JoNova
A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).
Jo appreciates your support to help her keep doing what she does. This blog is funded by donations. Thanks!
Follow Jo's Tweets To report "lost" comments or defamatory and offensive remarks, email the moderators at: support.jonova AT proton.me
Statistics
WHAT’S IN A NAME: HEAT-TRAPPING or HEAT-RELEASING?
If someone can find an error or errors in the following and point the error(s) out to me, I would be grateful. [Note: The following discussion contains statements that probably need not be included because they are in some sense “obvious”. I include those statements to (a) make the discussion as complete as possible, and (b) avoid potential misunderstandings regarding the meanings of terms. I hope that by so doing I do not insult the reader.]
Definition: A “heat-trapping gas” is any matter in gaseous form that absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band.
Definition: Material is in “energy-rate-equilibrium” (ERE) if the rate thermal energy (heat) enters the material (and all portions thereof) is equal to the rate heat leaves the material (and all portions thereof). Since for material in ERE the rate heat enters the material equals the rate heat leaves the material, the temperature of material in ERE does not change with time.
Definition: A “heat sink” is an environment capable of absorbing heat from an object with which it is in thermal contact without a phase change or an appreciable change in temperature.
Stipulation: Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas in the temperature range from 0 C to 100 C is a heat-trapping gas.
Hypothesis: Everything else being equal, for material in the temperature range from 0 C to 100 C, if (a) a heat source injects heat into the material at a constant rate, and (b) the material is in ERE, then the temperature of the material when surrounded by a heat-trapping gas will be higher than the temperature of the material in the absence of the surrounding heat-trapping gas.
Argument:
(1) Construct two identical vacuum thermos bottles. In its simplest form, a thermos bottle consists of (a) a chamber (i.e., an enclosed region) into which material above or below the ambient background temperature is placed with the goal of keeping the temperature of the material from reaching the ambient background temperature for as long a time interval as possible, (b) an outside wall that surrounds the chamber, and (c) a space between the chamber wall and the outside wall. In a vacuum thermos bottle, the space between the chamber wall and the outside wall is a vacuum.
(2) Into the vacuum space of one of the thermos bottles inject an amount, MCO2, of CO2 such that over the temperature range 20 C to 50 C the injected CO2 exists in gaseous form. Refer to the thermos bottle without the CO2 as the “vacuum thermos” and the thermos bottle with the CO2 as the “CO2 thermos.”
(3) Fill the chamber of each thermos with identical amounts of coffee.
(4) Place identical battery/resistor (V/R) circuits within the coffee of each thermos such that the battery voltage, V, is fixed but the resistor resistance, R, can be changed at will. [Note: In a V/R circuit the rate thermal energy is generated is (V^2)/R. Thus, for a fixed V, the rate heat is generated by a V/R circuit is inversely proportional to R.]
(5) Place both thermos bottles in a large room (heat sink) whose temperature is held constant at 20 C.
(6) In the vacuum thermos, adjust the resistance of the V/R circuit until the coffee reaches an ERE temperature of 50 C. Label this resistance, R_VT-ERE50.
(7) Set the resistance of the V/R circuit in the CO2 thermos equal to R_VT-ERE50.
(8) Wait until the coffee in the CO2 thermos reaches ERE.
(9) With the exceptions of (i) the mouth of the thermos bottle (which in theory can be made arbitrarily small) and (ii) any thermally resistant “spacers” that keep the chamber wall from making contact with the outer wall, CO2 gas completely surrounds the coffee. Thus if the hypothesis is true, the temperature of the coffee in the CO2 thermos will be greater than 50 C—the temperature of the coffee in the vacuum thermos.
(10) If the resistance of the CO2 thermos V/R circuit is infinite, (a) no heat will enter the coffee in the CO2 thermos, and (b) the ERE temperature of the coffee in the CO2 thermos will be 20 C —the temperature of the room. Therefore if the hypothesis is true, for a resistance value somewhere between R_VT-ERE50 and infinity the ERE temperature of the coffee in the CO2 thermos will be 50 C. Let R_CO2-ERE50 be the resistance of the CO2 thermos V/R circuit that produces in the CO2 thermos an ERE coffee temperature of 50 C.
(11) Since R_VT-ERE50 < R_CO2-ERE50 < infinity, the rate heat enters the coffee in the CO2 thermos will be less than the rate heat enters the coffee in the vacuum thermos.
(12) Since the coffee in each thermos is in ERE, if the hypothesis is true the rate heat leaves coffee at 50 C in the CO2 thermos will be less than the rate heat leaves coffee at 50 C in the vacuum thermos.
(13) Repeat steps 3 through 12 for all coffee temperatures between 20 C and 50 C. If the hypothesis is true, the conclusion will be that for coffee at any temperature between 20 C and 50 C, the rate heat leaves the coffee in the CO2 thermos will be less than the rate heat leaves the coffee in the vacuum thermos.
