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



The story of one of the largest private wagers on the climate. A real climate bet.

Commenters often ask us if I am prepared to make a bet and put “your money where your mouth is.” The answer is: been there — done that. We (as in David Evans and I) already have and a long time ago. As far as I know, it’s one of the largest private bets going on the climate*. David bet against Brian Schmidt, $6,000 to $9,000, in early 2007 on outcomes over 10, 15 and 20 years.

The bet was made a year before I started blogging. It was literally the first action we took as skeptics (instigated and hammered out almost entirely by David, with my support).  So we have $6,000 exposure — betting that global temperatures would not rise faster than 0.15C per decade, as judged by GISTemp. How are we doing on this bet? Judging by the trend at the moment, pretty well. Brian is still optimistic that he will win on the later outcomes. (This is part of the reason we are particularly interested in trends from 2005, which is when the bet temperatures begin to count.) Kudos to Brian both for being one of the few willing to make a bet, and for being so polite and amiable about it.

Indeed there was a funny moment in the early days of this blog, where Brian Schmidt was so keen to arrange more bets, he turned up here and asked me if I was brave to bet against him. I replied that technically I already had. (He didn’t realize I was married to David Evans, and fair enough, I think that reply was the first time I mentioned it on the site).

The backstory of the bet

In early 2007 when David realized that there was no empirical backing for the theory of man-made global warming, his first instinct was to see if he could place a bet on it. (David says…”It was the hype of 2007, and I figured there must be a way to make money out of this nonsense. A friend made money by shorting the big Danish wind turbine company, and three times!”) Like most self-employed people, we are of the entrepreneurial spirit — we don’t need a boss, and are happy to compete and take risks. To a large extent David’s ability to assess risks, and find “gaps ahead of the market”, is what made this blog possible (though it’s been a very thin margin of late as the Australian gold sector has hit record volatility, but that is another story).

One of the odd things at the time was how hard it was to make a bet. Despite the Great-Global-Mass-of-Consensus that existed in 2007, whereupon everyone (nearly) believed in man-made global warming, it was surprisingly difficult for David to find anyone willing to actually put money down on the theory. I remember him approaching a few who were not remotely willing to take the gambit. Seemingly, everyone who lived off their ability to judge risk (and make bets) was already a skeptic, even then, and so they weren’t going to bet against us. On the other hand, those who passionately believed the theory of man-made catastrophe were seemingly not the personality type to make bets. They fervently believed they could not be wrong, but almost no one (apart from Brian Schmidt) was willing to place a stake.

It was only after David placed the bet in March-April 2007 that he published his reasons why, and was noticed by the skeptical community (specifically the Lavoisier group). Not at all surprisingly, some skeptical groups reached out to say “hello”. Later David scathingly unleashed an op-ed article in The Australian, which drew more attention and seems to have alerted a lot of people. By the end of 2007,  Ray Evans (Lavoisier Group) found himself unable to attend the UNFCCC event in Bali, so he suggested David go in his place. I was a nobody in the climate world,  the silent observer, but I had to be there, so I paid to go; there was too much fun to be had. (“Bali 2007″ where 12 skeptics met 12,000 believers, what more could I ask?) We had Marc Morano, Christopher Monckton, David Archibald, Vincent Gray, Will Alexander  Craig Rucker (CFACT) and most of the dedicated excellent NZ contingent. It was brilliant. We made good friends.

So much for those big-oil funded denier theories

The history of the bet shows how meaningless the accusations of “influential links to right wing think tanks” are — the cause and effect is completely back to front. We were skeptics before we knew what the Heartland Institute was, before we’d been to an IPA meeting, a CIS conference, or a Lavoisier event — we had already put our own money on the table. (And Exxon-Chevron-Shell-BP were a no-show both before and after.) As it happens, in the history books, Heartland deserve accolades for getting disparate independent thinkers together in the same room, even for a few days, and connecting the volunteers. I will be forever grateful for the chance to meet such upstanding souls of intelligence and integrity as I have met through this debate. It’s a great sieve…

Why did David make the bet?

The bet was announced on April 24, 2007 on a guest post on Brian Schmidt’s blog: Backseat Driving. (David says now, that at the time, it just seemed very curious that everyone commended Brian and himself for having a civil discussion about global warming. He realizes now that it was a warning of just how acrimonious and distasteful the nature of this “debate” was, but back then, he didn’t realize it was so rare.)

The Conditions of the bet

“We have three bet periods -10, 15, and 20 years – and two bets for each period – an even-odds bet and a 2:1 bet in David’s favor. The even-odds bet centers around a temperature increase rate of 0.15C/decade with a 0.02 void margin on either side (bet voids if temps increase between .13 and .17C/decade). The 2:1 bet centers on 0.1C/decade with a .01 void margin. Even-odds bets are for $1,000 each, and the 2:1 bets increase over time, with Brian betting $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000, and David betting half that. Brian’s exposure is $9,000; David’s is $6,000. We’re using five-year averaged Nasa GISS data. More info here.”

Because these are five year centered averages, the first round settles in 2020.

David explained his thoughts (which have developed quite a bit since then) on Brian’s blog on April 30th. Here they are as they were then. They stand the test of time pretty well.  Brian’s thoughts on it are listed on his blog.

David Evans:  “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry (Google on “FullCAM”). When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

In the late 1990′s the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming was basically:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proved in a laboratory a century ago.

2. Global warming has been occurring for a century, especially since 1975, and concentrations of atmospheric carbon have been rising for a century, especially since 1975. Correlation is not causation, but in a rough sense it looked like a fit.

3. Ice core data, starting with the first cores from Vostok in 1985, allowed us to measure temperature and atmospheric carbon going back hundreds of thousands of years, through several dramatic global warming and cooling events. To the temporal resolution then available (data points were generally more than a thousand years apart), atmospheric carbon and temperature moved in lock-step: there was an extremely high correlation, they rose and fell together. Talk about a smoking gun!

4. There weren’t any other credible suspects for causing global warming. So presumably it had to be carbon emissions.

This evidence was good enough: not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now? So the idea that carbon emissions were causing global warming passed from the scientific community into the political realm, and actions started to happen. Research increased, bureaucracies were formed, international committees met, and eventually the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997 — with the aim of curbing carbon emissions.

And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990′s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed. Using the same point numbers as above:

2. Closer examination of the last century using better data shows that from 1940 to 1975 the earth cooled at about 0.1C/decade while atmospheric carbon increased. But any warming effect of atmospheric carbon is immediate. By 2003 or so we had discovered global dimming, which might be adequate to explain this 35-year non-correlation. But what had seemed like a good fit between recent atmospheric carbon and global warming now looks shaky, in need of the recently-discovered unquantified global dimming factor to explain 35 years of substantial cooling. I reckon the last century of correlation evidence now neither supports carbon emissions as the cause nor eliminates it. Further quantitative research on global dimming might rescue this bit of evidence, or it might weaken it further.

3. As more ice core data was collected, the temporal resolution was improved. By 2004 or so we knew from the ice core data that in the warming events of the last million years the temperature increases generally started about 800 years *before* the rises in atmospheric carbon started. Causality does not run in the direction I had assumed in 1999 — it runs the opposite way. Presumably temperature rises cause a delayed rise in atmospheric carbon because it takes several hundred years to warm the oceans enough for the oceans to give off more of their carbon.

It is possible that rising atmospheric carbon in these past warmings then went on to cause more warming (“amplification” of the initial warming), but the ice core data does not prove that. It could just be that the temperature rose for some other reason, that this caused the oceans to raise the atmospheric carbon levels, and that the increased atmospheric carbon had an insignificant effect on the temperature.

The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role.

4. A credible alternative suspect now exists. Clouds both reflect incoming radiation (albedo) and prevent heat from escaping (greenhouse), but with low clouds the albedo effect is stronger than the greenhouse effect. Thus low clouds cause net cooling (high clouds are less common and do the opposite). In October 2006 a team led by Henrik Svensmark showed experimentally that cosmic rays affect cloud formation, and thus that

Stronger sun’s magnetic field

=> Less cosmic rays hit Earth

=> Fewer low clouds are formed

=> Earth heats up.

And indeed, the sun’s magnetic field has been stronger than usual for the last three decades. So maybe cosmic rays cause global warming. But investigation of this cause is still in its infancy, and it’s far too early to judge how much of the global warming is caused by cosmic rays.

So three of the four arguments that convinced me in 1999 that carbon emissions caused global warming are now questionable.

The case for carbon emissions as the cause of global warming now just boils down to the fact that we know that it works in the laboratory, and that there is no strong evidence that global warming is definitely *not* caused by carbon emissions. Much the same can be said of cosmic rays — we have laboratory evidence that it works, and no definitely contradictory evidence.

So why did I bet against global warming continuing at the current rate? Let’s return to the interaction between science and politics.

By 2000 the political system had responded to the strong scientific case that carbon emissions caused global warming by creating thousands of bureaucratic and science jobs aimed at more research and at curbing carbon emissions. This was a good and sensible response by big government to what science was telling them.

But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker — better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds. Future evidence might strengthen or further weaken the carbon emissions hypothesis. At what stage of the weakening should the science community alert the political system that carbon emissions might not be the main cause of global warming? None of the new evidence actually says that carbon emissions are definitely not the cause of global warming, there are lots of good science jobs potentially at stake, and if the scientific message wavers then it might be difficult to recapture the attention of the political system later on. What has happened is that most research effort since 2000 has assumed that carbon emissions were the cause, and the alternatives get much less research or political attention.

