»  
  «

Tuesday Open Thread

…..

9.9 out of 10 based on 10 ratings

October 27th, 2020 | Tags: | Category: Uncategorized | Print This Post Print This Post | |

75 comments to Tuesday Open Thread

  • #
    RickWill
    October 27, 2020 at 2:23 pm

    An interesting paper on cyclone modelling that identifies the importance of CAPE in cyclone intensification:
    https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2018.1433433

    This study addresses the role of convective available potential energy (CAPE) in the intensification of simulated tropical cyclones. Additionally, it also examines the ‘wind-induced surface heat exchange’ (WISHE) theory in which CAPE is non-existent during intensification. We use a hierarchy of models with different complexity. A low-order tropical cyclone model forms the simplest model. It is found that the damping of CAPE by fast convective exchange as assumed in the WISHE theory inhibits substantial intensification in the model. This result can be explained by the dominance of the secondary circulation over surface heat transfer in the growth stage. It leads to entrainment of low entropy air into the eyewall resulting in the weakening of the cyclone. Other simulations reveal that the intensification rate increases with increasing initial CAPE and that the inner core CAPE is smaller than that of the ambient region. Investigations with the more complex Ooyama model yield qualitatively similar results.

    03

    • #
      Gee Aye
      October 27, 2020 at 2:40 pm

      that identifies the importance of CAPE in cyclone intensification:

      using models

      34

      • #
        Martin Clark
        October 27, 2020 at 2:57 pm

        Gee Aye, not all models are crap. Finite element analysis usually works and that is modelling. The aircraft that you fly on is designed using modelling, and it is a model that determines what settings to apply when it takes off.
        I wrote a process model back in 2006 that saved the local construction industry something like $140 million over about 6 years.

        60

        • #
          Gee Aye
          October 27, 2020 at 3:00 pm

          according to many here you can’t use models. If you can’t observe it it does not exist.

          114

          • #
            yarpos
            October 27, 2020 at 3:04 pm

            Or according to Gs twisting of what they said

            120

          • #
            TedM
            October 27, 2020 at 3:57 pm

            Still swallowing camels and straining at Gnats GA.

            80

          • #
            robert rosicka
            October 27, 2020 at 5:27 pm

            Models can be a useful in a variety of ways but predicting climate change that’s just a joke .

            70

          • #
            R.B.
            October 27, 2020 at 10:03 pm

            Reminding people that it’s a model reminds them that the result depends on human input. If everything is done properly, still
            “… all models are approximations. Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful.”- George Box
            So we have climate models that are not complex enough to come close to modelling the climate as it actually works, that gives a climate sensitivity over a range of a few degrees – and tweaked by activists.

            30

            • #
              David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz
              October 28, 2020 at 7:22 am

              If the science was really “in”, wouldn’t the climate sensitivity be an input to the model, not an output from it?
              Cheers
              Dave B

              30

          • #
            Shaun
            October 28, 2020 at 9:56 am

            according to many here you can’t use models. If you can’t observe it it does not exist.

            Actually mate, that’s not what people around here say at all.

            What they actually say is that if you compare the output of your models to observed reality and they disagree, your model is s#!t and should be thrown out. But, the warmist idiots declare their models correct and it’s reality that is false. And 40+ years of them being 100% wrong on every prediction they have ever made doesn’t sway their religious conviction one little bit. That’s some commitment to ignorance now isn’t it?

            30

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.
            October 28, 2020 at 11:23 am

            GA @#1.1.1.1

            It’s the only safe way. To avoid or even minimise error you have to rely on observation. To be of value any model must consistently match the observations.

            There are of course computer models which deal in precise terms. But not in the world of climate/weather, where compounding approximations abound.

            00

        • #
          Richard Greene
          October 28, 2020 at 7:26 am

          Martin
          There were aircraft flying long before there were models. The models are used to design a prototype.
          The physics of flying are known well enough so a test pilot is willing to fly the prototype.

          With climate change there is no detailed physics model for climate change. Even if there was such a model, that defined the causes of climate change with great accuracy, predicting the future climate might still be impossible.

