JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Unthreaded Weekend

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.8/10 (26 votes cast)
Unthreaded Weekend, 7.8 out of 10 based on 26 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/9w9amqv

106 comments to Unthreaded Weekend

  • #

    What is it with bs headlines and news banners.

    “Gladstone braces for wall of water as flood surges over dam wall”

    Reports of an 8M flood surge over the wall of The Awoonga Dam are not matched by live pictures that show water flowing over the spillway not the dam wall. Bet the press council and mediawatch have no problems with this sort of alarmist hype.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      AndyG55

      Spillway in action..

      is that CR Peter Sellers? Water is not 8.2 m above the dam wall !

      Where do they get these people ???


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Nice One

      It’s only weather.


      Report this

      06

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Nice One – great pick up

        It’s only weather.

        Yup! So 97% of Climate Scientists are wrong?


        Report this

        41

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          Not quite. 45 out of 47 activists who answered a self-selecting survey are wrong. Or was it 47 out of 49?


          Report this

          90

          • #
            Byron

            75 out of 77 , if You`re thinking of the Doran & Zimmerman survey of 2009 , out of 10,257 scientists , 3146 replied They didn`t get the required results so further trimming of the numbers was needed so They reduced it to 77 . That`s where the catastropharians get the infamous 97% from , a mere 75/77 scientists ,


            Report this

            120

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Thanks Byron. So 77 out of 3246 = 2.48% of climate scientists who bothered to answer the survey are wrong. These are the guys whose “consensus” fuels the IPPC and cost us untold billions chasing a chimera?


            Report this

            91

          • #
            Nice One

            For the actual numbers, http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

            The scientists that actively publish in climate science would disagree with your statistics.


            Report this

            112

          • #

            Not only was the survey biased in its selections, narrowing the responses to get a higher figure, it failed to ask the questions about future catastrophic global warming.

            The Survey Questions were

            1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

            2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

            The questions did not deal with support for the prophesies about a future without policy. A single questions that would properly see what proportion of scientists agree with the policy-justifying climate models is:-

            Do you accept that if greenhouse gas emissions are not constrained, it is very likely that mean global temperatures will be at least 5°C higher in 2300 relative the 1986-2005 period?

            This is based upon the Draft AR5 SPM page 26 lines 33-37

            Continuing greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2100 as in the RCP8.5 extension induces a total radiative forcing above 12 W m–2 by 2300 that leads to a warming of 8.7 [5.0–11.6] °C by 2300 relative to 1986–35 2005. Substantial sustained reductions of emissions beyond 2100 could keep the total radiative forcing below 2 W m–2 by 2300, as for example in the RCP2.6 extension, which reduces the warming to 0.6 [0.3–1.0] °C by 2300.

            Also, any future survey should be audited by a professional polling organisation with anonymous responses. Like in a political election, there should be no fear of reprisals for honesty.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          Nice One

          About weather? They are climate scientists. How are you so easily confused? Next you’ll be asking me to trust a weatherman about climate. What’s up with that?


          Report this

          09

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Nice One,

            Another Great pick up – you really have become a Skeptic.

            You say

            What’s up with that?

            So I went to WUWT

            You’re the Phantom Skeptic – nice one – Nice One


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Nice One

            Obviously the pun was a little too subtle for Dave.


            Report this

            06

          • #
          • #
            Ian

            I’ve just read the link you gave to SkS. So “around 95% of active climate researchers actively publishing climate papers endorse the consensus position” What evidence is supplied? Why no reference to the survey of these scientists? How many in total were surveyed? What questions were asked? If you can, with a straight face, point us to crap like this you should go in for stand-up comedy. It’s a ludicrously stupid statement from SkS. I could just as easily say “95% of active climate scientists etc don’t believe in consensus” and have as much validity as the buffoon who wrote that originally and the clowns who take it as gospel. God save us from pseudo scientists


            Report this

            70

          • #
            Nice One

            You overlooked the Doran 2009 link. Blind or something?


            Report this

            07

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Your favourite Professor Ross Garnaut used Doran and Zimmerman 2009 in his review.

            Prof Ross has been labelled as one of the biggest polluters of river systems, oceans, and land in Papua New Guinea while making millions of dollars. So you support Prof Ross and wind turbines Nice One.

            Do you have no understanding of the environment and its protection?

            Are you NICE one of the new GREEN killers of the environment?


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Streetcred

            Next you’ll be asking me to trust a weatherman about climate.

            That’d be a monumental step up from trusting a cartoonist at sks.


            Report this

            30

      • #
        cohenite

        It’s only weather.

        As was the recent hot weather, but that didn’t stop the snouts in the trough marching out and declaring the imminent end of the world due to AGW. The hypocrisy of the AGW scientists and their groupies is nauseating.


        Report this

        91

        • #
          Nice One

          Still waiting for you to find your “margin of error”.


          Report this

          07

          • #
            cohenite

            Still waiting for you to find your “margin of error”.

            Don’t forget to hold your breath while you’re waiting.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Nice One

            I gave up on that when asking Nova for attribution calcs.


            Report this

            08

          • #
            Ian

            No you oaf I’m not blind.. The Doran link isn’t worth mentioning. If you ask active climate scientist “do you believe human activity etc” as this is the foundation of their (dubious) fame and (undoubted) fortune would you expect many to say no we don’t. It’s like asking dog owners “do you like dogs”?


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Sonny

            Yep, it’s like asking a second hand car salesman if they recommend buying second hand cars.

            Climate scientists have NO JOB without the government.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            cohenite

            I gave up on that when asking Nova for attribution calcs.

            No, you just never started reading the link Jo gave you.

            You’re a poor troll no.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Still waiting for you to produce some real empirical evidence to support what you say. You posture, wave the gun around, make a lot of noise, but you are just firing blanks.

            What a dweeb …


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Mark

            You have the nerve to raise “margin of error”, Noisome One!

            Given the history of model projections over the years, that’s real funny.

            So who “attributed” the last 16 years of temperature standstill while you’re riffling through your warmist papers NO? That’s not to mention the prediction of another five years of cooling/no warming.

            Of course, we know that CAGW “theory” predicts all manner of mutually exclusive climate events simultaneously, don’t we Noisome One.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Mark

            Ian@27/1/12, 11:35 pm.

            It’s like asking dog owners “do you like dogs”?

            I’m afraid it’s much worse than that. More like asking a dung beetle if it likes crap!