(14) (a) Set the resistance of the V/R circuit in the vacuum thermos to R_VT-ERE50 and set the resistance of the V/R circuit in the CO2 thermos to R_CO2-ERE50, (b) place the thermos bottles in the heat sink at 20 C, (c) wait for ERE to be established in both thermos bottles (at which time the coffee temperature in both thermos bottles will be 50 C), and (d) after ERE is established in both bottles, simultaneously disconnect the battery from the resistor in both bottles.
(15) As a function of time after disconnection, monitor the temperature of the coffee in each thermos. If the hypothesis is true, because at all coffee temperatures between 20 C and 50 C the rate heat leaves the coffee in the CO2 thermos is less than the rate heat leaves the coffee in the vacuum thermos (see step 13), as a function of time after breaking the V/R circuits the temperature of the coffee in the CO2 thermos will be greater than the temperature of the coffee in the vacuum thermos—at least until the coffee temperature in both thermos bottles stabilizes at 20 C.
(16) Step 15 implies that for the above range of coffee temperatures (which corresponds to real-world coffee temperatures), the CO2 thermos outperforms the vacuum thermos—i.e., the CO2 thermos keeps the coffee hotter for a longer time interval than does the vacuum thermos.
If for some amount MCO2 of carbon dioxide it turns out that the opposite is true (i.e., the time it takes the coffee to cool in the vacuum thermos is longer than the time it takes the coffee to cool in the CO2 thermos), then either (a) the definitions are not physically possible and/or are internally inconsistent, (b) the stipulation is invalid, (c) the hypothesis is false, (d) the argument contains one or more flaws, or (e) some combination of (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Which, if any, of the immediately above a, b, c, d, or e applies?
It is my opinion that CO2 thermos bottles do not outperform vacuum thermos bottles—i.e., I believe a vacuum thermos will keep coffee hot for a longer period of time than a CO2 thermos. I say this, in part, because (a) formulating heat transfer conclusions considering only radiation while ignoring conduction/convection is fraught with peril, and (b) if CO2 thermos bottles outperformed vacuum thermos bottles for the storage of hot liquids, thermos bottle companies would manufacture CO2 thermos bottles. After all, wouldn’t the cost of filling the vacuum region of thermos bottles with CO2 gas be insignificant compared to the cost of establishing and maintaining a vacuum? If my opinion is correct, then the conclusion of step 16 is invalid; and I believe the error that leads to the invalid conclusion is a flawed hypothesis.
That is, I believe the hypothesis: “Everything else being equal, for material in the temperature range from 0 C to 100 C, if (a) a heat source injects heat into the material at a constant rate, and (b) the material is in ERE, then the temperature of the material when surrounded by a heat-trapping gas will be higher than the temperature of the material in the absence of the surrounding heat-trapping gas” is false. Surrounding material with a heat-trapping gas may produce increased temperatures for some scenarios, but not for all scenarios.
Now to answer the question that started this comment. (1) Repeatable experiments demonstrate that CO2 gas will absorb/emit electromagnetic radiation in IR sub-bands. People argue that because atmospheric CO2 plays a larger role in out-going (Earth-to-space) IR absorption than in incoming (sun-to-Earth) IR absorption, whereas CO2 atmospheric IR radiation is isotropic, the net effect of atmospheric IR absorption/re-emission will be to “trap” outgoing heat. Some people argue that everything else being equal the presence of a heat-trapping gas in the Earth’s atmosphere must cause the Earth’s surface temperature to increase. (2) I believe I make a good argument that under certain circumstances CO2 gas acts more like a heat-releasing agent than a heat-trapping agent. If I’m correct, we have the choice of calling CO2 a “heat-trapping” gas or a “heat-releasing” gas. Which name to choose? If you’re a scientist trying to characterize the behavior of CO2 gas, you wouldn’t use either name because under certain circumstances both names are misleading. If you want to achieve fame and fortune by jumping on the anthropogenic global warming bandwagon and scaring the bejesus out of everyone, you’d undoubtedly choose “heat-trapping”. After all, it’s considerably easier to convince people that an atmospheric heat-trapping gas will increase Earth surface temperature than it is to convince people that an atmospheric heat-releasing gas will increase Earth surface temperature.
In my opinion the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) crowd blew it. They hired the wrong public relations firm: “Heat-trapping Gas”/“Greenhouse Gas”, at best two marginal efforts. A top-notch PR firm would have called CO2 the “Hell Gas.” The name better serves CAGW interests and is more accurate. Mankind creates CO2 from materials extracted from deep within the nether regions of the Earth. Too much atmospheric CO2 plays Hell with the environment. And if you contribute to the atmosphere more than your fair share of CO2, Gaia will send you to Hell—which won’t be all that bad because at a minimum you’ll get a reprieve from the heat.
130
.
I agree with your ultimate conclusions, but not as a result of your thought experiment, which is fatally flawed.