          There may be climate cycles with some regularity, or maybe climate events are more random and will never be predictable.

          The lack of a precise climate change physics model means NO GLOBAL CIRCULATION CLIMATE MODEL CAN EXIST.

          The products called “climate models” are actually computer games that predict whatever the owners want predicted, and except for one, they want to predict rapid global warming.

          The one computer game that makes does hind-casting and forecasting is the Russian INMCM-5, which probably makes good “predictions” because of luck — with dozens of models in the world, one is bound to look good by chance alone.

          But it’s Russian, Russian, Russian, so must be colluding with Donald Trump.

          20

  • #
    Martin Clark
    October 27, 2020 at 2:49 pm

    Interesting link. My job for many years included designating design windspeeds, No serious issues on my watch, even though it was sometimes difficult to ensure they were applied by the unwilling. On the other hand I was sometimes expected to work out “what this one is going to do.”

    10

  • #
    DonS
    October 27, 2020 at 2:49 pm

    Hi Jo

    I see in the news that PG&E have cut power supplies to 350,000 homes in California because their dud infrastructure combined with years of forest mis-management might lead to wildfire outbreaks. Apparently they will turn it back on when they decide it safe. Days or weeks? who knows. How do folks in California cope with sudden power outages like this and why are they not up in arms about it? People can get used to anything I guess.

    Great advertisement for Democrat climate policies a week out from the election!

    130

  • #
    Small Footprint
    October 27, 2020 at 3:13 pm

    According to the 2020 Presidential Election Betting Odds Tracker at OddsShark, Donald Trump was the favourite back in July 2019 – but now, “Biden is a -185 favourite to win the 2020 US presidential election, with Trump coming back at +140”.
    These are the odds according to some of the major betting agencies, as of October 27.
    Basically, it means for every $1 you put on that candidate you would get the below in return if they won.

    TAB
    • Biden: $1.54
    • Trump: $2.50

    LADBROKES
    • Biden: $1.48
    • Trump: $2.75

    BETFAIR
    • Biden: $1.49
    • Trump: $3.05

    SPORTSBET
    • Biden: $1.47
    • Trump: $2.80

    NEDS
    • Biden: $1.48
    • Trump: $2.75

    Time to pony up – from the information provided on this site – there is a lot of money to be made here

    71

  • #
    • #
      el gordo
      October 27, 2020 at 4:54 pm

      Good catch, David. Exquisite timing.

      50

      • #
        David Wojick
        October 28, 2020 at 5:29 am

        Thanks EG. I posted the whole article at 11 pm Oz time last night but it went into moderation and is still there. Gremlins?

        50

    • #
      Gee Aye
      October 28, 2020 at 1:51 pm

      What did you think of their previous paper

      A climate skeptic with ties to the White House is back—this time as the co-author of a new paper that could help the Trump administration roll back climate rules.

      William Happer, an emeritus Princeton University physics professor, previously worked within the White House to conduct a hostile review of climate science. While that effort didn’t go far, Happer at the same time worked on research into methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

      22

      • #
        el gordo
        October 28, 2020 at 4:19 pm

        Donald employed Happer to purge academia of unscientific zealots, but the President’s daughter thought it wasn’t prudent. At the end of his contract Happer walked out, having failed to get the backing of the inner circle.

        Still, much was achieved, Donald understands that climate change is cyclic and CO2 has reached ‘saturation’ point, so global cooling is imminent.

        20

      • #
        Peter C
        October 28, 2020 at 8:33 pm

        Happer at the same time worked on research into methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

        I have read that Methane is a Potent Green House Gas over and over, but I do not see how it can be.

        Methane has a tiny absorbtion cross section and the limited absorbtion frequencies are already absorbed by Water Vapour which is hugely more abundant in the atmosphere.
        https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=SyPuLvYe&id=6C3959E7DA34857975F5A9FFF8801A12BCBF10A4&thid=OIP.SyPuLvYeLSjj3DZ2WvCp5gHaHa&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fpaullitely.files.wordpress.com%2f2014%2f10%2fradiationtransmittedbytheatmosphere-the-huge-bulk-of-infrared

        20

        • #
          Gee Aye
          October 29, 2020 at 8:56 am

          I have read that Methane is a Potent Green House Gas over and over, but I do not see how it can be.