            Report this

            10

        • #
          ColdOldMan

          Your trolls do as much research as ours in the UK, by the look of things. Maybe this will help them.
          ___________________________

          The 1967 Tasmanian fires

          In 1967 southern Australian was experiencing drought conditions. On 7 February, 264,270 hectares were burnt in southern Tasmania in just five hours. Of the 110 fires burning that morning, the worst was the Hobart fire . The fire made its way over Mt Wellington and encroached on the city’s western suburbs. Sixty-two people died, and 1,400 homes and other buildings were destroyed. At the time, it was the largest loss of life and property in Australia from fire on any single day in Australia’s history.

          http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/australian-story/natural-disasters
          _________________________________________________

          A different perspective on bush fires in Australia. Watch the regrowth of vegetation after the fires.

          http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/history-of-bushfires-in-australia.htm

          AS ANOTHER BUSHFIRE SEASON begins across Australia, it is all too easy to see fire as a dangerous force, something to be avoided at all costs.

          But as a recent NASA animation featuring Australian bushfires over the last decade illustrates, fire is a consistent feature of the Australian landscape.

          “In all Australian landscapes, fire has an integral role to play in organising vegetation, biodiversity, and other functions of the landscape,” says Professor Ross Bradstock, a fire ecologist who directs the Centre for Environmental Risk Management of Bushfires at the University of Wollongong. “It’s part of the furniture.”
          _________________________________________________

          Let’s tell the burning truth about bushfires and the ALP-Greens coalition
          http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/lets-tell-the-burning-truth/story-e6frezz0-1226552629947


          Report this

          60

    • #

      Now I thought the banner headlinse of Their ABC and various gossip rags Masthead Metropolitan Newspapers was bad enough but they pale in significance to Ch7′s “Live continuous coverage of the extreme weather crisis in Queensland”, the scaremongering & hysteria of the beatup that has been going almost non stop all day from Ch7 Brisbane is an utter disgrace, these parasites should have their broadcast lisence pulled.


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Sean

      There is no flooding. What you are seeing is a mirage caused by the heat rising off of the burnt to a cinder landscape. Global climate disruption has caused a massive drought and you now need to build more desalinization plants. In the future water children will not even know what water looks like.


      Report this

      10

  • #

    Quotes from the Scare Mongers:
    “Unless we announce disasters or no one will listen.” -Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
    “It is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts [on agw].” – Al Gore
    “We have to offer up [knowingly fabricated] scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective [lying] and being honest [ineffective].” -Stephen Schneider, ipcc author, 1989
    “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000…” -Noel Brown, ex UNEP Director, 1989
    “[Inaction will cause]… by the turn of the century [2000], an ecological catastrophe which will witness devastation as complete, as irreversible as any nuclear holocaust.” — Mustafa Tolba, 1982, former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program
    “[in 2008 ] the West Side Highway [and so much of Manhattan, NY] will be under water… And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of [constant] high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change. There will be more police cars. Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” -James Hansen (1988), NASA [What absolute unmitigated bs, and Hansen knew it. Now, several years beyond 2008, and we see that the sea hasn’t risen any discernible amount. None. The birds… are the same. The trees… ditto. There’s no constantly taped up windows because of wind. What a joke. And crime… has gone down! The temperature has gone down or stayed the same.]


    Report this

    140

    • #

      1st quote correction: “Unless we announce disasters or no one will listen.” While I’m at it, a couple more to complete the (ugly) picture of a ‘science’ abounding in lies:
      “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis.” -David Rockefeller, Rich Leftist / Warmist
      “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” -leftist Senator Tim Wirth, 1993
      “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.” -Daniel Botkin, ex Chair of Environmental Studies, UCSB
      “Only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get.. attention.. This is the only way to assure any political action.” -Monika Kopacz, Atmospheric Scientist
      “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.” -Charles Alexander, Time Magazine Science Editor


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Peter Miller

        “The end justifies the means” – the stated policy of climate alarmists and -ism tyrants throughout history.


        Report this

        80

      • #
        Mark

        Ah, but Eric, those were not predictions, rather possible scenarios or projections you see. The ‘defenders of the faith’ that hang around here don’t like to confront such quotes and usually respond with the usual mealy-mouthed crap like ‘taken out of context’.

        Those fascistic fraudsters knew exactly what they were saying. At the time they were on a roll and thought themselves unassailable.


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Professor Terje Berntsen 26th Jan 2013 said:

    “The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the ­Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system”

    GWPF 26th Jan 2013 said:

    The Met Office should now reassess its own, flawed ­computer models and tone down the alarmist pronouncements which are no longer trustworthy.

    This doesn’t mean all those Climate Change Models are wrong surely not? They have been wrong from the beginning.

    Now all the money is going to go on Extreme events, catastrophic weather periods – but now temperature has been kicked in the pants. The shift of the CAGW crew (cries of Doom)has started.


    Report this

    121

  • #

    I’ve been off the air for two days.

    As this Rain Depression moved South, the southern part of it reached us on Wednesday afternoon, continuing to roll slowly South. I watched it on the BOM radar, and during the rain event the whole radar coverage area, out to 256 Km was just heavy rain. The rain started here at around 5PM Wednesday, and rained hard for 40 hours. The only time it wasn’t raining hard was when it actually got harder. The power went off at around 6AM Friday and stayed off for 8 to 9 hours. We were lucky to get ours back on relatively early, as 18,000 customers were without power, and 6,000 were still without power up until late Saturday afternoon.

    The rain stopped at around 10AM Friday, and since then we’ve still had rain, in patches, some hard and for a few hours. During that 40 hours of rain, Rockhampton received 520mm of rain, and for overseas readers that’s just under 21 inches, and one place barely 50Km from here had 810mm of rain.

    Even when the power came back on, the phone systems were still down, both landlines and the mobile network. While the phones came back on late Friday night, the Internet connection for all this area was down until around Midday Saturday.

    During the down time, I finished reading my current novel, Edward Rutherfurd’s wonderful historical novel, Ireland Awakening, so there’s always something to do, even when there’s nothing you can do. All I missed was my cups or Earl Grey.

    We got through the 2010/11 flood event with no problems at our home, so I knew we would be fine here. We had some small areas of surface water in our yard, and some branches down, well palm fronds on the Palms in front of our home.

    There’s still plenty of water in the system, the huge Fitzroy Basin, and now all of that water is making it’s way down those 9 rivers all flowing into the Fitzroy, so all that water has to come past Rocky. The flood marker in town is at 7.4 Metres, and the 10/11 flood, it was at close to 9.4 Metres. It’s not expected to get that high this time, but they are expecting raised levels and minor flooding in Rocky for a couple of weeks as those levels all feed into the Fitzroy.