(BTW, I quit my job in carbon accounting in 2005 for personal reasons. It had nothing to do with my weakening belief that carbon emissions caused global warming. I felt that the main value of our plant models was in land management and plant simulation, and that carbon accounting was just a by-product.)

Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics.

The integrity of the scientific community will win out in the end, following the evidence wherever it leads. But in the meantime, the effects of the political climate is that most people are overestimating the evidence in favor of carbon emissions as the cause of global warming. Which makes it a good time to bet the other way :)

I would like to bet against carbon emissions being the main cause of the current global warming. But I can’t bet on that directly, because all betting requires an unambiguous and measurable criterion. About the only related measure we can bet on is global temperature. So I accepted Brian’s bets about trends in global temperatures over the next 10 to 20 years. Basically, if the current warming trend continues or accelerates then Brian will win; if the rate of warming slows then I will win. Even if carbon emissions are not the main cause of this global warming, I can still lose:

  • Global warming might be due to a side-effect of industrialization other than carbon emissions. Possible causes include atmospheric reactions of industrial chemicals that hinder the rate of low cloud formation.
  • Global warming might be primarily due to a non-human cause, such as something related to the sun or to underground nuclear reactions. If this cause persists over the next 20 years as it has for the last 30 years then I will lose, but if it fades in the next decade then I win.

I emphasize that we are making a bet involving odds and judgment. The evidence is not currently conclusive either for or against any particular cause of global warming. I think that it *is* possible that carbon emissions are the dominant cause of global warming, but in light of the weakening evidence I judge that probability to be about 20% rather than almost 90% as estimated by the IPCC.

I worry that politics could seriously distort the science. Suppose that carbon taxes are widely enacted, but that the rate of global warming increase starts to decline by 2015. The political system might be under pressure to repay the taxes, so it might in turn put a lot of pressure on scientists to provide justifications for the taxes. Or the political system might reject the taxes and blame science for misinforming it, which could be a terrible outcome for science because the political system is powerful and not constrained by truth.

Some people take strong rhetorical positions on global warming. But the cause of global warming is not just another political issue that is subject to endless debate and distortions. The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. The cause just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is. Looking back in another 40 years, we will almost certainly know the answer and Brian and I will be in agreement on the issue.

Given that betting is thus possible on this issue, it seems strange that some people who take strong positions and profit by those positions are not prepared to bet even a small amount of their own money. Betting something of one’s own money adds, shall we say, credibility. And people whose own money is at stake try a little harder — a well known advantage of private business over public. A good side effect of widespread betting would be a market in betting that would represent a community-wide best guess. Such markets exists in sports betting, and are the best predictors of game outcomes.

Let’s hope for the planet’s sake that I win the bets :) Meanwhile let’s do more research, and take cheap measures to curb carbon emissions!

– David Evans, April 2007

James Annan (a mate of Brian’s) thought David Evans was wrong, and David replied to it. And well, the debate goes on…

*Other bets? There’s a pair of Russians betting against James Annan for $10,000. And there is the climate bet Al Gore didn’t accept, and appears to be losing.

UPDATE: MV points out there is a charity bet people can join in on at NoTricksZone. Looks very interesting.

**Yes we realize in 2020 dollars that either way, thanks to inflation, the stakes are not as high as they seem.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (68 votes cast)
The story of one of the largest private wagers on the climate. A real climate bet., 8.9 out of 10 based on 68 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nbjfv4t

149 comments to The story of one of the largest private wagers on the climate. A real climate bet.

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    That’s a lot of exposure, Jo. But I think you’ll be collecting $9,000 in the end.

    Thanks for having the courage to buck all the nonsense when it must have cost you a lot of grief and the sudden disrespect of probably many friends and associates.

    There are two things I wish I could simply fund 100%. Your blog is one of them. Unfortunately I can’t even fund all the necessary things in my life and so, have to make trade offs. But I want you to know I think your work has been by far the most valuable in fighting against the global warming fraud. As good evidence that I’m right, you’re top Ausie-New Zeeland blog and looking likely to stay there.

    Roy


    Report this

    340

    • #

      Well Roy, I suspect your bet on the odds are very good. In a game of one card draw I say Team Science Reason has a Queen or King. That is based upon my understanding or belief in my understanding of the physics of Global cooling. Now before everyone gets in a huff. The Earth is continually cooling towards about 3K the current temperature of the Universe. Solar energy rains down and some part of it’s energy sometimes heats or maintains or delays the cooling. The idea of global warming is really about the state of cooling delay. That delay in cooling is really what all the modeling and analysis is about. The temperatures in temperate and polar regions is about the deficit of solar heating added to the advection heat from the surplus of the tropic zones.

      It is alien to my gut that a 1 part in 10,000 change of C02 can have any more effect on that cooling rate positive or negative more than the ratio of the change in mass of 10,000 molecules of air plus a C02 molecule and minus another molecule. I may have a rare perspective but that is my self reasoned belief.

      But even with that understanding their is so much chaos in the factors both adding cooling delay heat, ALso in the factors of transport by advection. ie ocean currents. There is always a surplus of solar heating in the tropics and always a deficit approaching the poles.
      The greater the advection, the greater the apparent global temperature. The magnitude of advection is the sum of the wind steering and gravity steering of the ocean currents and the wind currents.

      The short term of years to these currents is like the short term of weather in days. One day is nice sailing westerlies and then next is a hurricane. The waste of billions on CO2 stupidity has missed the opportunity of studying the possible processes that govern. But there is tremendous cooling delay capability in the unknown factors.

      Emotionally and morally I do hope Team Science Reason wins, but I would hope it is only by .001 degrees as that is far better for humanity. Also the Polar bears do not care.


      Report this

      20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Want a real bet on the climate? The story of one of the largest private wager on the climate.

    Should wager be wagers instead? Or am I not picking up properly on British-Australian usage?
    —–
    No. You were right. I noticed it too. Thanks. Jo


    Report this

    50

  • #
  • #
    Ernest Bush

    Hope that bet is based on the GISS data set at the time of that bet. That data has been so messed with it no longer shows the temperatures of the 1930′s in the US as the hottest on record. The MWP and the LIA are no longer as bad as the historic record shows them to have been, according to what I have seen at the Real Science blog.

    Meanwhile, it has been snowing across the Northern Hemisphere with cold temperature records being set all over the place with record snow in some places. Here in the U.S. about 75,000 cattle reportedly died of exposure to freezing rain and 4 feet of snow in South Dakota. The winter cold was weeks early for that state and the animals had not had enough time to finish growing their winter coats. We have some ski resorts opening weeks earliest in their histories. Britain and Europe are looking at bleak forecasts. Realizing this is not necessarily climate change, it is, after all, part of an overall decline in average temperatures since that bet was made. I think your husband has made a safe bet.

    Meanwhile, I’m sitting on a shaded veranda in Yuma, Arizona, writing while enjoying the mildest October maybe of the last 15 years. It is only a few miles to the Mexican border. The temperature is 74 degrees at 9:40 am. The U.S. mainstream media is pointedly avoiding mentioning the fact it has been snowing, sometimes heavily, in the northern tier states and Colorado for the past four weeks. Even Nebraska got hit with snow.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    I hate to be a party pooper, but I love to see temperatures rise further with no correlation or relationship to CO2. I am not interested in the cold winters we had in the 80′ with the famous eleven city skating tour twice in 1985 and 1986 which they organize in Friesland (a province of The Netherlands). I adore the warm summers we have since 1990.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AryNVqcrRYU

    BRRRRRRRRRR, rather not! :-D


    Report this

    122

  • #
    Peter Miller

    The only possible thing you might need to worry about with your bet is if any of your end dates coincide with a major El Niño.

    Right now, my bet is the alarmist cult are praying for a Super El Niño to occur before ‘the next Kyoto’ in Rome.


    Report this

    102

  • #

    I think you are in very good shape. Here is a copy of a post I made on Bob Tisdale’s site in response to his post on yet another paper predicting cooling until the 2020s.
    “It is encouraging to see increasing numbers of academics projecting cooling into the 2020s and 30s.What is amazing to me is the past inability of the vast academic climate science industry to see, admit and state the obvious.
    Everyone can see plainly that temperatures rose from about 1910 – 1940+/- fell from there to the mid 70s and rose from there to about 2003. Wonders ! a sixty year cycle!! . What on earth will happen next?
    Lo and behold there is a millennial cycle – which looks like it too peaked at about the same time. See Figs 3 and 4 at the last post at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    Dare we think using Ockhams razor that it too will repeat? It seems that that is a leap of the imagination beyond practically everyone in the business.
    The sun is the main climate driver and continues to shine and solar “activity” correlates well with temperature. ( see Fig 3 CD from Steinhilber
    http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/03/30/1118965109.full.pdf}
    If you want to see which way solar activity has been and is heading go to the Oulu neutron monitor. Because of the thermal inertia of the oceans It has been estimated that there is about a 12 year lag between the cosmic ray flux and the temperature data. see Fig3 in Usoskin et al
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2005ESASP.560…19U. so we can get a glimpse into the future.
    Using these simple ,transparent and reasonable
    observations it is possible to make useful predictions for several centuries ahead. These can be tested against the data and easily amended as the data comes in. For an estimate of the timing and amount of the coming cooling check my blog at the link above.”
    For convenience here’s the global SST forecast.
    ” Significant temperature drop at about 2016-17
    2 Possible unusual cold snap 2021-22
    3 Built in cooling trend until at least 2024
    4 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2035 minus 0.15
    5 Temperature Hadsst3 moving average anomaly 2100 minus 0.5
    6 General Conclusion – by 2100 all the 20th century temperature rise will have been reversed,
    7 By 2650 earth could possibly be back to the depths of the little ice age.
    8 The effect of increasing CO2 emissions will be minor but beneficial – they may slightly ameliorate the forecast cooling and help maintain crop yields .
    9 Warning !! There are some signs in the Livingston and Penn Solar data that a sudden drop to the Maunder Minimum Little Ice Age temperatures could be imminent – with a much more rapid and economically disruptive cooling than that forecast above which may turn out to be a best case scenario.