          It is additive. If methane is about 4% and water 40-75% then just the total is the sum of the two and still not 100%

          11

          • #
            Graeme No.3
            October 29, 2020 at 9:48 am

            Gee Aye:

            If water vapour absorbs those limited frequencies then methane cannot.
            If methane does absorb some then water vapour cannot (unlikely given the concentrations).
            In either case there is no additive effect.

            10

            • #
              Gee Aye
              October 29, 2020 at 10:16 am

              See also my response to your other similar statement.

              If you have a bunch of IR rays (just go along with this naive language please) and you have some methane and water they can both absorb these. If you have a lot of absorbers it will not move far on average before being aborbed if you have not much it will travel further on average. The IR doesn’t care if you have mixed the water and methane or have one or the other. I don’t see why this is confusing for you.

              Another example. If you hold up a sheet of smokey glass and a sheet of smokey plastic and look at the sun, they both absorb the light and to some level. Use one or the other and you get less absorbed than both together.

              00

  • #
    MrGrimNasty
    October 27, 2020 at 7:33 pm

    Covid antibody persistence potentially not very long.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54696873

    I said at the outset that looking at other corona virus research suggested it could potentially be short.

    Consequences…… who knows?

    30

  • #
    David Wojick
    October 27, 2020 at 10:54 pm

    Study suggests no more CO2 warming
    By David Wojick, Ph.D.

    Precision research by physicists William Happer and William van Wijngaarden has determined that the present levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor are almost completely saturated. In radiation physics the technical term “saturated” implies that adding more molecules will not cause more warming.

    In plain language this means that from now on our emissions from burning fossil fuels could have little or no further impact on global warming. There would be no climate emergency. No threat at all. We could emit as much CO2 as we like; with no effect.

    This astounding finding resolves a huge uncertainty that has plagued climate science for over a century. How should saturation be measured and what is its extent with regard to the primary greenhouse gases?

    In radiation physics the term “saturation” is nothing like the simple thing we call saturation in ordinary language, just as the greenhouse effect is nothing like how greenhouses work. Your paper towel is saturated when it won’t pick up any more spilled milk. In contrast greenhouse gases are saturated when there is no more milk left to pick up, as it were, but it is far more complex than this simple analogy suggests.

    Happer is probably best known to our readers as a leading skeptical scientist. He co-founded the prestigious CO2 Coalition and recently served on the staff of the National Security Council, advising President Trump. But his career has been as a world class radiation physicist at Princeton. His numerous peer reviewed journal articles have collectively garnered over 12,000 citations by other researchers.

    In this study Professors Happer and van Wijngaarden (H&W) have worked through the saturation physics in painstaking detail. Their preprint is titled “Dependence of Earth’s Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases“. They have gone far beyond the work done to date on this complex problem.

    To begin with, while the standard studies treat the absorption of radiation by greenhouse molecules using crude absorption bands of radiation energy, H&W analyze the millions of distinct energies, called spectral lines, which make up these bands. This line by line approach has been an emerging field of analysis, often giving dramatically new results.

    Nor do they just look at absorption. Here is how Professor Happer put it to me:

    “You would do our community a big favor by getting across two important points that few understand. Firstly: Thermal emission of greenhouse gases is just as important as absorption. Secondly: How the temperature of the atmosphere varies with altitude is as important as the concentration of greenhouse gases.”

    So they looked hard, not just at absorption but also including emissions and atmospheric temperature variation. The work is exceedingly complex but the conclusions are dramatically clear.

    Happer and van Wijngaarden’s central conclusion is this:

    “For the most abundant greenhouse gases, H2O and CO2, the saturation effects are extreme, with per-molecule forcing powers suppressed by four orders of magnitude at standard concentrations…”

    Their graphical conclusions are especially telling:

    “Fig. 9 as well as Tables 2 and 4 show that at current concentrations, the forcings from all greenhouse gases are saturated. The saturations of the abundant greenhouse gases H2O and CO2 are so extreme that the per-molecule forcing is attenuated by four orders of magnitude…”

    The other three greenhouse gases they analyzed are ozone, nitrous oxide and methane. These are also saturated but not extremely so like water vapor and carbon dioxide. They are also relatively minor in abundance compared to CO2, which in turn is small compared to H2O.