    When the power came back on, I sat at my Word Processor, and knocked up something ready for when I could finally get back to my home site, so for those who wish to read that, I’ve included the link below.

    All of this huge rain event is now hovering over Brisbane and if you go to the BOM weather radar, you can see the vast extent of this event.

    More is still to come I feel sure.

    Rockhampton – Huge Rain Event January 2013

    Tony.


    Report this

    91

    • #

      Sorry, I forgot to include the link to the BOM Weather Radar for Brisbane, and this is for the (newer) Doppler Radar at MT. Stapylton, near Beenleigh.

      BOM Weather Radar Brisbane

      The default is 128Km, and along the top of the images are the tabs for 64K, 256K and the 512K Composite Images.

      Also there are tabs for rainfall for different time scales as well.

      Tony.


      Report this

      30

      • #
      • #

        Tony you can keep sending that rain south, but you’ll need to send a heap to break any records or create any new “extremes” here. Our wettest January was in 1895. (Our driest was in 1900.) Our wettest year was 1963. (Our driest was in 1902.)

        If you want to send us some February rain, we got a whopping 882.5 mm in 1929. (Thanks to climate change, we got not one single drop of rain February of 1939 – but the less said about 1939 the better.)

        So modern climate change had better get a lot busier before we’ll think it’s “extreme” around here.


        Report this

        20

      • #
        Coconutdog

        It seems that the radar is down due to communications problems. Couldn’t have happened at a better time. Hopefully the backup radar will be enough.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I shall call it “IPCC weather”.
      Unpleasant weather for recording observations.
      Very good weather for climate modelling! ;)


      Report this

      50

      • #
        The Black Adder

        Nice one boys…

        I’d like to call it ‘Flannery Weather’

        You remember him saying…

        The rains that fall will not be enough to fill the dams …

        Hmmmm, do you think Flannery feels like a dickhead??


        Report this

        100

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          But but but… a warmer world is a wetter world, so this is all consistent with climate change…. :o

          You could say “Sceptics Weather the Storm” yet again.

          The BoM (between cherry picking weather stations and making upward revisions) advises us today to tie down loose items in the yard. Flannery’s a loose goose, should we tie him down or let him blow away? :D

          Now for a bit of amateur “climate change” prediction, where I predict how warmists will react to innocuous events.
          Before 21 Feb 2013, the Coral Whisperer will be interviewed on the ABC telling us global warming has caused some destruction of the corals between Bundaberg and Rockhampton (or for bonus points the whole GWB) over this summer, while hoping we won’t remember that the sediment runoff from rivers and the rough surf driven by this week’s unusual storm is probly wot really dunnit.


          Report this

          41

        • #
          Byron

          There have been suggestions on various web pages that a unit of rainfall be mockingly named after Him just so He never forgets and hopefully neither will anyone else . Just refering to the old imperial inches of rain as Flanneries would do . For instance,

          ” parts of Queensland received over 11.8 Flanneries today in one of the heaviest blah blah blah….”


          Report this

          50

    • #
      Streetcred

      As of now, the rain is moving on from Briz, Tony … sky is clearing and wind is moderating.


      Report this

      20

  • #

    Now, this is something of interest to watch during this rain event as it now hovers over the Brisbane area.

    The following link is the SEQ Water Latest Dam Levels, and thankfully, this time around record keeping is actually being done for weekends.

    Latest Dam Levels SEQ Water

    While you can read the dam levels there, what I do want you to look at is the graph at the bottom of this page.

    Down the right of that graph is the list of dams.

    Tick the boxes, both for Somerset and WIvenhoe, and then, after doing that, untick the default box shown there.

    You are left with two lines on the graph, a blue coloured line (Somerset) and a grey coloured line. (Wivenhoe)

    Be aware here that Somerset is directly upstream from Wivenhoe, and any release from Somerset flows directly into Wivenhoe.

    As you move your mouse slowly along those lines, you can see the percentage levels for each day.

    During the Monster flood of 2010/11 I did the same exercise and then commented on it in a very long Post at my site, with personal observations on what had happened.

    That Post is at the following link, and in that Post are links back to two earlier Posts in that 3 part series, and those other links are to the background for the Dams.

    Wivenhoe Dam Levels – The Critical Days

    Also, perhaps another Dam worth keeping an eye on this time is Hinze Dam. This will be the first major event for Hinze since Stage 3 has been completed, and with arguably the best catchment behind Hinze than for any Dam in Australia, that should indicate just how well this Dam stacks up this time around.

    Tony.


    Report this

    71

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    When Murderers and Liars Pray

    As they [politicians] leave the service and go back to their work of destroying the nation, murdering men, women and children all over the world and basically lying with every breath, is there even a tinge of guilt in their bones for what they are about to do for the next four years?
    http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/when-murderers-and-liars-pray.html#comment-form


    Report this

    21

  • #
    rukidding

    The greens want to close down all coal mining and exporting because that causes AGW and that causes climate change

    And replace the coal fired net work with nice clean wind turbines and solar panels because they emitt zero CO2.But for every wind turbine you build requires over 100 tonnes of steel and what do you need to make steel why Iron and Coal and lots of it.So if we don’t dig up the coal and export it no wind turbines.Next time Christine Milne is banging on about dirty coal mines someone needs to ask her where she is going to get the steel from for her Eco crucifixes that have to be replaced every 25 years or so.

    Also next time they are banging on about mining or picketing some new mine ask them where they are going to get their.
    Iron
    Copper
    Aluminum
    Petrolium based synthetics from not to mention the rare earth minerals.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      To that list you can add the concrete for the footings. The manufacture of cement emits a lot of CO2 and “other noxious byproducts”, or so the Green pamphlet in front of me claims.


      Report this

      70

      • #

        Production of concrete is ‘up there’ as one of the largest emitters of CO2.

        So, having said that, then let’s look at the wonderful new Ceres Wind Plant Project proposed for the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia.

        It will be utilising the Repower 3.4MW Turbine.

        There will be 180 of these huge towers.

        Each tower will stand 100 metres tall to the hub.

        Each tower is made from pre stressed steel and concrete.

        The foundation for each tower needs 2000 Tonnes of concrete, and the actual tower itself uses 2200 Tonnes of Concrete, hence 4200 Tonnes of concrete per tower.

        180 towers means 756,000 Tonnes of concrete.

        So then let’s see now.

        The average House ‘slab; weighs between 25 and 30 tonnes, so this wind plant uses the same concrete equivalent to, umm, the slabs for 30,000 houses.