    How confident should one be in these above predictions? The pattern method doesn’t lend itself easily to statistical measures. However statistical calculations only provide an apparent rigor for the uninitiated and in relation to the IPCC climate models are entirely misleading because they make no allowance for the structural uncertainties in the model set up. This is where scientific judgment comes in – some people are better at pattern recognition and meaningful correlation than others. A past record of successful forecasting such as indicated above is a useful but not infallible measure. In this case I am reasonably sure – say 65/35 for about 20 years ahead. Beyond that certainty drops rapidly. I am sure, however, that it will prove closer to reality than anything put out by the IPCC, Met Office or the NASA group. In any case this is a Bayesian type forecast- in that it can easily be amended on an ongoing basis as the Temperature and Solar data accumulate. If there is not a 0.15 – 0.20. drop in Global SSTs by 2018 -20 I would need to re-evaluate.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    It looks like your bet is becoming more likely to succeed.

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/13/new-paper-finds-natural-ocean-oscillations-control-northern-hemisphere-temperatures-15-20-years-in-advance-published-in-geophysical-research-letters/

    One theoretical model which makes falsifiable predictions against the monstrous regiment of theoretical models which make unfalsifiable projections. Anyone want to bet against the little guys?


    Report this

    120

  • #
    pattoh

    Do you reckon Tim Flannery or Ross Garnaut would stick their own private funds where their sanctimonious mouths are?

    They seem quite happy to put our money & the future wealth of the nation up.


    Report this

    200

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Isn’t all their money sunk into beach-front properties?


      Report this

      130

    • #
      Winston

      They’ve already bet our money to the tune of several billion. We lost.

      On the racetrack they call them “touts”- if in doubt what a tout does- watch Bob Hope in “The Lemon Drop Kid” from a Damon Runyon story -coincidentally the name of a pretty smart US Racehorse (Belmont Stakes winner) and sire.


      Report this

      80

  • #
    Justin Jefferson

    When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive …
    This evidence was good enough: not conclusive, but why wait until we are absolutely certain when we apparently need to act now?

    It is this line of reasoning underlying the whole “scientific” debate that is so bemusing and regrettable, because it shows a fallacious line of reasoning many times over. The natural scientists, completely oblivious of the possibility of logically valid scientific propositions about human action, were involved in fallacies piled deep and high. Even in their own terms, as soon as they entered onto judgments of value, they were floundering hopelessly.

    Science doesn’t supply value judgments, whereas policy requires them.

    So just because, or even if, “carbon emissions caused global warming”, it is a complete non sequitur many times over, to jump from there to the conclusions that therefore:
    a) all effects are on balance negative
    b) “we” includes everyone who disagrees, or who would indeed be violated, impoverished or caused to die by the resulting policy action
    c) the State is capable of knowing all the relevant human values in issue in the status quo versus the policy counterfactual
    d) the State would know what discount to apply to future human utility, or whatever you want to call the ultimate human welfare criterion, which according to the definition of “sustainability” must be indefinitely into the future, i.e. hundreds and thousands of years – complete nonsense
    e) the State needs to take over control of all productive activity, and attempt to balance all the oxidation with all reduction reactions in the world, and
    f) policy could be presumed to make the situation better rather than worse.

    Yet it was already known – categorically, not probably – that many of these assumptions are flatly incorrect. They were already proved in theory by Mises before the statists of the 20th century went ahead and proved them wrong in practice at a cost of over 100 million deaths. And here was a new generation of statists, raised on compulsory government indoctrination, re-running the same meme, only worse.

    Last time it was the completely false belief that the State has the knowledge, capacity and selflessness to run the economy. This time around it was that the State can not only oversee every action that involves carbon – i.e. every human action in the world – but is now presumed capable of managing the world’s ecology as well! (They know where every member of every species should be.) As Bastiat said, from what tremendous height do they look down on everyone else.

    Obviously if a line of reasoning is fallacious, it cannot be scientific. I hope the scientific community have learnt a little intellectual humility from this episode.

    A good starting place to learn some would be: “Human Action” by Mises: http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf


    Report this

    130

  • #
    diogenese2

    David’s idea that the Global Warming Meme passed from science to politics in the mid 90′s is inaccurate. It was already there and active. We have 3 active agents in the UK.
    1) The Climate Research Unit, established 1972 (when the fear was an ice age) established by Hubert Lamb (ret.1978). their website confirms that previously there had been almost NO climate Science.
    2) The Hadley Centre at the met. office established by M.Thatcher in 1990.Its expressed mandate was to find evidence for Global Warming.
    Some history: In 1972 and 1974 strikes by coal miners (coal being by far the largest source of UK power generation) destroyed the Government of Edward Heath, of which Margaret thatcher was a part. In her own regime, in 1984/85 the Miners almost pulled the same stunt. Thatcher wanted to move to the Nuclear generation level of the French but it was expensive and she needed a reason to reduce dependence on coal. She, unique amongst European (and US) leaders was a trained scientist ( a degree in Chemistry) and promoted the idea internationally (where it found willing acceptance) as she was the only one among them who had a clue about science.
    3) The Tyndall Centre, estab. 2000 by state funding bodies to
    research ( and promote) CAGW by the Blair government. Its naming, after the discoverer of the radiative properties of CO2, tells it all.
    As a matter of interest neither of these last two have a “history” section on their websites describing their founding – obviously not proud!
    Between them they concocted the Climate Change Act 2008 which could yet destroy my nation.
    The point being that the CAGW meme had infected the body politic well before there was any “science” behind it. The IPCC first met in 1988. RIO 1992 adopted the message even the FAR 1991 was inconclusive.
    In conclusion CAGW is an ideology that has used science as a tool of political persuasion. The struggle is not scientific – it is political and “sceptics” must recognise this.


    Report this

    240

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      ” The struggle is not scientific – it is political and “sceptics” must recognise this.”
      If the almost total subordination of AR5 science to the IPCC political imperative does not make your point clear to the world at large, there is no hope for us.


      Report this

      220

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In the late 1990′s the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming was basically:

    1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proved in a laboratory a century ago.

    That and other equally shaky reasons show how easily the world fell into a trap. That supposed proof is a really thin unstable trunk upon which has been grown a huge tree of theory and supposed evidence. That trunk either makes or breaks the entire global warming due to CO2 idea and still, I cannot get a response from anyone I ask for something as simple as any credible evidence that CO2 in the atmosphere behaves as predicted. The tree is falling over from the lack of a strong enough supporting structure. It’s an abject failure on this one point alone. Surely someone can grasp the need for the foundation principle of global warming to stand up under examination. Yet it doesn’t.

    The Skeptic’s Handbook literally condemns the alarmists on it’s first couple of pages. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. How strong is the chain linking CO2 to warming of this planet?


    Report this

    190

  • #
    MemoryVault

    Hi Jo,

    You didn’t mention the “other” ongoing blog bet at Pierre Gosselin’s No Tricks Zone.

    Details here.

    ————-

    Thanks. Added to the update on the post. Merci. – Jo


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Belfast

    Why nothing from the trolls?


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Orson

    ABOVE, below (2), after this – “But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed. Using the same point numbers as above:”

    By 2003 or so we had discovered global dimming, which might be adequate to explain this 35-year non-correlation. But what had seemed like a good fit between recent atmospheric carbon and global warming now looks shaky, in need of the recently-discovered unquantified global dimming factor to explain 35 years of substantial cooling.

    This might deserve unpacking in post all of its own. Intutively, after the warming of the 1990s and the industrial development in China and South Asia, etc, the recent disconnect seems all the more stark and confounding. And attempts to measure ‘dimming’ and purported cooling of the Post World War Two era casts doubt on the explanatory value of the idea. Nonetheless, some cooling effect ought to be measureable…. No?


    Report this

    40

  • #
    braddles

    One striking thing is that in spite of decades of doom-laden ‘projections’, Brian Schmidt was still only willing to risk money if there is less than 1.3 C per century of warming. Compare this to the 8 degrees per century cited by Julia Gillard to justify the carbon tax (“up to five degrees by 2070″), or the statements by Flannery and the other catastrophists, some of them even more extreme.


    Report this

    161

  • #
    Neville

    Jo I wish David all the best with his bet.

    Here is a link to more IPCC nonsense from Jennifer’s blog that I put up this morning.

    More lies and idiocy from the totally corrupt IPCC.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_dare_the_ipcc_peddle_this_monstrous_scare/#commentsmore

    All this has been covered in Lomborg’s “Cool It” and then even there the idiot IPCC accepted that the USA could protect itself from a 1 metre SLR for about 6.5 billion $ by 2100.