    Clearly this is work that the climate science community needs to carefully consider. This may not be easy given that three major physics journals have refused to publish it. The reviews have been defensive and antagonistic, neither thoughtful nor helpful. Alarmism is in control of the journals, censoring contrary findings, hence the preprint version.

    Undaunted, H&W are now extending their analysis to include clouds. Alarmist climate science gets dangerous global warming, not from the CO2 increase alone, but also using positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks. Given that carbon dioxide and water vapor are both extremely saturated, it is highly unlikely that cloud feedbacks alone can do much damage, but it requires careful analysis to know this for sure. Stay tuned.

    In the meantime the present work needs to be front and center as we strive for rational climate science. Professors William Happer and William van Wijngaarden are to be congratulated for an elegant and timely breakthrough.

    https://www.cfact.org/2020/10/26/study-suggests-no-more-co2-warming/

    Please share this. It is huge!

    David

    60

    • #
      RickWill
      October 28, 2020 at 7:19 am

      The report is utter rubbish. How can there be NO MORE warming from CO2 when there NEVER WAS. The “greenhouse effect” is bunkum.

      The energy balance on earth is finely controlled by the ocean thermostat; with lower limit set at 271.3K where sea ice forms t insulate the surface and 305K because monsoons and cyclones begin to form at 300K and the energy rejection becomes asymptotic by 305K. The equatorial moored buoys prove that the temperature of the tropical oceans has no trend:
      https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/drupal/disdel/

      The only sea surface warmer than 305K is the Persian Gulf because the topography, a small body of water between deserts, prevents the atmospheric conditions that enable monsoon and cyclones to form thus denying the location the highly reflective cloud everywhere else over warm water.

      The data clearly shows that ENERGY REJECTION increases with increasing atmospheric water:
      https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg2_DukRksyuhIkZ8
      The exact opposite of the “greenhouse effect”.

      81

      • #
        Gee Aye
        October 28, 2020 at 2:04 pm

        The report is utter rubbish. How can there be NO MORE warming from CO2 when there NEVER WAS. The “greenhouse effect” is bunkum.

        classic fake science skeptic versus science denier conflict.

        34

        • #
          el gordo
          October 28, 2020 at 4:27 pm

          Its only academic, theoretical concepts to be tested. Do you still believe CO2 causes global warming?

          South East Australia is experiencing an English summer, do you know why?

          30

        • #
          Peter C
          October 28, 2020 at 8:47 pm

          I think that Rick Will is right on the money here.

          IR absorbtion/emission doubtless occurs at some level in the atmosphere (maybe the lowest 10m or so), but other effects are at play which are much more important, but so far not attracting much attention from the Climate Scientists. Water is an amazing molecule. Its effects on surface and atmospheric temperatures are not confined to IR absorbtion.

          20

          • #
            Gee Aye
            October 29, 2020 at 9:27 am

            IR absorption happens wherever there is a molecule capable of absorbing – basic chemistry.

            “Other effects at play” are all already in the models – who knew?

            00

            • #
              Graeme No.3
              October 29, 2020 at 9:53 am

              Provided there is IR available to be absorbed. There is no additive effect when the frequencies are shared.

              00

              • #
                Gee Aye
                October 29, 2020 at 10:09 am

                err… they do add. A [small] of an absorber absorbs less than a [big]. It is additive (and by this I don’t imply strict linearity). This is true whether you are adding more water to water or methane to water.