        But, hey, wind turbines save the emissions of so much CO2.

        Bullsierrahotelindiatango.

        Tony.


        Report this

        111

        • #

          @TonyfromOz:

          … pre stressed steel and concrete. … The foundation for each tower needs 2000 Tonnes of concrete

          These are assessable structures under the NCC, unless they have managed to wangle an exemption. Might be interesting to find out if there is any certification, and if so, who signed it.
          Problem is, there is nothing in the NCC so far that requires assessment as to how structures can be removed at the end of their design life. Given those specs, I suspect precision blasting on a massive scale would be required. If they are left as they are, eventually the site will have to be cordoned off as a major hazard. Pre- and post-tensioning becomes unpredictable when it begins to corrode – as it will sooner or later.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            rukidding

            Yes the one thing you here very little of is the decommissioning cost for these monstrosities.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Dave

            .
            rukidding,
            I have found a few things regarding decommissioning of Windmills.

            1. Using Vesta V90-3.0 MW Life Cycle Assessment – they exclude the following (foundation, site cables and site parts) from their environmental analysis. Only exclude 2,500 tonnes of concrete & 1,000 tonnes of reinforcing steel plus roads, cables, sub stations etc. Not an honest assessment of the environmental impact these things have.
            2. The proponent/wind farm owner rather than the “host” landowner must retain
            responsibility for decommissioning.
            3. All Applicants to include a Decommissioning and Rehabilitation Plan in their
            environmental assessment report – here is one such Windmill Decommisioning plan.
            4. But – guess what – they don’t remove the foundations nor the underground cables?
            5. Decommissioning works out at 15% of the original project cost.
            6. So Ceres Windmill Farm costs $1.3 billion – then it will cost nearly $200 million to decommission.

            So – all the GREEN Renewable Energy companies, the GREEN idiots that approve all this – neglect to tell us the concrete & steel left underground is not important to the environmental studies. These people are criminals.

            Using Tony’s figures of 25 tonnes per house slab, and if in 15 years we have 10,000 decommissioned Windmills – then we have enough concrete for 1 million homes – just left in the ground all over Australia.


            Report this

            71

          • #
            rukidding

            Thanks Dave I will have a look at your links.The thing is will the company that puts them up be around to take them down in 25 years


            Report this

            30

        • #
          Dave

          .
          Plus Tony they will remove over 2,000 m3 of soil per turbine and spread it all over the country side in road networks, power line areas etc. Criminal behaviour by the GREEN idiots.

          I also think these windmills (Ceres WindMill Project) are coming from India. At 3.4 MW they could contain between 400 kg and 600 kg of rare earth metals in the generator magnets. Neodymium and dysprosium content is 31% and 5.5% of magnet weight, respectively.

          The mining of rare earth metals is totally acceptable to these GREEN Renewable idiots. Here’s a pit in China where they are mined in Guyun Village, China a few years ago.

          The GREEN idiots have no idea or intention of protecting the environment. How many hectares of rice paddies, banana plantations, bamboo groves etc will they destroy for each of the GREEN idiot windmills.


          Report this

          51

          • #

            Now, while those same rare earth materials are used extensively in all modern generator technology, well all rotary equipment really, electrical motors of every variety and size, they are also used in those large generators that are at all power plants.

            These rare earth materials create and sustain larger magnetic fields with tighter range and less (magnetic) losses when used as large electromagnets as part of the rotor, and a larger magnetic field equates to a higher voltage being induced into the stator windings, which equates to a higher power output.

            However, lets look at it a little closer.

            Those wind tower nacelles hold the generator, and the size of the generator determines the weight of the nacelle, hence the structure needed to hold that up, so to speak, also determinant upon the swept area of the blades.

            However, being smaller generators used in wind towers, (eg for this Ceres plant, 3.2MW) then it only stands to reason that one wind tower generator would have considerably less rare earths in it than a large generator of say, 1,000MW for a typical large scale new generation coal fired plant, and for those already in use at those large scale Nuclear plants, which have typically been driving one 1000MW generators per reactor for decades.

            Now having said that, those large generators have huge stators hence the monster power output up around that 1000MW, something you cannot do in a wind turbine application.

            The weight of the wind turbine generator needs to be supported at a height, hence you just cannot wrap extra wiring into the stator to have a higher power induced, while the huge generator sits on the ground, and can have a huge weight of wiring in the stator for higher induced power, if you can see that point.

            You add up the turbines in this new Ceres Wind Plant and the total power comes to around 600MW, still way less than ONE large 1000MW generator at a new coal fired plant.

            However, because of the scale, those wind plant generators use more rare earths in all their 180 generators than what would be required for that one 1000MW generator, in fact the large generator would most probably have less than half the rare earths than all the wind nacelles for this proposed Ceres Plant.

            The averaged yearly output Power output from this proposed wind plant will be around one third of just one of those 1000MW generators. The ground based coal fired power plant will have a much smaller footprint, will use a fraction of the rare earths and a fraction of the concrete, and will last two to three times longer.

            So, you can see, at virtually every turn, wind plants are nowhere near as environmentally conscious as they are made out to be.

            Tony.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            The Planet’s “Rare Earth Elements” : The Worldwide Battle.

            http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-planet-s-rare-earth-elements…/31796

            Jul 6, 2012 – Moreover, the USA has discovered large reserves in Afghanistan; the Pentagon has estimated the value of the light rare earth elements …


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            I also think these windmills (Ceres WindMill Project) are coming from India. At 3.4 MW they could contain between 400 kg and 600 kg of rare earth metals in the generator magnets. Neodymium and dysprosium content is 31% and 5.5% of magnet weight, respectively.

            Just for clarity, for those people who are not yet up to speed on Rare Earth materials:

            Rare Earth materials is a name given to a group elements, called lanthanides, that have similiar chemical properties to other more excessible elements that are suitable for use as magnets, such as iron and graphite.

            Rare earth materials are not actually “rare”, in the sense that they are difficult to find. Just the opposite, in fact. They are plentiful and easy to find.

            But because rare earth materials are not found in seams, or large deposits, they are rare in relation to the surrounding material, and must be extracted from that material, using processes that are expensive and chemically dirty, requiring the use of some extremely caustic reagents.

            This is why the major suppliers are China and India. Not because they have deposits that other geographical areas do not have, but because these are places where the extraction process is easier to ignore, or be glossed over, by the Western media, and by Green politicians.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Rereke,

            You are absolutely correct. Look at this to see the scale of the environmental disaster caused by the rare earth mining for wind mills alone.