    And just think if we were silly enough to vote for another Labor/Green coalition in the future we will get the co2 tax again or the delusional ETS.
    It would have Zip change on temp and the climate until 2100 and yet they want us to squander 100s of billions $ on this moronic stupidity. When will these enthusiastic fossil fuel exporting Labor idiots ever wake up?


    Report this

    101

    • #
      Michael P

      Maybe they’ll wake up if they attempt to block the Coalition’s repeal bills in the Senate and a DD election is called,as that would lose them even more seats I’d imagine,and in Today’s Telegraph they said that the possibility of such a thing was still on the table,so to speak.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    Cosmic ray theory debunked,

    From the intro of this thread:-

    ‘So maybe cosmic rays cause global warming. But investigation of this cause is still in its infancy, and it’s far too early to judge how much of the global warming is caused by cosmic rays.’

    ‘This one is important…the Sun doesn’t alter much, [the theory says] the Sun modulates the cosmic rays, the cosmic rays modulate the clouds, the clouds modulate the temperature, so the Sun amplified hugely… but we have reasons to believe it’s a fine tuning knob…the cosmic rays came streaming in…we had a big cosmic ray signal and the climate ignores it and it’s just about that simple, these comic rays didn’t do enough for you to see it, so it’s a fine tuning knob’. R Alley.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAuMWDHy30

    —————————-
    [Studies that "debunk" the cosmic ray theory usually focus on the wrong categorization of "ray" or on the wrong categorization of atmospheric layer. ie, they don't look at high energy rays on the lower atmosphere. See also - Jo]


    Report this

    118

    • #
      Rastuz

      “so it’s a fine tuning knob’. R Alley.

      You would know about Richard Alley’s knob now wouldn’t you..


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Disturbing vision!
        I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again Richard Alley is Mildew Wolf from “It’s the wolf!” sounds just like Paul Lynde.


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Have just recently noticed two papers which claim to debunk the CR-climate link over the last 30 years.
      The first is this one,
      Benjamin A. Laken, Enric Pallé, Jaša Čalogović, and Eimear M. Dunne. “A cosmic ray-climate link and cloud observations”.

      For ISCPP coverage data they say:

      we argue that it is not possible to accurately determine low cloud variations from satellite-based irradiance techniques. Our evidence for this is based on the observation, previously noted by Palle(2005), that the changes in globally averaged low cloud cover are strongly anti-correlated (r=0.79) to variations in overly-ing cloud cover (Fig. 3). The possibility that overlying clouds may obscure low cloud, and thereby influence correlations between solar activity and cloud cover was also explored by Voiculescu et al. (2006,2009).

      Hmmm, that’s a pretty basic problem. They aren’t saying the phenomenon isn’t there, they’re saying it’s not possible for ISCPP to detect the correlation even if the phenomenon is real.
      Their comment on Svensmark is that he cherry-picked and doctored the ISCCP data to get preferred results.
      Darn.

      They then cite themselves [very modest] as the authority on analysing MODIS cloud cover for a CR-climate link, and the neutron/MODIS data they show indeed has no trace of any cosmic-ray correlation to cloud-cover.
      Bugger!

      The second paper is…
      Joshua Krissansen-Totton, and Roger Davies. “Investigation of cosmic ray–cloud connections using MISR”. DOI: 10.1002/grl.50996
      …but I haven’t read that one yet.

      This is all in light of the recent Kirkby/CERN press release that a new CLOUD experiment has shown small amounts of amines can amplify aerosol CCNs hugely without any CR flux involved, and adding CRs doesn’t boost CCN growth by much at all if amines are present (alongside the usual sulphuric acid).
      Amines come from decaying protein.

      So quite possibly… there *was* a Cosmic Ray / Climate link for 500 million years until cow herds began cooling the planet in the late 20th century, which would explain why there’s so much historic evidence of the link (Shaviv,Svensmark) but apparently no link in the satellite era.

      Yeah. Cow cooling.

      Well it’s either that or else CO2 is a strong GHG, which doesn’t work either due to The Pause.
      None of the options on the table seem very credible. Maybe we just don’t know.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      FAO Jo [they don't look at high energy rays on the lower atmosphere. See also - Jo] Well when the cosmic rays came flooding in, because the magnetic field zero’d out for a millennium, but no record was left of the so called affect of cosmic rays. As is explained in the link! So it’s a fine tuning knob at best!


      Report this

      04

  • #
    PeterS

    No need to make such bets. The onus is on the other side. AGW alarmists are the biggest hypocrites of all time. People like Al Gore should be the ones making a bet such that if he’s proven wrong he should refund and/or donate his millions. It’s all a scam and they know it, and we know it. It’s all a game to them. There’s no doubt in my mine that an honest and fair court trial on the AGW debate would rule that runaway AGW is false and a scam.


    Report this

    140

    • #
    • #

      Peter S, the point of the bet was obviously not for PR. David was genuinely looking for ways to profit from knowledge he could see was missing from the market. Given the delay involved, and the months it took to line this up in a customized arrangement, I don’t think climate bets are a cost effective way to make a living. ;-) And, it’s possible CO2 might have negligible effect, but we still may not win.


      Report this

      120

  • #
    RoHa

    “Quoth she, I ‘ve heard old cunning stagers
    Say fools for arguments use wagers.”
    (Samuel Butler Hudibras. Part ii. Canto i. Line 297

    But when you’ve got arguments, a bet is a good way of drawing attention to them.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    pat

    a potential win of $9,000 for David, add some noughts for the energy suppliers!

    12 Oct: UK Telegraph: Robert Mendick: Wind farm subsidies generate £900m for Britain’s big six energy suppliers
    Britain’s largest energy firms received almost £900 million last year through a consumer subsidy added to household bills, analysis of the industry’s figures shows
    An analysis of the industry’s figures shows that Britain’s largest energy firms received almost £900 million last year through a consumer subsidy added to household bills.
    The subsidy is worth £200 million more than the income from the electricity actually produced by Britain’s on and offshore wind farms. In total, the big six received more than £1.5 billion in revenues last year from wind farms they own…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10375121/Wind-farm-subsidies-generate-900m-for-Britains-big-six-energy-suppliers.html

    13 Oct: UK Telegraph: Steve Hawkes: Scrap “regressive” green subsidies to help lift poor out of poverty, think-tank claims
    Ministers were last night urged to scrap green energy subsidies as part of a staggering £50 billion tax cut to help low income families across Britain
    Energy secretary Ed Davey has continually blamed wholesale energy costs for higher bills and insisted there simply needs to be more competition in the energy sector.
    Speaking earlier today, he played down talk of clash on policy with Chancellor George Osborne, saying they were “stuck together” on the need to substantially increase levels of investment.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10376082/Scrap-regressive-green-subsidies-to-help-lift-poor-out-of-poverty-think-tank-claims.html


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    the public will also be subsidising nuclear:

    13 Oct: Reuters: Britain ‘extremely close’ to nuclear plant deal with EDF
    Britain is “extremely close” to sealing a deal with France’s EDF Energy to build the country’s first new nuclear power station since 1995, Energy Minister Ed Davey said on Sunday, adding there was also Chinese involvement in the talks.
    In an interview with BBC TV, Davey said he expected “tens of billions of pounds” of foreign investment to flow into Britain’s nuclear energy sector in the coming years from China, Japan, South Korea and France…
    The British government and EDF have long been in talks over financial terms to build a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point in Somerset in southwest England. A Chinese company is also expected to take part in the project…
    Davey, who said he wanted to ensure that the cost of disposing of any nuclear waste and the cost of decommissioning was included in any deal price, said he’d also been leading negotiations with unnamed Chinese companies.
    ***Negotiations between Britain and EDF have focused on trying to fix a minimum electricity price for power generated at the proposed plant as part of a new policy package that aims to reward forms of energy produced with low carbon emissions…
    Foreign companies would be subject to stringent British nuclear safety rules, he added, saying “hundreds of billions of pounds” worth of investment was in the pipeline for Britain’s energy sector overall.
    The Financial Times reported on Saturday that Chancellor George Osborne would sign a deal in China this week allowing a Chinese state-run nuclear power company to help build a new plant in Britain.
    The paper, citing unnamed sources, said Osborne would sign a memorandum of understanding to back the Chinese General Nuclear Power Group (CGNPG) entering a deal with EDF for the planned Hinkley Point plant…
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/13/uk-britain-nuclear-edf-idUKBRE99C09S20131013


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Dan Pangburn

    The time-integral of sunspot numbers (with appropriate proxy factor) calculates the average global temperature trend since 1610. An overlay of average global temperature measurements shows the OSCILLATIONS above and below the trend that are the net effect of ocean cycles. http://conenssti.blogspot.com/ . Rational carbon dioxide change has no significant influence.


    Report this

    71

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Not sure if you saw this on the weekend, Dan, but when Scafetta’s model was presented here I tried suggesting very gently that he replace his solar cycle component with your sunspot integral component. So far no reply from Dr Scafetta.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mattb

    It’s like that guy with three cups and a white ball… nomatter how obvious it is that the ball is under the middle cup I’d advise anyone not to put $50 on the table…


    Report this

    01

    • #
      Greebo

      Gee Matt. Isn’t that exactly what the AGW proponents have been doing? No matter how hard we look, the answer is somewhere else. I doubt David will ever collect, as the goalposts keep moving, as they always seem to when the snake oil runs out.
      ( I like mixing metaphors, OK? )


      Report this

      00

  • #
    BilB

    I don’t follow the temperature rise details at all closely, so this article made me take a look. And yes there is a huge dip from 1940 to 1970 something, a very substantial dip. So some understanding is required.

