07/25/greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-increasing-the-frequency-of-heatwaves?cid1=cust/dailypicks1/n/bl/n/20190725n/owned/n/n/dailypicks1/n/n/EU/283667/n
10
That’s nothing compared to the fearsome fungus coming to getya!
Not mushroom for optimism I’m afraid.
10