            How do you spell “hypocrisy”? G R E E N


            Report this

            70

          • #

            Speaking of rare earth elements, you just have to love the utter hypocricy of all the media, activists and climate catacltsm accolytes with their iPhones and iPads banging on about only being able to dig stuff up once using their touchscreen technology solely dependant on raer earth elements.


            Report this

            50

        • #

          Isn’t that near a whale migration route?

          Don’t whales (and other cetaceans) get confused by the structure-borne vibrations passed into the water?


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Go look around the onshore windfarms. Rare birds and bats are mere collateral in furtherance of the cause to reduce civilisation to the Dark Ages.


            Report this

            90

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Kevin Lohse
            Rare birds and bats are mere collateral in furtherance of the cause to reduce civilisation to the Dark Ages.

            You’re absolutely correct. Here’s the GREEN Renewable fools choosing windmills over endangered bird species:

            “NextEra Energy employees cut down a tree limb holding the nest around 10:30 a.m. Saturday. Removing the nest will reduce the risk of eagle mortality at the site,” the ministry said in the permit. The ministry says it was made aware of the nest last summer. It was built in a tree scheduled to be removed for the construction of a road, and within 20 metres of the blade sweep of one of the project’s 56 proposed turbines.”

            That’s it GREENIES – just get rid of one of only 50 Bald Eagles left in Ontario for one Windmill??? 56 proposed turbines versus 50 bald eagles umpired by GREEN vandals and the final score is:

            Bald Eagles 49 to Windmill GREEN Death 56.

            Basterds, bustards, shitheeds, shetheads – these GREEN CAGW people are criminals.


            Report this

            60

          • #
            Truthseeker

            How about this article about the unnecessary loss of wildlife to wind turbines.

            How do you spell “hypocrisy”? G R E E N


            Report this

            51

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Truthseeker,
            Thank you for this article. This really sickened me beyond belief.

            What do we have to do to stop these useless Windmills being backed up by the likes of MattyB, JB, Nice One, KR, Sillyfilly, Maxine etc for the sole reason of preventing CAGW?

            I’ve heard it suggested that birds will soon adapt to avoid turbine blades. But your ability to learn something when you’ve been whacked on the head by an object travelling at 200 mph is limited.

            Maybe this should be applied to CAGW alarmists to see if they can adapt.

            These GREEN HYPOCRITS are going to become the most hated people on the Globe. Its a pity there won’t be any Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagles, the americas golden eagles, the Americas bald eagles, the Egyptian vultures, the Griffon vultures and Norwegians white-tailed eagles left to pick the bones clean of these environmental vandals.

            This breaks down as approximately 110–330 birds per turbine per year and 200–670 bats per year. Yet all these GREENIES (ALP & GREEN supporters) can’t see any harm in killing all these species to extinction.

            The GREENS are becoming the new killers of the environment.

            I feel sick, angry and very ready to rid the country of these environmental killers.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Gbees

            Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

            http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Gbees,

            (I feel worse now)

            I’m going through this site now – Your info is just for Spain (6 to 18 million birds & bats a year).

            Where is the MSM on this?

            Nice One may have a link to SKS that proves that no birds, bats, native animals and plants have been affected by the useless Windmill farms. The Ceres one above covers over 18,000 hectares. They promise environmental damage will be minimal.

            These GREENS hypocrits are going to pay very soon. Unfortunately it will be the environment that suffers in the long run.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Gbees

            Yes Dave, there are many disturbing things on that website including videos of collisions. Any self respecting environmentalist should be up in arms with the destruction of wildlife caused by these useless (in many ways) wind turbines. If they appear in my neck of the woods I’ll become an activist and chain myself them.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Dave

            .
            I’m with you – except:

            They are NOT going to appear in my neck of the woods.

            Is there any Australian anti GREEN Windmill political party?

            Solar is not far behind in damage per hectare.

            I thought Mr. Midnight Oil would have had something to say on this – but then he’s probably another GREEN ALP hypocrite.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Dave, your link goes to a picture, but there is no context.

            What does it all mean?


            Report this

            20

          • #
            Dave

            .
            Truthseeker
            Sorry – only copied the picture address. Will try and find original article.

            It shows an old abandoned solar farm – no decommisioning and covering 100 hectares of now wastes resources. Whether it’s solar or wind power – they both do huge ratio of damage per hectare compared to coal, nuclear or gas.


            Report this

            10

          • #
    • #
      Ace

      Hopeless mate…these are people who think spaghetti grows on trees.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Uno

    This should make the greens glow incandescent


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Sometimes people can be so anti-Watermelon that they actually forget to take care of the needs of industry and people, let alone the environment. It’s quite ironic. The so-called environmental cost of CFLs and LEDs assumes that people are incurable moronic environmental vandals. I reject this assumption of their modelling.
      Happy to explain further if anyone is interested.


      Report this

      10

      • #
        Dave

        .
        Andrew I am interested for a further explanation please.

        (P.S. I just read Pointmans “There’s a killer in your house“)

        So would be good to get another point of view.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Ah yes, the comment that Pointy refused to publish. Heh. Was it simply too long and boring, or did it show him to be alarmist on that particular issue, I shall leave your imagination to guess. Anyhow, that was about the consequences of breakages (a rare event), whereas Uno is talking about the post-consumer waste of CFLs and LEDs (a certain event).

          – – – – –

          It is frequently pointed out by skeptics that there is no need to “save” water because the water cycle ensures that water cannot be lost from the planet. Similarly with the carbon cycle, any CO2 emitted will eventually be sequestered by plants just as coal once was.

          So I find it strange that climate skeptics, having demonstrated their excellent understanding of closed material cycles and their benefits, suddenly develop a mental blind spot when it comes to recycling anything else, such as copper, heavy metals, arsenic, gallium, or the other “nasties” used in CFLs and semiconductors. These materials are not inherently “nasty”, they are valuable to industry, otherwise they would not have been mined, refined, and formed into products in the first place.

          Why would you ever throw a CFL or circuit board in the bin? You purchased the product including all its materials, so if you send a circuit board to landfill then you’re the one polluting the environment with the heavy metals it contains.

          What possible justification is there for land fills for anything? How are they not the high-grade ores of the metal mines of the future being created today? So why wait? Why have a proto-mine when you can have a stockpile?

          Sometimes people can be so anti-Watermelon that they actually forget to take care of the needs of industry and people, let alone the environment. It’s quite ironic. Industry needs the materials in post-consumer waste, so don’t send it to landfills. At some future point, as mining yields dwindle and primary resource prices go up, recycling of everything will occur as viable businesses. You’ll sell your eWaste. But that doesn’t help us today because there is presently no economic cost attached to consumers polluting the environment via green wheelie bins.