    There are a huge number of possibilities, but this one rings true with my memories of the time of the acid rain that was killing the forests of Europe and the massive effort to fit electrostatic precipitators on all of the worlds coal powerstations.

    This article from New Scientist:

    “After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
    The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
    The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
    The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.
    Climate models that take into account only natural factors, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions, do not reproduce 20th century temperatures very well. If, however, the models include human emissions, including greenhouse gases and aerosols, they accurately reproduce the 1940 to 1970 dip in temperatures.
    How aerosols will influence the climate over the coming century is unclear. While aerosol emissions have fallen in Europe and the US (and in the former Soviet Union after 1991), they are now rising rapidly in China and India.
    The picture is complicated because different kinds of aerosols can have different effects: black carbon or soot has warming rather than a cooling effect, for instance. Then there is the question of how all the different aerosols affect clouds. Climate scientists acknowledge that the aerosol issue is one of the key uncertainties in their understanding.”

    Then there is this more recent item in the Washington post:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/09/you-cant-deny-global-warming-after-seeing-this-graph/

    Obviously there is a huge amount of potential interpretational variability in these types of assessments, but if this pans out another 2 decades in a row, you may very well have lost your bet already, Jo.

    That is why I thought that it was important to include yesterday’s CO2 emissions accumulation presentation. It very much demonstrates the aggressive CO2 releases from central Europe, emissions that are not going to slow without sincere and intense action.

    So while it is important to test the thinking and play the devil’s advocate, don’t leave it for too many decades before you call the result.

    But even without making the call, I put up the solar example to show that progressive change to solar energy makes good commercial sense. With standards of living under attack in most developed countries technologies that improve the spending power of the broader public are good for the economy and excellent for the top end shareholders.

    The future is all about doing more with less, Global Warming or not.

    I am now going to take a closer look at the factors that affect the tmperature profile. I am expecting a loaded field.


    Report this

    111

    • #
      Mattb

      BilB… “The future is all about doing more with less, Global Warming or not”

      Quite clearly if there is no AGW then you don’t “do more with less” with solar power.

      Even if there IS AGW it’s line ball beyond say 10% of grid capacity IMO.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        BilB

        I think that you will be surprised, Mattb. Come mid century I fully expect up to 50% of all electricity production in Australia to be from distributed Solar PV. But we will see. That one is going to be a market decision. The government and the grid operators will have no say in it, unless the grid operators are going to put the electricity price back to 10 cents per unit. Too late for that though, they already have a taste for the “easy” money (less work, get lots more for it).


        Report this

        012

        • #
          MemoryVault

          Come mid century I fully expect up to 50% of all electricity production in Australia to be from distributed Solar PV.

          At the moment distributed solar PV contributes zero % NET electricity to the grid, since every theoretical watt that might be generated is backed up by a coal-fired power station already running, or a gas powered station that can be brought online quickly.

          The fact that suppliers are forced to use the hideously expensive PV electricity (when it is available) in favour of the cheap coal or gas powered electricity which continues to be available, accomplishes absolutely NOTHING in net return to the grid, other than giving eco-loons like you a warm, fuzzy feeling.

          This situation is not going to change whether installed PV has a claimed capacity of 10%, 50% or even 100% of grid requirements. It will always remain in addition to, and backed up by, traditional power supplies.

          That one is going to be a market decision.

          Yeah, right. People are partying in the streets because their electricity bills have doubled in the last five years, largely due to the subsidised, feed-in madness. The “Market” (consumers) willingly decided to pay all this extra so eco-loons like you could feel warm and fuzzy about yourselves.

          The government and the grid operators will have no say in it

          Of course not. It’s not as if governments hadn’t MANDATED all this craziness by legislation, and it’s not as if the operators can’t just tell the government to take a hike any time they want to, and buy power from the cheapest available supplier.


          Report this

          171

        • #

          BilB, you say here:

          Come mid century I fully expect up to 50% of all electricity production in Australia to be from distributed Solar PV.

          I fully understand that in your green dreams, reality means nothing at all.

          So, to that end, I want you to look very carefully at the two images at this link.

          A nation still drawing 18,000MW in it’s sleep can’t go solar…

          Now, I’ll explain, because you have no idea what they are, or what the concept is that they relate to.

          These are Load Curves, one for Summer, and one for Winter.

          Now, what I want you to note is that black coloured curve at the top of each graph.

          This is for virtually all of Australia excepting WA and the NT.

          Now, very specifically, I want you to note the lowest point of each graph.

          Note how it is at around 4 to 5AM, while virtually every Australian is tucked up sound asleep in bed.

          Now, just casually glancing across at the Y Axis where it indicates total power being consumed, you’ll see that at that lowest point, it is around 18,000MW.

          Note how at no stage in that day does the power ever fall lower than that, and BilB, that’s 24 hours of every day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year.

          You’re so absolutely confident that by 2050, there will be 50% of distributed Solar PV.

          OK then, now because it has been you who has made the claim, it now falls to you to explain how you are going to find 18,000MW of power at 4AM ….. in the dark, before the Sun rises to replace that 18,000MW, and BilB, that’s two thirds of every watt of power being consumed in Australia, 24/7/365.

          Off you go now there’s a good little boy. Let’s hear from you then.

          Your side of this debate has NEVER addressed this, and please BilB, let me emphasis that by accentuating that word NEVER. In fact, the usual claim is that this is a construct and is not fact.

          That’s 18,000MW Bilb, while everyone sleeps. You tell me where you will get that …..24/7/365 Power.

          Tony.


          Report this

          212

          • #
            BilB

            It load curve is that way because it was specifically organised to be that way to serve the generation infrastructure’s requirements. For decades we were even refused the freedom to generate our own power. If the lines went past ones property the owner was required by law to be connected.

            Moving into the future…

            With every household getting free water heating (not using off peak power) and all community street lighting converted to LED lighting this load profile collapses. The electricity generators are going to have to find more plexible generation methods in the future.

            They have embraced this challenge in Europe and there are a myriad new power generation methodoligies appearing to meet the challenge.

            Of course in Australia we have our head in the sand about all of this, and as I key this I am noticing that you have a suitably long neck for that sort of behaviour.


            Report this

            019

            • #

              Ho Ho Ho!

              You really are clueless, aren’t you?

              And the electrified rail system.

              And every building taller than 2 stories,

              And the hospitals.

              And the shops.

              And the traffic control.

              And light rail and trams.

              And the Communications.

              And the airports.

              And fuel stations.

              And the sporting events.

              And on and on and on.

              You say here:

              … in Europe and there are a myriad new power generation methodoligies …

              Name the MYRIAD of these power generation methodologies.

              Name the ones that CAN actually replace large scale coal fired power.

              You really do have no idea.

              I’m actually glad you came here five minutes ago, because these comments of yours are now forever. People who read this site who never comment now gain an inkling into how really stupid you people are.

              You couldn’t care less for your fellow man.

              What about the more than 2 billion people who have NO electrical power, condemned, by you, to live life without a fraction of the things you take so utterly for granted.

              Your answer is that WE should go back and join them.

              You have absolutely no clue whatsoever.

              You think street lighting and hot water consumes 18,000MW.

              Oh, give me strength.

              Tony.


              Report this

              251

              • #
                BilB

                You are really not thinking this through Tony. If 50% is distributed generation then the other 50% is grid. Your 18 gigawatts is half the current total capacity, only in this scenario, rather than idling through the night giving their power away at cost, they would be running at capacity, whoch should be perfect for them as you appear to be so concerned about their welfare.

                Put the brain in gear before lashing out, Tony. You are clearly a very angry person. I’ve gotta be pleased there are several service providers between us.


                Report this

                015

              • #

                I’m just amazed. I can’t help it.

                You really do have no idea.

                …rather than idling through the night…

                Large scale coal fired power only generates its power when it is running at 3000RPM, and that’s 50 rotations per second. (Sound familiar) It runs flat out, or it does not run at all.

                And explain what YOU mean by distributed generation, and where that comes from.

                You wonder why we sound angry when we see the flat out lies you are writing here.

                And don’t think we didn’t notice the sudden backdown when real facts were pointed out to you, and how you totally ignored the last part of the earlier comments, and how you accept that you don’t care about he rest of the Developing World, and how all of a sudden, the grid is OK.

                Name the MYRIAD power methodologies

                Tony.


                Report this

                231

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                You shouldn’t really be “amazed”, Tony.

                This is the guy, who only yesterday, was telling us all that the reason for the (non-existent) “gold-plated grid”, was to handle the “pulse” of domestic air conditioners cutting in and out.

                As I’ve said before, the really scary part is he actually believes it.


                Report this

                191

              • #
                AndyG55

                Bilbo has gone from the ridiculous to the absurd, to the raving moron, to the basest idiot in the loony asylum…..

                I wonder his next step will be.?


                Report this

                71

              • #
                BilB

                further down

                “It runs flat out, or it does not run at all”

                Most large scale generators run at a constant speed. They do this to keep the power phase synchronised at 50 or 60 hertz, even under neglible load (idling)they maintain the rotational speed with great accuracy.


                Report this

                08

              • #
                AndyG55

                Seriously Bilbo, please tell us that you are only pretending to be an idiot ???????

                Choosing the most idiotic answer that you can possibly think of.

                No other explanation is possible.