Once you introduce a gas – ANY gas – into what was previously a vacuum, you no longer have a vacuum, but a space filled with gas. That gas will then behave as any gas would, and transfer heat from the coffee in the inner chamber, to the wall of the outer chamber, via convection currents. The rate of transfer via convection would be much faster than the rate of transfer via radiation alone, in the vacuum flask.
I suspect that if you got a number of flasks and replaced the vacuum space with different pure gases at room (control) temperature and pressure, they would all lose heat at pretty much the same rate, including the CO2 one, and all would lose heat much faster than the vacuum flask.
In fact, it is doubtful that your gas filled flasks (including the CO2 one) would be any more efficient at preventing heat loss, than simply throwing a tea-cosy over your coffee pot.
.
Besides, no need for such elaborate experiments. Richard111 did an excellent job in nailing the “CO2 is a greenhouse gas that warms the planet” in a previous thread, here.
71
MV, I don’t see why my argument is “fatally flawed”. What specifically is the flaw? It appears that we both agree that injecting CO2 gas into the vacuum space of a thermos bottle will degrade thermos bottle performance. CO2 gas in the atmosphere conducts heat too. In the atmosphere case, conduction takes place between the Earth’s surface and material (gases, clouds, particulates, etc.) in the Earth’s atmosphere. Some (if not all) of that material will radiate energy to space. The heat transfer details for the atmosphere and the thermos bottle are different, but the principles are the same.
Note: I do not claim that atmospheric CO2 at some levels won’t increase Earth surface temperature. A thorough analysis of heat transfer in the Earth’s atmosphere is beyond my ability to understand, much less formulate. My whole point is that when heat is injected into material, everything else being equal CO2 in gaseous form that surrounds the material does NOT always increase the temperature of the material. In same cases, the presence of CO2 gas lowers the temperature of the material. As such, I think the phrase “CO2 is a heat-trapping gas is misleading” and borders on propaganda in the sense that I believe most people associate the term “heat-trapping” with “increased temperature”. If you tell people “X” “traps heat”, you’re well on your way to convincing them that when “X” surrounds “Y”, the temperature of “Y” will increase. What if the scientific community chose to call CO2 a “heat-releasing gas” (as I believe it is when employed in a thermos bottle). The CAGW community would have an uphill battle explaining to the public why the “heat-releasing gas CO2” increases Earth surface temperature.
61
Hi Reed,
Your thought experiment (NOT your argument) is fatally flawed because you are trying to compare apples to oranges to “prove” (or disprove) a property of oranges. Heat loss will always be slower from the vacuum flask than it will with the vacuum replaced by ANY gas, regardless of the other properties of the gas, simply because convection does the job more efficiently that radiation.
Put another way, what your experiment demonstrates is the superior nature of heat transfer through a gas – any gas – which is entirely independent of any other alleged properties of any particular gas. It establishes nothing whatsoever in relation to the properties of the particular gas used.
.
Again I agree completely with your conclusion. The entirely incorrect but widely repeated and accepted meme that “CO2 gas traps heat” has been morphed into the equally entirely incorrect but widely repeated and accepted meme that “CO2 gas warms stuff” (the atmosphere). Even our otherwise level-headed host accepts and “believes” it.
Yes, the term “heat trapping gas” unfortunately gives the CAGW crowd a semantic advantage, but they already have no problem whatsoever in using CO2 for “heat trapping” and “heating” at surface level, and “heat releasing” and “cooling” at TOA.
71
MV, Maybe I didn’t say it very well. All I’m trying to prove is calling CO2 a heat-trapping gas is at a minimum misleading because to me it connotes the idea that a gas that “traps heat” will necessarily increase the temperature of active material (i.e., material with an internal source of thermal energy) the gas surrounds.
Other people may not agree with this connotation. That’s fine. To each his own. I believe the phrase “heat-releasing gas” applies equally well to CO2 in the sense that there are situations where the presence of CO2 will cause heat to be lost at increased rates. If I started calling CO2 a “heat-releasing gas”, I can just imagine the name calling I’d be subjected to by the CAGW crowd. They’d correctly argue that the name heat-relasing gas was misleading because situations exist where the presence of CO2 might increase the temperature of an active object, which I can’t rule out.
I believe the CAGW crowd deliberately chose to call CO2 a heat-trapping gas BECAUSE it carries the connotation I alluded to earlier. Thus the name serves their interests. I illustrate this point by pointing out that the equally misleading phrase “Hell gas” would have better served their interests.
50
In a sense, yes, CO2 might be considered a ‘heat releasing gas’ because the heat capacity is rather less than standard air. It will warm up more quickly by conduction and lose that heat by radiation AND conduction which standard air is not so good at. Standard air is considered the basic insulator. It defines the insulation value of other commercial insulators.
30
Reed,
You are expressing yourself perfectly well, and I understand and totally agree with the points you are making. I simply pointed out that your thought experiment, as presented, as it stands and by itself, neither supports nor falsifies your contention.