          I’ve never thrown a burnt out CFL in the bin. I kept them until I found a place near me that accepts “eWaste” such as CFLs and circuit boards. As to what they then do with it I’ve no idea, but at least I’m doing the right thing. Without a staffed chemicals lab in my back yard there is nothing more I can do.

          That’s all a very long winded way of saying that the so-called environmental cost of CFLs and LEDs assumes that people are incurable moronic environmental vandals. I reject this assumption of their modelling. CFLs and LEDs do not have to be thrown into landfills, that is a daily choice, their heavy metals can be recovered or at worst safely locked in specially built pits today provided the consumer has separated them for that purpose. I’ve walked the walk.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Surprised at the near equal amounts of mercury in ALL TREE?

      Do incandescents involve mercury either in the processing or working components?

      ?

      KK


      Report this

      10

  • #
    JMD

    I will go out on a limb here & say that the recent bone dry, & stinking hot, weather that we have suffered is the result of the persistence of autumn or winter like atmospheric conditions, at least for us here in SE NSW.

    Winds have been until a few days ago generally northerly to westerly with ‘cold’ fronts moving through. The reason it has been so hot is these fronts have been drawing hot air from Northern & central Australia in front of them. Of course in real winter the air they draw is not nearly as warm & the cold fronts colder.

    The deadest giveaway though is the winter like cloud that has been hanging over the ‘main range’. There is a pronounced dry winter here in the rainshadow of the mountains. A few days ago the weather changed to a more easterly air flow & with it a huge summer storm.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Backslider

    Just waiting for all the hoo haa that this weather is caused by climate change, particularly the tornadoes. I wonder who will pipe up first.

    Tornadoes are not at all unusual in Australia


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Kevin Moore

    Engineered Viruses Created in Government Labs Validate Mass Vaccinations
    Susanne Posel

    Canadian researchers have concluded that the H1N1 flu shot is more dangerous than the flu it purports to protect against. The timing of this study’s release coincided with North American and certain part of Europe preparing to promote massive vaccination efforts on their citizens. Under a propaganda pandemic campaign to fear the public into having the inoculation, this study placed a snag in their plans.

    At the Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy (ICAAC) study author Dr. Danuta Skowronski explained that in 2008 a study she co-authored proved that the flu shot caused more physiological issues than the H1N1 flu itself.
    http://occupycorporatism.com/engineered-viruses-created-in-government-labs-validate-mass-vaccinations/


    Report this

    22

  • #

     
    The “greenhouse effect” conjecture hinges upon a false assumption which has never been proved, namely that the thermal gradient in the atmosphere could have been isothermal. But such would not be a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, because air at higher altitudes would have had more total energy (including its potential energy) and so that extra energy would have been shared with air at lower altitudes. So the greenhouse effect conjecture is false by the Second Law of Thermodynamics which requires maximum entropy states of thermodynamic equilibrium. Don’t copy the standard garbage about “net” radiation, because I am not talking about radiation here.

     


    Report this

    83

  • #
    Norman

    Looks like Arctic ice extent and volume is now in “normal extent” territory. If it continues like this it might actually be the first year for some time that it remains within average for the whole year. On another note it is quite likely that the “official sites” have been manipulating the ice borders of each section of the NH ice map as shown on Cryosphere Today to suit the warmist agenda. They cannot do that with Antarctica as it is one whole island ice mass. See here
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php


    Report this

    51

  • #
    llew Jones

    “This doomsday endgame could last a long time

    January 27, 2013

    Chris Berg

    Apocalyptic preachers feed your anxieties. Just turn the sound off.”

    In the Age of all places. This should bring the alarmists out in droves.

    http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/this-doomsday-endgame-could-last-a-long-time-20130126-2ddqi.html?rand=1359204704879


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Gbees

    We have wonderful uranium resources. Time to check out nuclear.

    France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
    France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
    France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
    It is building its first Generation III reactor and planning a second.
    About 17% of France’s electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel.

    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

    Not that CO2 emissions matter but “France has the lowest carbon dioxide production per unit of GDP in the world and it is the biggest exporter of electricity in the world, earning it nearly 3 billion euros a year in sales.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France


    Report this

    30

  • #

    If it wasn’t gravity causing the dry adiabatic lapse rate, then it would have to have been carbon dioxide, methane and trace gases doing all of about 50 degrees of warming, because we know water vapour then reduces the gradient, bringing surface temperature back down about a third of the amount it increased.

    So either sensitivity to carbon dioxide is about 50 degrees or it’s nothing.

    See http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-69235


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening All.

    In the old days, we used to say that there are three types of people; those who can count and those who can’t.

    Nowadays, of course, it appears there are only two types of people: those who can count and climatologists.

    Cheers,

    Speedy.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Joe V.

      I’m afraid there are only those who can count and those they count on not being able to count.
      Of course most of the latter imagine they are of the former, but I guess that’s back to Speedy’s point.

      If all the monetary systems are going down together, how do you know it’s really happening, which is why the calls for concerted international action to hide the debt crises.

      My isn’t gold expensive.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Dave

    .
    Update on Musselroe Killer Wind Farm by Hydro Tasmania:

    Video of the Installation of the first 3 MW Vestas V90 turbine of the Hydro Tasmania owned $395 Million – 168 Megawatt Musselroe Wind Farm project due for completion by 1st July 2013.

    All authorised by the TASMANIAN GREENS who advocate killing of rare raptor bird species, bats, all other birds and disruption of native vegetation flowering cycles to extinction.

    Welcome to the world of the GREEN Killer idiots.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    janama

    I posted this in the previous thread not realising Jo had opened this thread – so here it is again.
    Great article:

    Today’s global warming is well within historic range
    BY: MICHAEL ASTEN From: The Australian January 28, 2013 12:00AM

    US President Barak Obama vows action on climate change with the declaration “none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms”.

    It was an appeal using rhetoric and not science because the most severe impacts of these natural disasters come from the challenge of managing increased population or changed population demands, not changes in the events per se.

    Great fires are a regular feature of North American and Australian landscapes, and their human impact is worst when they reach housing or infrastructure built among trees, on the edge of bushland that has not been cleared by “cool” burn-offs.

    Civilisations have been hit by droughts since the Nile delta drought of 4200 years ago destroyed Egypt’s old kingdom, leaving the pyramids as witness.

    As global citizens, we still have much to learn about the management of water, it seems, whether in our Murray-Darling backyard or in the Sahel of Africa.