                Report this

                52

              • #
                Rastuz

                “I’ve gotta be pleased there are several service providers between us”

                Probably a good thing. Your condescending and arrogant attitude has me wanting to punch you as well.


                Report this

                61

              • #
                Bulldust

                Whoa… let’s not forget heavy industrial users like aluminium pot lines. Or are we to shut them down at night too?

                Dang these green dreamers are dim.


                Report this

                20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              They have embraced this challenge in Europe and there are a myriad new power generation methodoligies appearing to meet the challenge.

              Yeah. In Germany, for instance, heavy industry is breaking its neck to meet the challenge, by relocating wholesale to the USA, where they can use the new generation methodology of CSG fired power stations, producing some of the cheapest electricity in the world.

              It load curve is that way because it was specifically organised to be that way to serve the generation infrastructure’s requirements.

              As I’ve said before, BilB, the REALLY scary part is you actually believe the crap you write.

              For instance, you apparently actually believe that, once upon a time there was no electricity, then somebody built some power stations with fluctuating supply, and then society re-orgnanised itself around that offered supply. You know, decided to have breakfast and dinner and take showers and turn on heating/air conditioning, to “fit the generation infrastructure’s requirements”.

              .
              About the best I can suggest, BilB, is that you stay away from sharp objects, and don’t try and operate heavy machinery.


              Report this

              161

            • #
              Kevin Lohse

              “They have embraced this challenge in Europe and there are a myriad new power generation methodoligies appearing to meet the challenge.”

              At a price which is ruinous to the economy and the private consumer. few of these new technologies adequately solve the problem of base load, which is why Germany is talking the talk while quietly building more power stations burning lignite, Drax is a financial and ecological disaster, Eastern Europe is refusing to play, being more concerned with not relying on Russia for power. The only technology which is proven as suitable for the energy needs of a developed economy is fracking, where there is an enormous energy supply which will last centuries. It is no surprise that the ecoloons are moving heaven and earth to delay the development of this source of energy as it interferes with their declared aim of moving Western civilisation back to the 13th Century.


              Report this

              130

              • #
                Heywood

                “At a price which is ruinous to the economy and the private consumer”

                I don’t think BilB-o cares too much about the cost Kevin. It is obvious he is somehow linked to a manufacturer or provider of Solar PV systems, or he is just ideologically blinded. He flippantly states, in true totalitarian style, that we should force people to install solar PV, and make them pay for it themselves. ‘It will only add $5000 to a mortgage’ the condescending dic%&ead states, oblivious to what happens in the real world. He misses the point entirely that to some, especially those buying their first home, $5000 is a lot of money, and may be the difference between affording and not affording their home. More importantly, it removes the right of the consumer to choose. But why give choice to the people when you can take the Clive Hamilton approach, and call for a suspension of democracy for the sake of gaia, or to sell more Solar PV as the case may be for BilB-o

                Like most of the left, he advocates removal of choice from the consumer, and seeks to demand them to adopt a technology which provides part time power (approx 33% capacity factor) to the household. Interesting to see how his “50% Distributed” goes at about 6pm on a freezing July day, after the sun has set after an overcast day, only to see power demand peak well above the 18GW baseline. Blackouts anyone?


                Report this

                90

            • #
              Greebo

              Oh dear…. Instead of popping in here on a GetUp! whim, you should, really should, have done your homework, Billby. Tony knows more about the generation and supply of electricity than you, in your wildest dreams, could ever hope to learn. I’ve heard of ‘lambs’ to the slaughter. You are more like a ‘yam’ being slaughtered. Talk about going in unarmed.

              Guys, I know I don’t have a lot of cachet here, but can I request we desist from calling this clown Bilbo? That name represents one of the modern classics, and it should be noted that the Baggins’ were triumphant in the end. Do you wish to confer success on BilB?


              Report this

              20

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      What a wonderfully convoluted and complex explanation of something that didn’t actually happen. Now here is another, simpler one, that actually describes what DID happen:

      In high school in 1966 we were taught that climate goes in roughly 30 year natural cycles of warming and cooling. These 30 year cycles, in turn, fitted into roughly 150 year cycles of warming and cooling.

      From 1850 to 1880 it warmed.
      From 1880 to 1910 it cooled.
      From 1910 to 1940 it warmed.
      From 1940 to 1970 it cooled.

      From there, as high school students, we extrapolated that:

      From 1970 to 2000 it would warm.
      From 2000 to 2030 it would cool.

      Since we were in a 150 year warming cycle out of the LIA, the period 1910 to 1940 was warmer than the period 1850 to 1880, and the period 1970 to 2000 would be warmer than the period 1910 to 1940. Since it marked the end of a 150 year warming cycle, and the beginning of a 150 year cooling cycle, we were taught to expect that the period 2000 to 2030 would probably be much like the period 1940 to 1970.

      And guess what BilB?
      That’s pretty much precisely how it has panned out.

      Have a look at the linked graph, BilB, and notice how this alternative explanation, which DOESN’T require CO2, Acid Rain, aerosols, soot, or even Stephan Boltzman’s balls, better fits what actually happened, and over a much longer time period.

      Of course, it could just be that my science teacher in 1966 was clairvoyant.
      Or a time traveler, which is every bit as plausible as your “explanation”.


      Report this

      151

      • #
        Aussie

        that sounds a lot like what I learned in school about cycles.

        It is all about those cycles. The 30 year cycle sounds about right, based upon my own personal experience (which was in Melbourne up until the mid 1970s) where the summers of the 1960s were a lot warmer than the summers of the 1970s but a little bit cooler than the late 50s.


        Report this

        21

      • #
        BilB

        “From 2000 to 2030 it would cool”

        Your 1966 science will soon be put to the test.

        We were also being told in the 60′s that there was oil for hundreds and hundreds of years of years, nothing to worry about.


        Report this

        014

        • #
          MemoryVault

          We were also being told in the 60′s that there was oil for hundreds and hundreds of years of years, nothing to worry about.

          Yeah, and we were told oil came from dead dinosaurs, and the Soviet Union didn’t have any oil because they didn’t have any dead dinosaur burial grounds – or something.

          Today Russia is both the largest producer, and largest exporter of oil in the world. The reason for this is because the Russians never bought the “dead dinosaur” myth. They always believed oil was abiotic, and formed naturally under heat and pressure deep down in the earth’s crust. So they developed deep-well drilling techniques, so they could get down to where the oil was formed.

          The rest is, as they say, history.

          Sorry, your point was . . .


          Report this

          120

          • #
            BilB

            The oil is running low just as the demand is ramping up, and just as we have locked stepped the global economy to its production. That is the point, and the limitation of that vaulted thinking.

            You might consider opening that Vault up, and let some modern ideas in there, MV. Memories are good but a free flow of fresh thinking is so much better.

            Like your graph for instance my Russian Blue cat walking across the keyboard heading for the window looking back several times could as easily have created that, and likewise, that would have absolutely nothing to do with green house gasses. That is unless, of course, he had fa*ted and I was chasing him out of the house.


            Report this

            019

            • #
              Backslider

              my Russian Blue cat

              How gay.


              Report this

              80

            • #
              Kevin Lohse

              “The oil is running low”. According to Erlich? Boy are you out of touch with reality.


              Report this

              101

            • #
              MemoryVault

              You might consider opening that Vault up, and let some modern ideas in there, MV.

              You mean like the possibility of abiotic oil?

              The oil is running low just as the demand is ramping up

              The first FIFO job I ever had was out in the middle of OZ, looking for oil, in 1969.
              Why were we there?
              Well, because the world was running out.
              Apparently, we were only a year or two away from something called “peak oil”.

              Like your graph for instance my Russian Blue cat walking across the keyboard heading for the window looking back several times could as easily have created that,

              Doesn’t surprise me. I have no trouble believing your cat could produce something as least as accurate as the Hadley Climate Research Unit. Unfortunately the unadjusted (ho ho) HADCRUT mean is as close to an actual “temperature record” as we have, these days.

              You can thank your “climate science” crooks buddies for that.


              Report this

              151

              • #
                AndyG55

                Thatcher created HAD CRU with the SPECIFIC aim of discrediting the coal industry.

                It was all part of the “kill the coal unions” strategy.

                And now the far left is in worship of this agenda.. How ironic is that !!

                Ya gotta laugh ! :-)


                Report this

                60

            • #
              Heywood

              “The oil is running low”

              Ummm. Evidence please.

              Even Wikipedia (which you seemed so fond to throw in someones face yesterday) says the current reserves-to-production ratio for the top 17 oil producing nations is 64 years. This figure assumes that if we stop looking for oil right now, and don’t drill new wells in deposits that we already have discovered, the oil will last at least 64 years.

              This figure is 164 years for coal.

              No need to rush into Solar PV on the basis of running out of fossil fuels. Might be better off investing in super and ultra critical coal thermal power plants to ensure energy security, whilst giving time for renewables and associated energy storage technologies to be advanced to the point that they are actually practical.


              Report this

              30

          • #
            AndyG55

            His 0 level junior high school education is really showing through. :-)

            (note, that is “zero”, not the letter “O”)


            Report this

            35

          • #
            Geoffrey Cousens

            Good point Memory Vault.Nobody seems to know this about Russia,let alone the the true nature of oil.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Where’s the evidence that anyone anywhere has produced commercial quantities of oil or gas from an area the fossil fuel theory says there shouldn’t be any?
            Where is there commercially-produced oil with no biological structures in it?