Both your conclusions and your expression of them are fine by me.
It’s your experiment that needs tweaking.
60
Call me Switzerland, but … the most neutral term I’ve heard for the radiative property in question is that H2O and CO2 are “infra-red active gases” in particular or “radiative gases” generally.
It carries the connotation they can both absorb and emit electromagnetic energy and at the infra-red band in particular. This term seems less misleading than “heat-trapping” and it avoids any accusations of circular reasoning that might arise from “GHGs” when questioning the Greenhouse Effect.
90
Andrew,
I agree with your comment 99.9%. I like the name “infra-red active gas” because it denotes the region of the electromagnetic spectrum with which a gas interacts with electromagnetic radiation. I’m unsure about the name “radiative gas” because I believe all gases interact with some portion of the electromagnetic spectrum and as such the phrase “radiative gas” carries little if any information.
Note: I coined the term “heat-releasing gas” only as a counter point to the CAGW crowd’s calling CO2 a “heat-trapping gas”. I believe CO2 has certain thermal properties (thermal conductivity, freezing point, boiling point, heat capacity, sublimation point, etc.) but “heat-trapping” and “heat-releasing” are not included in the list. Like all matter, CO2 gas has the capacity to receive and store thermal energy. If the phrase “heat-trapping” was used only in this sense, then I have no objection to the name. However, I believe in the minds of most people, the phrase “heat-trapping” means much more. For example, I believe that if you asked most people if oxygen (O2) was a heat-trapping gas, they would answer: “No.” Since O2 can also receive and store thermal energy, I infer that when people call CO2 but not O2 a heat-trapping gas in their minds “heat-trapping” means more than just the storage of thermal energy.
30
The capacity of GHGs to ‘absorb’ radiation is a property of their Photoluminescence
The relative excitation and relaxation rates of CO2 are also important as is the rate of collusion between CO2 molecules and other gases.
What happens in the lab can often be confounded by what happens in the ‘real world’
30
Ah yes, my mistake, quite right about the “radiative gases” bit. I should have recalled that even the chemically stable “noble gases” can interact with electromagnetic radiation strongly, since the emission spectra of Neon in particular may be very frequently observed at street-level.
Nonetheless it’s worth remembering the difference in absorption spectra between H2O and CO2 versus N2,O2 and Ar, and the difference between sunlight spectrum and the upward-bound emissions of land and sea.
Also, the confusion over “heat-trapping” of “thermal energy” may stem from two conventional assumptions which are not technically universal.
Firstly, a “heat trapping” gas would impede the flow of thermal energy more than some other substance used as a standard reference. If you use Nitrogen gas as the reference, then CO2 would be seen as a heat trapping gas because it can absorb a wider cross-section of wavelengths than N2. If you use a perfect vaccum as a reference, then CO2 would be seen as a heat diffuser or “heat releasing gas” because unlike a vacuum every gas will allow convection to transfer heat, besides absorbing a handful of wavelengths, so the convection is likely to dominate over radiative absorption. If the emitter has a high Bond albedo surface then it will not be emitting much radiatively at all and convection will certainly dominate. So the hazard here can be avoided by asking “trapping heat better than what?”
Second source of confusion is “thermal energy”. Technically it’s the radiation emission spectrum of any object, after subtracting any radiation reflected specularly from its surroundings. Sometimes people refer to room or earth surface temperatures (~ 288 Kelvin) as “the thermal band” of radiation, which might suggest anything not in that band, such as visible light, is not “thermal radiation”. But the light from the sun is also (mainly) thermal radiation, it’s the thermal radiation of a 5500 Kelvin object. So a muddled GHE explanation says “the GHGs give a free pass to shortwave energy but block thermal radiation”. Taking the geocentric approach to the spectral terminology leads to this confusion about “thermal” radiation. It’s not whether it’s thermal or “not thermal”, because it’s all thermal. What counts is the strength of absorption per wavelength versus abundance of available energy at that same wavelength.
20
Vacuum flasks also have a mirror to discourage radiation (the mirror is the opposite to a black-body).
There has been attempts to model convection (that’s why they are called general circulation models) but it’s just very difficult to do.
Also, the climate data sets were pretty sketchy to begin with, and have been further corrupted by adjustments, etc.
30
The heat “Trapped” is only Trapped for a very short time before the increased energy of the CO2 is brought to equilibrium with other “not so” heat trapping gases in the vicinity.
In effect, because of the instantaneous equilibration of the whole gas parcel, we have a very complex problem that involves assessing the mass, heat and momentum transfer within the parcel and its’ ultimate destination which would be somewhere higher in the atmosphere than where it started.
KK
70
there is not such thing as a heat trapping gas by nature. just say ir absorber…that s enough.
the second definition is bad too …don’t use “material” use system …
i don’t go further… i think you have making the bars of your own prison, you will always have problem when you use ideas from thermodynamic to describe a dynamical system. For instance …everybody use the temperature but temperature is not defined when a system is out of thermodynamic equilibrium… As a consequence, sometimes descriptions are valid sometimes they are not…and you can be sure it is always the case when you have to deal with electromagntic radiations and transparent material.