    The term “powerful storms” summons up graphic images of Hurricane Sandy, which devastated New York – except it was no longer hurricane-strength when it, like a dozen others in written history, struck.

    But the Manhattan area it flooded contained huge areas of high-density development on reclaimed swamps, ponds and what was riverbed before civilisation drained, dozed and filled to provide for the population of one of the world’s greatest cities. When New York has absorbed the lessons from this, it will be able to pass on advice and technology to places such as Bangladesh.

    In an antipodean antithesis of current political comment in Australia, London Mayor Boris Johnson mused in Britain’s The Telegraph last week on the run of five cold snowy winters in London, contemplated the theories of solar cycles as drivers of climate advanced by maverick astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, and said he “wonders whether it might be time for government to start taking seriously the possibility, however remote, that Corbyn is right”.

    It is worth looking at some recent peer-reviewed science that points in such a direction.

    A growing number of mainstream scientists agrees there is evidence for such cycles as drivers of climate change, although debate on causes and mechanisms is strong. By way of example, I note three recent papers that find evidence for long-term cycles influencing the Earth’s climate.

    Weichao Wu of the Peking University and colleagues studied sea-surface temperature records preserved in deep-sea sediments near Okinawa in the Pacific Ocean, and found evidence for multiple cyclic temperature variations over the past 2700 years.

    The most interesting temperature peaks correspond to medieval, Roman and possibly Minoan warming periods of about 900, 1800 and 2500 years ago.

    The paper is significant in that it concludes that the current rate of global temperature change lies in the same range as that of those historical warming periods.

    This suggests we have evidence that challenges current climate orthodoxy on two grounds, first by suggesting that such warming events were global not local European phenomena, and second that current warming is not unprecedented in the historical record.

    While we read many claims by oceanographers of an increasing rate of rise in sea-levels associated with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, an alternative interpretation of observed data is made in a recent analysis by Don Chambers of the University of South Florida and colleagues.

    Chambers poses the question: “Is there a 60-year oscillation in sea-level?” and shows evidence that the answer is probably yes.

    I read his data and find it is arguable that the upswing of that oscillation is responsible for about half of the current 3mm/year rate of rise, leaving the background rate of rise at about 1.7mm, where it has been for 110 years.

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Stefan Rahmstorf, writing in the climate scientists’ blogsite Real Climate this month, commented on whether the data supports an interpretation of cycles, or non-cyclic shifts associated with changes in aerosols and current increases in greenhouse gases.

    Rahmstorf concludes in favour of the latter but ends with the objective and open-minded comment “if the system (is cyclic), we’d expect the opposite. In 30 years’ time we will know for sure.”

    Offering considered alternative interpretations on the significance of a carefully constructed set of observational data is the essence of scientific debate; either may be right and I would add that if Chambers is right, the accelerating rate of increase in sea-levels has topped out about now, and the 10mm a year rises needed to reach the feared “1 metre rise by 2100″ are not going to happen.

    A third work that may eventually prove immensely important in understanding cycles in climate change is a study by JA Abreu of the prestigious Swiss university ETH, with co-authors including Australia’s 1995 Australia Science Prize winner Ken McCracken.

    Abreu reconstructs a history of solar sunspot cycles over the past 10,000 years from elemental isotopes created by cosmic rays impinging on the atmosphere, subsequently preserved in Greenland ice-core records.

    These records show a series of cycles ranging from 88 years to 504 years with longer cycles of 974 and 2300 years evident in later work now accepted for publication (subject to minor changes).

    Thus we see that sun-spot cycles, which have been understood for centuries to influence our climate on an 11-year cycle, also have predictable longer-period cycles in the hundreds and thousands of years, and present a mechanism to explain observational data of the type given by Wu and colleagues.

    The mechanisms of sun-spot, solar magnetic field and cosmic ray interactions are complex and will be intensely studied, but the associations illustrated here demand consideration when we seek to model our future climate.

    The devastating impacts of extreme climate events of which Obama speaks have always been with us, and we have to expect that the human tragedies they bring will be exacerbated by growth in global population.

    Cycles in climate change imply our efforts should be targeted at mitigation of effects, not changing the climate.

    It is my hope that scientists advising our politicians will include the rich literature represented here in their briefings to politicians – or alternatively, that politicians will demand it.

    And may there be a quorum of politicians who will say as does Boris Johnson while contemplating the exceptional snow and icicles in Trafalgar Square: “I have an open mind.”

    Michael Asten is professor of geophysics at Monash University.

    LINK


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Jaymez

    No doubt Christine Milne and other Greens will be applauding this act of civil disobedience.

    “Police, Glencore and Credit Suisse confirmed that the explosions occurred on Thursday. The blasts occurred at the home Mr Glasenberg, who runs commodity company Glencore, and at a Credit Suisse branch in the upscale Hottingen neighbourhood of Zurich.

    A blast destroyed a mailbox at Mr Glasenberg’s home, which is located in a suburb near Lake Zurich. A window at the back of the Credit Suisse branch was smashed in another attack.

    In a note posted to the ch.indymedia.org website, the unnamed organisation took credit for the attacks, which it linked to the annual meeting of executives, politicians and academics that is currently taking place in the ski resort of Davos. The event has become a must-attend for global leaders.

    “Every year in January, thousands of bosses and big shots gather in the Alps to conduct their business and shout about the lack of perspective for their systems,” the group said in the letter. “Every one of them deserves at least a symbolic attack.” “


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Re Davos

      http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com.au/

      There are always meetings where the richest of the rich talk about how to implement their control and see just how much of the fiat currency they manipulate can be taken back from us all in the guise of saving us. The latest is the World Economic Forum at Davos. The theme is “Resilient Dynamism” which may be how the push for global government is increasingly being resisted, and what the WEF should do about it:

      “Unless we take action on climate change, future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled.” Christine Lagarde, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund (IMF)

      Huh…Derek Jeter goes to Davos and following a private lunch thrown by Pepsi says about ‘climate change,’ “Regardless of how you feel about it, it’s something that needs to be addressed because we’re seeing more and more natural disasters each year . . . Something has to be causing it.”
      That was brilliant Derek. Who would have thought a baseball player would understand cause and effect beyond hit the ball and it goes? Taxing CO2 must be the answer. How was that jet flight half way around the world Derek? Bought some carbon credits from Al Gore lately?

      JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon is also there to tell us that regulations on banker’s criminal activities are not the answer and banking is not something the peons can understand and so what if some investors lost $6 billion in JP’s scams, his bank still made a profit.