            When believers of Gold’s abiotic oil theory decided to put their money where Gold’s mouth was, they drilled for oil in the Siljin Ring in Sweden and got… a bit of gas, a bit of oil of dubious origin, and the project lost money.

            Hmmm.

            When I read the published geology literature on this topic, I find plenty of evidence that hydrocarbons can be created abiotically in both meteorites and in lab experiments, but no evidence of any oil field producing oil of substantially abiotic origin. The chemistry theory says the temperature and pressure needed is only found at depths greater than 100km which is far deeper than oil and gas are usually found. There is also this statement which tells us at least as much about the psychology of abiotic theory adherents as it does about organic chemistry:

            To produce petroleum deposits the products need to be rapidly quenched requiring vertical migration at unlikely speed.

            Perhaps elves, dwarfs, or hobbits are at work busily scooping cold water onto fresh batches of hydrocarbons deep under ground.

            The lab coats were flat out finding even one gas field in the world (in China apparently) where it is not clear that the fuel is biotic.

            The Russians could believe the Tooth Fairy makes all the oil and they will still find oil where they drill because
            1) they are in herbivorous dinosaur country (from hadrosaurids and non-avian theropods to psittacosauras to Olorotitans) where fossilisation has occurred, and
            2) what is in the ground doesn’t change the moment you change your beliefs.

            Sounds to me like abiotic oil and gas could happen as occasional accidents in nature, but virtually all the oil (including in Russia) that has ever been drilled has been fossil fuel.

            And all the above is about oil and gas, no mention of coal. Fact is that all gas has droplets of oil, all oil co-exists with small amounts of gas, all oil has small flecks of coal in it, and all coal has droplets of oil in it, and BOTH theories agree on these facts. The facts of co-mingled hydrocarbons are most simply explained if coal, oil, and gas have a common origin. Problem for the abiotic crowd is that coal is clearly formed from peat near the surface. The existence of transitional forms of peat halfway between leaves and coal is pretty much the clincher.


            Report this

            30

        • #
          Backslider

          Your 1966 science will soon be put to the test.

          What do you mean “soon”? Its already cooling, since 2000.


          Report this

          104

  • #
    Stephen Robinson

    Hi

    Just heard on the radio that CSIRO have just said that, due to Global Warming, El Nino’s and La Nina’s will be getting worse and will cause considerable droughts in the future.


    Report this

    21

    • #
      llew Jones

      I suppose it is predicted by use of the same CSIRO climate science, on display during the last “catastrophic” drought in Victoria, when the CSIRO was involved in getting the Wonthaggi White Elephant desal plant constructed. These fools never learn. Which only goes to show there is no greater fool than an educated one.

      By the way it’s been bucketing down in my part of Melbourne today and freezing cold to boot. I guess that is also a CSIRO settled climate science indicator that we are heading for a catastrophic drought? In say 2050?


      Report this

      71

      • #
        Aussie

        Melbourne is in a temperate zone. I currently live in a sub-tropical zone (the NSW Central Coast).

        This is an aspect of climate that is never raised these days.

        Those temperature zones mean a lot of things including what are the best plants and crops to raise.

        During the 1960s and 70s Melbourne was always very warm about this time of year. Canberra, on the other hand is a lot cooler.

        The CSIRO used to get their science right, but that was in the days of relative independence as researchers. These days the CSIRO, especially those based in very cold in winter Canberra, are subject to the whim of their political masters. As such the CSIRO at least as far as climate science is concerned is virtually irrelevant. I do better just based on anecdotal evidence.


        Report this

        90

      • #
        Yonniestone

        It was a balmy 12.0c with rain and hail here today, must be extreme weather. :)


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    On a hunch, I checked LongBets.org, set up by the Long Now Foundation.
    Mr Schmidt has indeed listed a prediction there, and was challenged on it, but the terms of the bet are still under negotiation and so the bet has not actually been agreed. It’s been over 7 years now so presumably either he has given up or his other challengers did not bother to register on the Long Bets site.

    There’s also an unanswered bet of 97 years about the TLT temperatures of 2100 by someone who wants only the IPCC to challenge him.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Dave

    It’s like taking money off John Hampden.

    In 1870, Alfred Russel Wallace bet a flat-Earth theorist named John Hampden that he could prove the flat Earth hypothesis incorrect. The sum staked was £500 (equivalent to about £41000 in present day terms). A test (now known as the Bedford Level experiment) involving a stretch of the Old Bedford River, in Norfolk, was agreed on: Wallace measured the curvature of the canal’s surface using two markers separated by about five kilometres and suspended at equal heights above the water’s surface. Using a telescope mounted 5 km from one of the markers, Wallace established that the nearer one appeared to be the higher of the two. An independent referee agreed that this showed the Earth’s surface to curve away from the telescope, and so Wallace won his money. However, Hampden never accepted the result and made increasingly unpleasant threats to Wallace.

    I think all the CAGW losers will become angrier as time goes on.

    Maybe Jo, you need the

    Joanne Nova & Dr. David Evans against Brian Schmidt

    put in the Wiki Scientific Wagers entry.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    JPM

    David, First I would like to write that I have enjoyed many of the articles that you have written on this subject.
    However, I think it is odd that you refer to carbon when you mean CO2. Carbon is a solid e.g. soot, diamonds etc. Despite the fact that it is common to do so, I am sure some find it confusing as well as inaccurate to call it carbon.
    You mention “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proved in a laboratory a century ago.” Would that be the much mentioned ‘Arrhenius’ studies. If so :
    Erren has shown that Langley’s measurements used by Arrhenius were preliminary and had serious errors. They became less accurate as they approached the region used by Arrhenius, the measurements were exaggerated, and did not reach far
    enough to include the major absorption frequency of carbon dioxide. He concludes from his study that Langley’s observations were of little use in studying the influence of carbon dioxide on the climate. ( http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/the%20greenhousexxx.pdf ). If you read the article at the link you will see that he made other errors that destroy his conclusions.
    In addition to this, CO2 most likely does not have the ability to warm the globe as claimed. Carbon dioxide has three narrow absorption bands in the infrared region at about 2.7, 4.3, and 15 microns. To peak in the 2.7 or 4.3 micron bands requires the temperature of the emitting object to be over 600 degree C (Wien’s Law). Other than volcanic eruptions, there are not many places where such temperatures are found on earth.
    The earth does emit IR in the the 15 micron range but water vapor overlaps that range and even on a fairly dry day the concentration of water vapor is over 60 times that of CO2. Water vapor also absorbs additional wave lengths of IR that the earth emits.
    CO2 does not cause the globe to warm, there is no proof. Water vapor is a better suspect than CO2.
    John


    Report this

    130

    • #
      Geoffrey Cousens

      John;most of the over 60 different and conflicting co2 warming theories rely on a sub-theory that co2 “amplifies”the greenhouse capacity of water vapor.


      Report this

      31

      • #
        Speedy

        Hi Geoffrey

        If, as the IPCC suggest, CO2 is the “fuse” that triggers the water-powered global warming, why don’t we get runaway global events starting (say) in Singapore, already? All it takes is a warm summer’s day in Singers, the oceans warms up, the water vapour does its stuff, things get a little cosier, more oceans warm up, the water vapour… etc etc.

        Global Warming is a great theory, just that it doesn’t work in practice.

        Cheers,

        Speedy.


        Report this

        30

      • #
        Backslider

        co2 warming theories rely on a sub-theory that co2 “amplifies”the greenhouse capacity of water vapor

        That sub-theory is that CO2 causes more evaporation, thus more water vapor in the atmosphere and more clouds.

        Recent studies have shown that both have in fact fallen as CO2 continues to rise.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Astonishing!

      Langley’s figure for the temperature of the moon was 45ºC. Today’s figure is an average of 107ºC for the day temperature, the one Langley measured. This huge discrepancy means that Langley’s figures must be treated as completely unreliable, and so are the results calculate from them by Arrhenius.

      Is it any wonder that the climate sensitivity to CO2 looks to be half what the IPCC says it is?
      Garbage in, garbage out! A long tradition in climate science, it seems.

      But don’t question Arrhenius! I questioned him once but I think I got away with it!


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        But don’t question Arrhenius! I questioned him once but I think I got away with it!

        By all means we must question Arrhenius. His experiment is the foundation stone of global warming and it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

        The assumption that CO2 in the atmosphere has any particular property or behavior is not supported by Arrhenius at all.

        Assumption is the key word here. Assuming something is always garbage in and the usual result follows, garbage out.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks for the link to Dr Vincent Gray’s paper on the Greenhouse and its Effects. Amazing how an apparently simple device like a Greenhouse can give rise to so many interpretations and misunderstandings.