It is very unlikely you can find oout how a system will behave with thermodynamic, but if you are lucky and you know how the system behaves you may use thermodynamic and claim eh that s the way the system works.
20
Lemiere,
Bingo! I agree, there is no such thing as a “heat-trapping gas.” However, the phrase “heat-trapping gas” appears throughout the CAGW literature with, I believe, the intent of trying to convince people that atmospheric CO2 will heat the Earth’s surface. I cringe every time I read or hear the phrase “heat-trapping gas.” Since my Google search for the definition of a “heat-trapping gas” was unproductive and since I believe that in the minds of most people “heat-trapping gas” and “greenhouse gas” are synonymous, I took the definition of “greenhouse gas” (see url: http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-glossary/g.html) as the definition of a “heat-trapping gas.”
I expressed my frustration with the phrase by showing a situation where the presence of CO2, no matter what you call it, acted to release heat from material (or a system if that’s the word you want to use) at a rate greater than the rate in the absence of CO2.
30
Thanks — and apology to Reed. I was reading down through here to see if anyone would point that out. I don’t think it’s a good idea to argue from the flawed supposition of the other side. It leaves us looking like we agree with them before we even start.
30
Reed,
Let me direct you to some recent finds that I have had …
http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/20_facts_about_CO2.pdf
http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/virtual_vs_reality_report.pdf
Regardless of the outcome of your thought experiments (or even real ones), since the planetary atmosphere is not enclosed by anything, any comparison to a thermos is simply invalid.
Here is why any discussion of trends of global temperatures is irrelevant to climate or weather …
http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/local-vs-global.pdf
20
Truthseeker
Ref :
http://www.l4patterns.com/uploads/local-vs-global.pdf.
I’m not certain exactly what insights would be gained by studying polar bears in the ANTARCTIC. Possibly that a zero population count means that it’s worse than we thought?
Merry Christmas
60
Kevin,
I guess good proof readers are hard to find.
10
Truthseeker,
Thank you for the links.
10
I agree with MV about this experiment.
Filling the vacuum space with CO2 introduces conduction which is an unwanted confounding factor. To make the situation more equal, fill to vacuum space with CO2 in one bottle and with N2 or even room air in the other.
Why not actually try this experiment? An actual experiment is worth a lot more than a thought experiment.
30
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to everyone and a big thanks to Jo for hosting this excellent website. I have a feeling that 2014 in Australia will be a big year in politics and that as Dennis Shanahan, Weekend Australian political editor describes Tony Abbott: Abbott model of a cool, calm and collected PM, most Australians will realise that we now have an adult government in Canberra.
191
Yes we finally have an adult back as PM but unfortunately we have a lot of “children” who are bad mouthing him and would vote for the destructive ALP. Merry Christmas to all.
131
Shanahan writes about the “children” or the media who are again faling for Labor Green propaganda directed at Tony Abbott and the government, he wrote that the same journalists fell for the sugar coating they surrounded Rudd with to hide dysfunction chaos and seemed shocked when he was dumped for those and other reasons. They then fell for the character smearing PM Gillard created, and now they are again revealing their professional incompetence.
121
I’m confused. Are there two Australias and I’m in the wrong one?
Or just two Tony Abbotts, and I’m thinking of the wrong one?
.
And no, that comment does not in any way translate into support for the other bunch of crooks we just got rid of.
710
Merry Christmas MV. I would suggest that any Governments’ survival strategy is centred upon keeping the level of chicanery below that at which public outrage becomes the dominant factor in elections. The choice of party one supports is often a case of deciding which has policies that you can support the most while offending your ethical sensibilities the least. Under the Australian system, it appears to me that the voter can demonstrate his displeasure by voting for a single-issue small party in the knowledge that his vote will eventually end up with one of the major parties – which seems like an exercise in hypocrisy to a FPTP supporter.
In my country, the 2 1/2 main parties are locked together in,”Nobody likes us but we don’t care”, in the face of sustained outraged public opinion at the venality of our Lawmakers and the poverty of their policies, while the emergent 4th political party seems mainly to be occupied in the pursuit of increasingly rococo own goals. At least you have a leader around whom the stench of corruption is not yet overwhelming.
50
It is all very well, knowing that there are crocodiles in the river, and knowing that you will have to cross that river to get to where you want to be. But it becomes a different matter entirely, when you see just how many of them there are, and how big they have become, from eating previous travelers.
Before the election, people in the ALP were boasting that it would be almost impossible for any incoming Government to dismantle the green web of interrelated international agreements, and domestic legislation, regulation, and commercial contracts, that all collectively underpin the money extraction scheme that they had put in place, and do so in a single term in Government.