                00

  • #
    David Wojick
    October 27, 2020 at 11:32 pm

    Impact of the panic:

    Almost 200 European airports facing insolvency in coming months
    ACI EUROPE warns of “collapse of significant parts of air transport system” as continued downward trend in passenger traffic figures is announced
    The at risk airports contribute to economic activity that creates 277 thousand jobs and €12.4 billion of European GDP.

    https://mcusercontent.com/66a62c6d1a4692e5a3b79a788/files/de8ad966-cbcc-403e-95a8-78ca16f24565/20_10_27_Almost_200_European_airports_facing_insolvency_in_coming_months_PRESS_RELEASE.pdf

    Also just saw a report saying many Colorado hospitals face insolvency due to lack of patients. That probably translates into a lot of adverse health impacts due to people staying home. The insurance companies must be making a fortune from reduced claims, keeping the money that would normally go to the hospitals.

    The mess continues!

    130

  • #
    Dave in the States
    October 28, 2020 at 12:06 am

    I saw this http://ectltd.com.au/why-japan-is-building-22-new-coal-fired-power-stations/ linked in comments to this wuwt thread. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/10/26/new-japan-pm-pledges-to-match-chinas-zero-carbon-2050-initiative/

    Wasn’t Japan building like 40 HELE plants about 5 years ago? Are these 22 part of that plan or in addition?

    60

  • #
    RicDre
    October 28, 2020 at 2:10 am

    ‘Massive’ coral reef taller than the Empire State Building discovered in Australia

    A “massive” new reef measuring 500 meters (about 1,600 feet) has been discovered in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, making it taller than some of the world’s highest skyscrapers.
    Scientists found the detached reef, which is the first to be discovered in more than 120 years, in waters off North Queensland while on an expedition aboard research vessel Falkor, ocean research organization Schmidt Ocean Institute announced Monday.
    The reef was first discovered on October 20, as scientists completed an underwater mapping of the seafloor of the northern Great Barrier Reef.
    At 500 meters high, it is taller than the Empire State Building (381 meters to the top floor), the Sydney Tower (305 meters) and the Petronas Twin Towers (451.9 meters.)

    https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/great-barrier-reef-skyscraper-intl-scli-scn/index.html

    60

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld
    October 28, 2020 at 3:52 am

    “could ALL the polls be wrong?”
    So ask a typical leftish mainstream scribe, in yet another fact-free attempt to validate his own prejudice.
    Well yes, of course they could, in they same way the herd could “all” be wrong about about global warming.
    Groupthink and the fact-free narrative is a strange phenomona, but clearly has a reason for being.
    Its a street corner religion, the means of controlling the masses.
    The vicar damn sure cares more about the full collection plate and your marching for king and country than he does for your soul,
    but if its belief in the hereafter that moves the needle tis about sin and redemption he’l be preaching.
    The Democrats haven’t really convinced anyone that Trump is the devil, so they are trying to convince everyone that everyone is convinced.
    And even in the worst of all possible case 45% of us are not buying their crap crap which will make absolutist government a bit tense.

    Here is a secret you all know. There is, to a vanishingly small percentile, no such thing as an undecided voter.
    There are voters who kid themselves about the decision making process, and who register in vast number as independent, but come home to where they have always been on election day.
    People who look at real data (not polls of 1000 people representing millions) know this.

    Gettable voters?

    Did you give them an income, or take one away?
    Do you share an identity that trumps politics (I’d probably vote for my sister even though she is crazy).
    Did one party lose, or win a war, or manage an epochal social change.
    Are they really, really scared?

    Don’t think corruption moves the needle, if it’s about money. Hell, that’s what politics is for.

    I’d be surprised if this time was two points different than last time. And we’ve spent two trillion getting there.
    And if a word of intelligent debate about policy or the direction of the country has been spoken in the process it has escaped me.

    There are a couple of takeaways. The mainstream press is worse than useless; and will probably wither and die as I doubt they have the vitality to reinvent themselves.
    The Leftist coalition has fractured; I doubt they’ll either share the goodies or apportion the blame without rancor, whichever is appropriate. The US party structures
    are morphing. ANd no matter who wins, you will start to hear serious talk about secession as the logical endgame of the geographic sorting going on; the freedom lovers and authoritarians may not be able to co-exist very well.

    40

    • #
      RickWill
      October 28, 2020 at 7:35 am

      in they same way the herd could “all” be wrong about about global warming.