      “Businesses can be opaque. They are complex. You don’t know how aircraft engines work either.”
      I wonder why Bono skipped this Davos fest? Charlize Theron is there though to get an award for her AIDS work. I don’t think she has ever entertained the idea that AIDS is a man-made bio-engineered depopulation technique. She should ask the Davos crowd what else they are working on.

      The undead Henry Kissinger makes a Davos appearance and as usual he’s all about more war.

      He said nuclear proliferation in the region triggered by an armed Iran would increase the chances of an atomic war – “a turning point in human history”.
      I think he wants to see World War III before he leaves this world and knows that if it doesn’t happen soon he will miss it.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Ian H

      I’ve had two letterboxes blown up and neither made the news. I guess you have to be a banker before anyone cares about the state of your letterbox. Blowing up letterboxes seems to be a regular source of entertainment amongst the local youth. After the second time I wised up and got myself a solid stainless steel job which you’d need an antitank weapon to make a dent in. Nobody has tried to blow it up since.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    OPEN LETTER TO Dr ROY SPENCER

    Roy, the following proves that (6) is incorrect in assuming isothermal conditions could exist in a gravitational field.

    It is well known that the “Dry Adiabatic Lapse Rate” is -g/Cp where g is acceleration due to gravity and Cp is weighted mean Specific Heat of the gases involved.

    The -g/Cp result can be derived from first principles based solely on the assumption that, in the absence of any other process adding or removing energy, potential energy (PE) interchanges with kinetic energy (KE) in every molecular free flight path between impacts with other molecules. We know this must happen from basic Newtonian physics.

    So, if a few picograms of mass M move with net mean downward motion represented by a mean height distance H (which could be negative if the net motion were upward – thus covering all possibilities) and thus gain (or lose) KE which is equivalent to the loss (or gain) of PE, then that KE is the energy required to raise the mass M by a temperature difference, T. If we use specific heat, Cp (rather than heat capacity) so that M cancels, then that KE gain is the product M.Cp.T whilst the PE loss is of course the normal Newtonian product M.g.H and hence

    M.Cp.T = – M.g.H
    and so the thermal gradient is
    T/H = -g/Cp

    Now we also need to consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which has not been considered in your post as far as I can see.
    I will use the modern statement (because the Clausius statement, I say, only applies in a horizontal plane where PE = constant.) Quoting from Wiki “Laws of Thermodynamics” item, the Second Law of Thermodynamics reads …

    “An isolated system, if not already in its state of thermodynamic equilibrium, spontaneously evolves towards it. Thermodynamic equilibrium has the greatest entropy amongst the states accessible to the system.”

    Note also the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium

    “A thermodynamic system is in thermodynamic equilibrium when it is in thermal equilibrium, mechanical equilibrium, radiative equilibrium, and chemical equilibrium. Equilibrium means a state of balance. In a state of thermodynamic equilibrium, there are no net flows of matter or of energy, no phase changes, and no unbalanced potentials (or driving forces), within the system. A system that is in thermodynamic equilibrium experiences no changes when it is isolated from its surroundings.”

    So we also need mechanical equilibrium which involves no net mass transfer still happening.

    We will assume we have a perfectly insulated cylinder of pure nitrogen gas, so phase change, chemical reactions and radiation don’t play a part in disturbing the equilibrium.

    Now, when you turn the cylinder to a vertical position you have a situation which is not thermodynamic equilibrium. The “build up of pressure” is not instantaneous, as it requires physical movement of molecules with more ending up at the bottom.

    Hence, we immediately see that the original isothermal state in a horizontal position is no longer a state of thermodynamic equilibrium the instant it is in a vertical position. This in fact is obvious, because the mean of (PE+KE) for all the molecules in the top half is more than the mean of (PE+KE) for those in the bottom half. This is the very reason that the molecules move, and the fact that that movement amounts to work being done, demonstrates that the isothermal state in a vertical column was not a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

    Hence an isothermal state IN A VERTICAL PLANE does not represent the required equilibrium conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    So we need to consider what then would be the thermodynamic equilibrium state representing greatest entropy, as required by the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    .
    The very reason that the isothermal state was not in thermodynamic equilibrium is that the mean (PE+KE) was different in the top half and the bottom half, because then there was a propensity for some molecules to “fall” to lower heights, in order to create the extra pressure we do in fact observe.

    Hence, only when the mean (PE+KE) is homogeneous throughout the vertical column do we then have thermodynamic equilibrium which is also that of maximum entropy, wherein no extra work can be done by the system.

    Hence, only the state with homogeneous (PE+KE) per molecule satisfies the equilibrium requirements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    As a corollary, we then deduce that the mean KE is less where the mean PE is greater, and vice versa.

    Then, since temperature is a measure of mean KE and is independent of PE, we have a warmer temperature at the bottom (where PE is least) and a cooler temperature at the top where PE is greatest. QED


    Report this

    03

  • #

    Those who wish to hang their hats on the original Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (as it pertains to a horizontal plane) and on the wishy-washy dismissal by Maxwell of the brilliant hypothesis of Loschmidt, will continue to live in the dream world physics of that century, oblivious to the subsequent research of physicists in the 20th and 21st centuries. But then, if you believe in a greenhouse effect, you do indeed believe in 19th century concepts, and you do indeed ignore subsequent scientific findings and, in particular, the modern form of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which rules out any greenhouse effect due to its requirement for thermodynamic equilibrium in a state of maximum entropy.


    Report this

    01

  • #

    Most climatologists have circulated and taught each other what amounts to a very warped and incorrect pseudo physics pertaining to heat transfer mechanisms and the Laws of Thermodynamics.

    This is epitomised in the numerous errors in the “physics” in Roy’s Spencer’s six points of “misunderstanding.” Search for my comments on that thread, starting from here http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/misunderstood-basic-concepts-and-the-greenhouse-effect/#comment-67669

    They need to “unlearn” concepts such as a pure nitrogen atmosphere would not absorb thermal energy and would be isothermal at 255K.

    The fact is that a pure nitrogen atmosphere (or one with 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen) would autonomously adopt a thermal gradient of more than 9C/Km, and probably very close to 9.8C/Km because some molecules would in fact absorb high energy Solar radiation, just as they do in the thermosphere. As such, the base of the atmosphere would then support a surface temperature probably a little over 300K. Introducing water vapour then gives us close to what we observe, and carbon dioxide also cools by a minuscule net amount due to its contribution to intra-molecular radiation which lowers the thermal gradient, as happens with similar radiation between water vapour molecules.


    Report this

    00