Perhaps Tony Abbott is now finding out that the ALP rhetoric was more than idle boasting?
70
Maybe so. Even probably so. But for everyone’s sake, both here and there I hope Abbott persists and can be successful to a large degree. Even if Republicans gain control over the Senate and can retain control of the House of Representatives we face similar problems here, even if we can elect a Republican president in 2016. Some real progress back toward sanity in some other part of the world would be a good example and a good incentive to have around.
The crocodiles will always be there but the trick is to use them as stepping stones to the other side instead of swimming over among them — and yes, it’s easier to say than to do. But that’s the idea.
60
Lovely photo.
Merry Christmas Jo and David.
60
Yes. A lovely photo. Look how well defined the cloud REFLECTION shows. Think about that. Smooth surfaces REFLECT a large amount of radiation, both short wave and long wave.
60
Reed Coray,
Uh oh, early in your piece “Definition: A “heat-trapping gas” is any matter in gaseous form that absorbs and emits electromagnetic radiation in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band” should read “Definition: A “heat-trapping gas” is any matter in gaseous form that absorbs and DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY emit TO SPACE electromagnetic radiation in sub-bands of the infrared (IR) band.”
Or something like that. If ir is to trap heat, it has to deposit energy at a site that was formerly lower in energy, one that keeps it there for some time. If it kept it there for all time, it would accumulate and get ever hotter. So the description needs dynamic considerations relating to the rate at which processes happen.
70
Goeff, Thanks for your comment. Now you see why I defined my terms. However, I’ll stick with my definition because it closely matches at least one definition of a “greenhouse gas”. Specifically, I did a brief google search for “heat trapping gas” definition, and didn’t find anything useful. However, a brief google search for “greenhouse gas” produced the following definition (http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-glossary/g.html):
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) – Geenhouse [sic] gases are those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wavelengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the greenhouse effect. Water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. Moreover, there are a number of entirely human-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as the halocarbons and other chlorine- and bromine-containing substances, dealt with under the Montreal Protocol. Beside CO2, N2O and CH4, the Kyoto Protocol deals with the greenhouse gases sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
The above referenced definition makes no reference to the time interval that absorbed radiation is retained before it is re-emitted. Nor does the referenced definition make any mention of the fact that the radiation must as you say “emit to space”. The sense I get is that the CAGW community uses the term “heat-trapping gas” in whatever context it takes to advance their interests.
Doesn’t your definition require that a gas is a heat-trapping gas only if it (a) resides in the atmosphere, and (b) stores thermal energy for a non-zero but unspecified length of time? Without a storage-time interval definition, I believe the definition is incomplete. Since you didn’t specify the required length of storage time, I pick 1 atto-second. That is, if a gas resides in the atmosphere and stores thermal energy for 10^(-18) seconds it qualifies as a heat-trapping gas.
However, independent of the definition of a “heat-trapping gas”, I believe CO2 gas injected into the vacuum region of a vacuum thermos bottle acts more as a “heat-releasing agent” than a “heat-trapping agent”. In my opinion, the term “heat-trapping gas” does not characterize CO2 in general and is used by the CAGW crowd to prove that CO2 in the Earth atmosphere must increase the Earth surface temperature. Atmospheric CO2 may well increase the Earth surface temperature; but if so, it is not because CO2 is a heat trapping gas in any generic sense. If you want to define a “heat-trapping gas” to be any gas in the Earth’s atmosphere that produces a rise in the Earth surface temperature, fine. But then don’t use the “heat-trapping” property of CO2 to argue that atmospheric CO2 heats the Earth’s surface. Such a position is clearly a circular argument.
10
You may be interested in Tim Ball’s site where he has a fine piece on CO2 and other GHG, he also debunks the greenhouse gas idea on another post on his site. He’s runs a pretty mean line against UN-IPCC but IMO thats not a bad thing.
http://drtimball.com/2013/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/
10
Jo, many thanks for your efforts this year (and for time past).
I have added a little to your chocolate jar. I hope others will do the same.
A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.
P.S. If you are looking for a New Year’s Resolution I suggest “do something about Michael the ever boring”. I mean only something legal of course, although [nope] ED.
110
Anything can be arranged — for a fee 😉
20
OOPS – forgot my manners.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all (except the trolls who like being miserable).
114
I mentioned this in an earlier Post, but it’s worth explaining it a little better.
South Australia, you know, that State which prides itself on having 25 to 30% of its electrical power generation coming from Wind Power.
Well then, just what do you when on the hottest day in Decades, and during the period of greatest consumption, (7AM until 10PM, Peak Power) wind is only supplying 8.9% of that power needed to keep the State actually functioning at all, and at the time of greatest consumption, (3.30 to 5.30) wind is only supplying 2.5% of that power.
What do you do?
Well, SA sucks up their allowed maximum from Victoria, (brown coal generated power) and they have every other available power plant they can find supplying their power, and instead of maybe for a couple of hours a day, this time it’s for almost the full 15 hours of that Peak Demand.