      I am still tring to understand it myself!
      I am not even sure if Dr Gray has it all correct. At one point he says that an increase in albedo from a dark surface to a lighter one will cause decreased temperatures during the day and warmer at night. That seem the wrong way around to me.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    face it, in CAGW-speak, even this:

    11 Oct: JournalStar: Blizzard killed up to 100,000 head of cattle
    The severe snowstorm, unusual for early October, caught many ranchers in the Nebraska Panhandle off guard. They reported widespread losses of cattle that froze or suffocated in massive snow drifts while out on summer ranges. Many cattle drifted far away from their normal range…
    “The far-reaching impact of the unusually early and powerful snowstorm last weekend in Nebraska’s northern Panhandle and neighboring South Dakota is still being assessed,” said a post attributed to Davis’ staff on the Rapid City Journal’s website…
    http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/nebraska/blizzard-killed-up-to-head-of-cattle/article_b911b3b8-860f-5f2d-bc13-f6db9b8f01a8.html

    can be turned into this:

    10 Oct: Mother Jones: Blizzard Catastrophe Kills Tens of Thousands of Cows; Shutdown Leaves Ranchers on Ice
    by Tim McDonnell, Climate Desk Associate Producer
    While it’s too early to say what role climate change might have played in this particular storm, higher levels of heat trapped in the atmosphere can result in more frequent and severe storms. Last month’s IPCC report found it “very likely” that extreme precipitation events like blizzards will increase over this century…
    http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/10/shutdown-cattle-blizzard


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    re Tim McDonnell:

    Tim McDonnell, Climate Desk Associate Producer’s previous work, including stuff from IPCC meeting, Stockholm, such as:

    VIDEO: WATCH: The Real Story of the Global Warming “Hiatus”
    1’15″ Thomas Hartmann, Uni of Washington:
    “…as the IPCC evolved, it became more and more of a public issue, so we felt we had to say something about it, even though, from an observational perspective, it’s not a very reliable record of of long-term warming” -
    http://www.motherjones.com/authors/tim-mcdonnell

    2010: Reuters: Felix Salmon: The Climate Desk
    I’m a little scared and more excited to kick off a serious and ambitious exercise in collaboration across a spectacular range of websites, including Center for Investigative Reporting, Grist, Mother Jones, Reuters, Slate, The Atlantic, Wired, and WNET. (Update: the Nation Institute is also involved.) It’s called The Climate Desk, and although its website isn’t up and running yet, it does have a mission statement:
    “The Climate Desk is a journalistic collaboration dedicated to exploring the impact — human, environmental, economic, political — of a changing climate.”…
    My job is to look at the corporate side of things: whether and how big companies are preparing themselves for the downside of climate change…
    (LOL) If the public sector can do this — the Pentagon has, unsurprisingly, already started thinking along these lines — then the private sector should be able to do so as well…
    But I want your help too: email me on felix at felixsalmon.com with your ideas, and I’m even welcoming PR pitches on this one…
    And I’m absolutely not interested in having a debate about whether climate change is real, or anthropogenic, or overhyped, or anything along those lines. If you think that the downside risks of climate change are zero, then that’s a different story, not this one.
    http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2010/03/10/the-climate-desk/

    Reuters is no longer included in the Climate Desk Consortium; however, of interest:

    ClimateDesk.org: About Us
    Q: Where do you get your money?
    A: So far, our principal funding has come from the Surdna Foundation, the Park Foundation, and the Rosenthal Family Foundation. Key support for our Climate Desk Live breakfast briefing series comes from the Rockefeller Philanthropic Services via Climate Nexus, a nonprofit strategic climate communications organization based in New York City.
    Q: How is the project administered?
    A: Editorially, it’s run by a group of journalists from the partner organizations. Fiscally, it is hosted by the ***Foundation for National Progress, Mother Jones’ nonprofit parent. If we attain escape velocity, the Climate Desk could become its own 501(c)3 organization…
    Q: Who works on the Climate Desk?
    James West
    … After completing a masters in journalism at New York University in 2007, James returned to his native Down Under where he worked as the executive producer of the national affairs program Hack at the ABC. He has produced a variety of Australian television and radio programs, including the debate show Insight on SBS TV…
    http://climatedesk.org/about-climate-desk/

    ***Foundation for National Progress receives or has received George Soros funding.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    pat

    just for fun. as george osborne prepares to ink his nuclear deal with china, he’s in the UK media on a rather different controversial matter:

    13 Oct: UK Daily Mirror: George Osborne: Cops raid home of ex-vice madam about to tell all on wild parties involving top Tories
    Natalie Rowe was warned not to “open a can of worms” before publishing new claims about her relationship with the Chancellor
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-cops-raid-home-2366160#ixzz2hZqGLQOr


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Money-where-mouth-is Jo/David.

    “MV points out there is a charity bet people can join in on at NoTricksZone. Looks very interesting.”

    NTZ looking good. Honeycutt/Nuccitelli et al, in with $14,000, not so good. Update here:

    http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/08/honeycutt-nuccitelli-climate-bet-progress-report-so-far-new-decade-is-cooler-than-the-last-ready-to-concede/

    CRU confirms on page 1 of ‘Global Temperature Record’ by Phil Jones:

    “The first two years of the present decade (2011 and 2012) are cooler than the average for 2001-2010,”

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/documents/421974/1295957/Info+sheet+%231.pdf/c612fc7e-babb-463c-b5e3-124ac76680c5


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Peter C

    As per David Evans:

    In the late 1990′s the evidence suggesting that carbon emissions caused global warming was basically:

    1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proved in a laboratory a century ago.

    But what did the laboratory experiments actually show? That a poly chromatic beam of IR radiation shone into a tube full of CO2, has some absorbtion bands missing when it gets to the spectograph at the other end? That much seems to be empirical fact.

    What happened to the missing radiation? Did it heat up the gas or was it scattered or re-radiated? Both possibilities have been argued on this and other blogs as “proven by laboratory experiments” Maybe they have been, but neither automatically follows from the first laboratory result.

    If the radiation is absorbed it is quite difficult to show the heating effect in simple demonstrations. Bill Nye (the science guy) admitted that he fudged his result in his Climate Science 101 demonstration and Dr Maggie Aderin-Pocock might have done something similar in her BBC video “Greenhouse Effect in a Bottle”. I have not been able to reproduce her result.

    Lack of empirical laboratory science is the most striking thing about climate science generally. The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivty to a doubling of the CO2 concentration is said to be a most important parameter and the IPCC has tried to estimate it from weather observations over the past 20 years, without much success. The ECS should be able to be demonstrated by a controlled laboratory experiment. Has that ever been done?


    Report this

    50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Saw a silly film once where they pumped cold CO2 into a tube, and wondered why it absorbed IR for a very short period of time..

      DOH !!!


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Lack of empirical laboratory science is the most striking thing about climate science generally. The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivty to a doubling of the CO2 concentration is said to be a most important parameter and the IPCC has tried to estimate it from weather observations over the past 20 years, without much success. The ECS should be able to be demonstrated by a controlled laboratory experiment. Has that ever been done?

      Exactly my point. Thank you! I’d begun to feel like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    well, as long the error bar is supposed to define 90% certainty…you should be according to that odds…

    1 to 9; sorry ;it must be symetrical, so 0,5 to 9.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Jambo

    Slightly off-topic but now at the lunatics are no longer in control of the asylum can we bring back the use of “carbon dioxide”? I notice that Greg Hunt, Abbott etc still use the misleading terminology so beloved of Labor. Please can we refer to the carbon dioxide tax, carbon dioxide emissions and completely ban the use of ‘carbon pollution’.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Tim

    “… it seems strange that some people who take strong positions and profit by those positions are not prepared to bet even a small amount of their own money.”

    It also seems strange that they invoke rubbishing or silencing critics rather than debate – which they avoid like the plague, thus strengthening their positions and profit.

    Do these people sound like they truly believe in what they’re pushing?


    Report this

    20

  • #
    graphicconception

    … are happy to compete and take risks

    Slightly OT but the more I think about things the more I am convinced that the idea has merit.

    The AGW advocates are all hiding in large institutions, either universities, science institutes, government, or activist organizations. The opponents are independent bloggers, independent scientists, people who can make up their own mind and can live with the consequences. It could also explain why sceptics are not “well-organised”.

    I wonder if that is behind the activists fear of Big Oil, for instance, is it that their collectivist minds cannot accept that individuals can create business empires without their help? Does it give a pointer to the stereotyped (ond over-generalised) political leanings of the participants, perhaps?

    I think the Lewandowskys of this world could do some useful research if they were sufficiently objective.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    janama

    OT – but worth a listen.

    I used to be a keen followers of Philip Adams up until about 5 years ago when he drove me crazy with his global warming BS.
    So tonight I thought I’d revisit him to see if anything had changed. Unfortunately NO.

    Here’s his latest program

    He interviews Simran Sethi, Sethi graduated cum laude in 1992 from Smith College with a BA in sociology and gender studies. In 2005, she was awarded an MBA in sustainable business by the Presidio Graduate School, San Francisco.

    Here she speaks as an authority on seeds and food production!!

    OMG – where are we heading when this garbage is put forward as intelligent conversation.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Rathnakumar

    Dear Jo,
    In future posts on this subject, kindly add the qualifier right away that it has got nothing to do with the physicist Brian Schmidt. :)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schmidt
    Thanks!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    JPM

    Geoffrey Cousens
    You seem to have trouble understanding simple concepts. I wrote that “CO2 does not cause the globe to warm, there is no proof”. You did not attempt to refute what I wrote. For instance about the IR absorption characteristics of CO2 and water vapour. Until you can refute that, you have no case concerning your claimed studies. By the way making such claims without naming the studies is pointless. It is like claiming overwhelming consensus for the CAGW theory without providing a list of scientists that agree with that proposition. There is a list of 3300 scientists from various disciplines, over 9000 with pHDs that have signed the Oregon Petition which states that the CAGW hypotheses is nonsense. Their names, degree and discipline are listed and available on the internet.
    CO2 causes no warming so it cannot cause the additional evaporation claimed by warmers. You cannot demonstrate an increase in water vapour or what might have caused it should it occur. It should be seen as natural unless you can demonstrate otherwise (the null hypotheses).
    John


    Report this

    00