      Having doubt here is inappropriate. There is no “could be”, they ARE WRONG.

      There is no “greenhouse effect”. more water vapour in the atmosphere increase heat rejection:
      https://1drv.ms/u/s!Aq1iAj8Yo7jNg2_DukRksyuhIkZ8
      Monsoons and cyclones produce thick, highly reflective clouds that can reject so much insolation and OLR that they cool the water below. They are the sunshades of the oceans. Anyone familiar with monsoon or cyclone clouds know how little light gets through them. They turn day into night. In rejecting all that insolation as well as OLR emitted above them, they reduce surface temperature below. These form at 27C and reject heat asymptotically by 32C so that temperature can never be reached.

      31

    • #
      Graeme No.3
      October 28, 2020 at 8:47 am

      So California will secede? Would Oregon & Washington join with them to form the new country of San Andreas?

      20

  • #
    Tonyb
    October 28, 2020 at 4:52 am

    Here is a very good article on mask wearing during the spanish flu outbreak of 1918 whoch has considerable echoes with our time.

    https://theconversation.com/face-masks-what-the-spanish-flu-can-teach-us-about-making-them-compulsory-137648

    Within the article is a link ‘Not unlike ours’ which compares the mask wearing of 1918 with today.

    Back then many of the masks were gauze. Today they tend to be cloth or disposable but unless worn correctly, which most clearly aren’t and unless disposed off or washed after every outing, when clearly they aren’t, their effectiveness Is open to question.

    As wearers often believe they provide immunity and distancing is not therefore needed, the jury is put as to whether masks do more harm than good.

    Tonyb

    40

    • #
      RickWill
      October 28, 2020 at 7:51 am

      The most effective aspect with a mask is the warning they provide. If someone removes theirs to cough, sneeze or breathe then you know you need to get a long way from them. This was a common warning sign with older people on admission to hospitals where they were required to wear masks upon admission to the hospital before they were more broadly mandated across the community.

      There has been some testing conducted showing surgical masks are about 10% effective at preventing virus from being inhaled if virus is in the air but they are 70% effective in controlling emission into the air from someone with the virus.

      I have been to industrial locations where dust exclusion masks are required for worker health reasons. Unless you already know your mask size it can take up to 2 hours of testing to find one that achieves a high level of seal around your face. The mask fitting involves a detector attached to the outlet valve port and then dust is released into the air. If the dust gets detected the mask is not fitted correctly. So any surgical mask is next to useless in preventing intake but they prevent staff from expelling nasties into open wounds.

      51

  • #
    Travis T. Jones
    October 28, 2020 at 6:12 am

    The terrorists have won the first battle in Europe

    This tells us the terrorists are indeed winning and that our governments are failing to provide us with a sense of security when it comes to expressing views on controversial topics that need to be openly discussed.

    Freedom of expression and open discussion has already lost the first battle.

    PG@notrickszone:
    https://notrickszone.com/2020/10/21/environment-of-terror-75-would-not-publicly-post-mahomed-caricatures-with-their-name-address/

    “At Twitter I started an unofficial small survey, below, to get an idea of the extent of fear people harbor when it comes to expressing controversial views.
    According to Google Analytics, the vast majority of the readers at this site reside in Europe and North America.
    The results, though not representative, are somewhat shocking.

    75% say they would not post the Mahomed caricatures together with their name and address because they fear retaliation.

    This, in their home countries.

    The grisly death of the French teacher sends a clear message: Western citizens cannot feel safe expressing their views, not even at home – on their very own soil.

    Our governments have failed.“

    100

    • #
      RickWill
      October 28, 2020 at 8:07 am

      Victoria has the m-word household rule. Has anyone wondered why people from only two household can only meet outdoors?

      It is the consequence of looking at how the second wave got turbo-charged across Melbourne in the wake of Eid al Fitr gatherings. The recent outbreak in the northern suburbs was ringing all the same warning bells.

      Integration takes a couple of generations. If there are enclaves then those locations breed the conditions that caused the people to leave their home country. Wokeness breeds its own failure.