This costs an enormous amount of money, and most probably leads to those smaller plants exceeding their allowable yearly emissions, costing them a considerable amount because of the CO2 Tax, because they would have to run for many hours instead of the couple of hours when (and if) they are called on to supply power.
So then, look at the power generation graph at this link for wind power in SA yesterday. Now, on that second graph there, unclick all the wind plants down the left side and then unclick the title word All on the right. This now shows all the wind plants in SA. For that Peak consumption period of 7AM until 10PM, those wind plants, around 1200 of them, were generating on average around 200MW an hour, and that’s around a 16% Capacity Factor, barely half their normal Capacity Factor, and again, not constant, but variable.
Now scroll down a bit to the third graph and untick all but SA.
Between the hours of 7AM and 10PM SA was consuming on average 2300MW per hour, so wind was supplying only 8.9% of the power actually being consumed, and even that was variable as sometimes it was as low as 2.5%, and this was at the time of greatest Demand, from 3.30 to 5.30PM.
Now look at the chart at this linkGo down to the day in question, 19Dec2013 for electricity prices for Australia, from the Australian Regulator AEMO.
Now, look across at SA and the cost for the Peak Period, 7AM until 10PM.
$1258.79 per MWH or $1.26 per KWH, power that the retailers can only sell at the regulated price of 28 cents per KWH, a huge loss, not just a momentary spike, but the average for those whole 15 hours.
So on average, they sold that average 2300MW for 16 hours (36,800MWH) to all their consumers for an incoming amount (28 cents per KWH) of $9.56 MIllion
For those retailers selling that power, they had to pay $46.324 MIllion to buy that power.
This works out at a loss of $37 Million, not just for the year but just for this one day alone, and only 15 hours of that day to boot.
The retailers can’t afford to just write that huge amount off. It has to be recovered from somewhere.
See now why SA pays the highest amount for its power than any other State.
They will try and convince us that the cost of wind power is somehow competitive, again a carefully worded furphy at best, because even while supplying power, wind power is expensive, and when it is not supplying power, it is even more expensive, graphically shown here.
Tony.
310
Hey Tony,thanks for all your work to explain the cost of power to us in Oz.Merry Xmas to you and all those “Deniers” on this site.I hope the New Year brings every-one what they Desire.
100
A good example of what happens when the socialists pick market winners and subsidise them. Green extremist madness feeding capitalists need for wealth creation but in this example the consumers lose directly via electricity bills and indirectly via other costs of living.
100
Here’s something that not many people would even realise, that cost of living rise, because of the CO2 Tax, and also the imposition of renewable energy costs, and stemming from those renewable energy implementations, the upgrading of the grid to actually cope with that.
You see your electricity bill and freak out at how much more it’s costing you with every bill.
Let’s just do one exercise here, for Woolworths, and here it’s not the extended Woolworths and their subsidiaries, but just for their Supermarkets alone.
You see your power bill either Quarterly, or some of you, monthly.
I’m not sure how Woolies pays their electricity bills, but next time you go into a Woolies, look at all the vast areas with cold storage, shelves and freezers, and out the back cold storage as well, all of them MANDATED to be at a set very low temperature, so it’s not like your fridge at home. Have a close look and see just how many of them there are.
That is an immense cost in power consumption.
So then just for ONE Woolies you’re looking at at a (and here I’ll use Quarterly) power bill around $90,000, (and even that would be on the conservative side here) so that’s $360,000 a year.
There are almost 900 Woolies here in Australia, so Woolworths power bills, just for their supermarkets alone comes in at around $325 MILLION.
Now the CO2 tax, passed down directly to all electricity consumers by the power generators, is around $40 Million of that.
The same for the impost because of renewable power, upgrades to the grid etc, and then you add the GST on top of that.
You do the Maths here.
All that extra cost has to be passed onto consumers, people who buy their groceries from Woolies.
Then there’s Coles, then all Woolies and Coles subsidiaries.
It all soon adds up, all costs passed down to consumers.
Then the added huge new costs for refrigerant gases, some of them multipliers of CO2 X thousands. So, if a cooler goes on the blink, then it needs a regas after work is carried out, and don’t think this is an isolated case, because each store could have anything up to 75 or more units.
All costs passed down to consumers.
Same goes for everywhere you shop. They have increased electricity costs, again, also passed down to consumers.
Tony.
222
Brilliant Tony. Can I borrow this argument for a project I’m working on?
50
No Tony, Michael says businesses just absorb those increased costs.
.
.
.
.
(delemma: I can’t use the sarc button because he really believes it. What button should I use? Is there a stupid button? Maybe an obtuse button.) 🙁
100
The US President has a big red one … 😉
60
This is a good point about the effect of a CO2 tax on supermarkets. The vast cost is passed onto consumers, with no reduction in actual emissions. The reason is that the customer cannot go to another country to do their weekly shopping.