      52

      • #
        el gordo
        October 28, 2020 at 4:40 pm

        This time around the populace will gratefully emerge from their prison, even the taste of limited freedom is palpable. Tracing in Victoria has been woeful, but its now under control.

        If clusters break out in recognisable enclaves then the authorities will quarantine whole areas to contain the spread. The penny has finally dropped, especially among the new immigrants, don’t become a pariah.

        01

  • #
    Tel
    October 28, 2020 at 7:56 am

    James Delingpole talks to Dr Mike Yeadon

    https://ricochet.com/podcast/the-delingpod/dr-mike-yeadon/

    Also on Youtube.

    https://youtu.be/sbMJoJ6i39k

    Interesting theory about the “no second wave”, when you look at statistics in Japan (probably the best example) there are two clear peaks either side of Summer … but those might possibly be two different strains, or the result of shifts in Vitamin D levels.

    Good layman’s explanation of Gompertz curves, although he doesn’t give any consideration of seasonal effects which are known to be strong in all respiratory virus types.

    50

    • #
      Peter C
      October 28, 2020 at 9:00 pm

      Thanks Tel,

      I recently listened to that podcast. I am not sure about the no second wave, unless the transmission in the community is already high. Australia seems to have had a very clear second wave.

      He had a lot of other interesting comments on immunity. One was that antibodies might be a poor indicator of previous exposure. According to Dr Yeadon, only the very sick will get antibodies. Most will be protected by either innate immunity (first line) or T cell immunity (second line).

      10

  • #
    BruceC
    October 28, 2020 at 12:42 pm

    MOAB incoming … let’s see if the ABC’s 7:30 Report show any of this.

    Tucker Carlson’s full broadcast of an interview with Tony Bobulinski (video link imbedded in post – 45mins in length. Grab a cuppa)

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/10/27/hes-got-tapes-tucker-carlson-interviews-hunter-biden-business-associate-tony-bobulinski-800pm-tonight/

    40

    • #
      Serp
      October 28, 2020 at 5:19 pm

      With only a week remaining it’s doubtful the ABC will crack; I’m more interested in how it’ll manage the aftermath of what will turn out to have been its manifest negligence.

      In the meantime we have concurrence on “emissions policy” by Johnson and Morrison which ought to warm the cockles of every climate mountebank’s heart.

      20

      • #
        el gordo
        October 28, 2020 at 5:52 pm

        ‘Australia has thus far declined to adopt a net zero target. Morrison told reporters he was “very aware of the many views held around the world, but I tell you what, our policies will be set here in Australia”.

        Guardian

        40

        • #
          Serp
          October 28, 2020 at 9:08 pm

          Thanks; I had heard differently so it’s good to see some semblance of resolve does in fact exist. Maybe if Trump is reelected and confirms the Paris exit Australia will move in a similar direction starting with undoing the RET.

          20

      • #
        Graeme No.3
        October 28, 2020 at 10:42 pm

        The only ‘resolve’ I’ve seen is to not make any positive action.

        20

      • #
        yarpos
        October 29, 2020 at 6:04 am

        There has been no aftermath of thei pomotion of the Russia! myth including Sarah Fergusons breatless documentary effort. .They will just move on to the next set of leftist lies they ae told to promote.

        Re Scomo and Bojo concurring the media and politics has been full of the difference of the summaries produced in the two countries. Penny Wongs logic was priceless, holding up the UK version as if it had to be correct (because it said what she wanted to hear) and demanding to know why the OZ vesion of evenets was different.

        20

  • #
  • #
    CHRIS
    October 29, 2020 at 12:16 am

    Climate = a dynamic 3D non-linear time scale. No models can accurately interpret any sort of climate “change”, especially the ones like that filth Mann rants with his “hockey stick” garbage. Chaos Theory must be used to at least, in part, explain the Earth’s climate over billions of years; anything else is just a waste of time. I have a saying on my desk: “Anyone who thinks that humans are the main cause of Climate Change are delusional and suffering from a God Complex” (which means that they automatically become a member of the Church of Climatology, with Patron Saint St Greta of Thunberg as their figurehead).

    20