Another user of vast quantities of electricity is bulk chemicals. A few years ago I saw the costs of a site that produced chlorine and sulphuric acid in separate processes. There were three main cost areas: raw materials, electricity and freight. Labour and maintenance were quite small in comparison. Increasing the cost of electricity it makes a significant difference to the margins. These plants on their own employ very few people. But they form the basis for many chemical products that do. As chlorine and sulphuric acid have a very low unit cost, the production needs to be located near to customer. Cost of haulage over just 100km could make up 20% of the total cost. Further, most chemical-based products, such as detergents, are at the mature end of the product life cycle, so there is little profit. Small cost changes make a big difference.
End customers do have a choice. Manufacturing moves abroad to where there is no CO2 tax. Enacting a policy of increasing taxes creates the expectation of increasing comparative disadvantage. It is here that the CO2 tax is most “successful” in reducing CO2 emissions, by not only closing output on basic, high-energy, low selling price per tonne, manufacturing, but in the downstream dependent activities as well. The reverse of this process is being seen in the USA. Shale gas has lowered the cost of power, meaning that high-energy production processes are moving (back) to the USA, improving employment in manufacturing down-stream as well.
There are two contrasting groups of consumers in their abilities to react to the CO2 tax. First is the domestic consumer who cannot shop elsewhere, so has reduced living standards. The second is the manufacturer who can locate, anywhere in the world. The quite different decision-making constraints means economies with CO2 taxes are doubly-hit. Consumers are hit by higher prices of the things they buy, and manufacturing is decimated.
100
“The reason is that the customer cannot go to another country to do their weekly shopping.” Maybe not on the sunny Manchester Riviera, but down in the wilds of east Kent a fair few pop across to Calais on the ferry on a regular basis to do a 2-monthly shop for non-perishables. The exodus from the South East is large enough for the likes of Sainsbury’s to have a supermarket in the Calais area, and the local supermarkets as far west as Ashford amend prices enough for booze to compete with Calais.
30
There is a Marks and Spencer in Hong Kong.
But it is a bit far, for Brits to “pop over for the weekend”.
20
Yes but since 1998 it’s become a Marx and Censor.
00
But remember that is for non-perishables. In British supermarkets, the biggest usage of electricity is for freezers and fridge cabinets. I suppose people will just have to go backwards, returning to the days of dried and tinned food – until someone starts taxing the tins.
20
At least the GST is recognized as a tax, hopefully soon to be abolished.
But the RET is a hidden tax, hidden in the electricity price paid by all businesses, government departments and consumers. Now for most taxes there are winners – we pay taxes so that public services can be delivered.
But who wins from the RET? We all pay higher electricity prices so that investors in wind farms get a guaranteed return on their investment. Subsidies to all industries should be paid for directly out of government budgets so that everyone can see the costs.
30
Tony I also like to point out the trickle down effect, at every point of sale from production to retailer the supply chain adds a margin of profit to costs including carbon tax, renewable energy surcharge and related GST. By the time the consumer pays there are a number of profit margins added so the rise in cost of living is magnified significantly. And add suppliers to the supply chain links doing the same.
30
Yes plus compliance.
Here’s what is supposed to happen, company is slugged with carbon tax
Company incurs compliance cost of say 20 %
Company takes ACTION to reduce carbon to avoid tax. Said action is worth at least as much as the carbon tax to avoid, so that cost gets added in as mitigations are put in place.
Cost to company is now 2.2 x carbon tax
Company adds in this plus a 20 % buffer so miscalculations dont leave them in the red.
Customer is hit with increases of qpproximately 3 x carbon tax per tonne, nothing more is produced, it is a dead loss to everyone. Economically regressive, this process happens at every step in production, this is why the GST is designed to have input credits, it avoids the compounding of GST. There is no avoidace of compounding with the Carbon (Dioxide) tax
10
And I just happen to be reading savetheeaglesinternational.org and clicked on the page to see how Australia was doing. Basically it’s carnage in Tasmania as wind farms chop all the flying critters. Not a good place for the birds and bats, including the no longer protected but still endangered, Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle as they keep getting sliced and diced by the wretched things. This eagle was protected but after lobbying from the wind farm people it was ‘delisted’.
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=4382
If only the greens could understand that their advocacy of fretting over an imaginary problem (CO2 levels) is causing a real disaster for many endangered animals worldwide.
130
They do understand. Their reply is that as thousands of birds get killed by domestic cats and road kills, a few birds and bats killed by windmills doesn’t matter. This is what passes as advanced thinking in Warmism.
122
To which my response always is: “Show me a cat that took down a golden eagle, and then we can talk.”
00
A Brilliant outline Tony.
Merry Christmas.
KK
50
Sorry to be pedantic, mate, at this, the merry time of year.
There is nothing wrong with your analysis, but a wee problem with the terminology.
As you well know, watts, KW and MW are units of power. Watts multiplied by time is energy, as in KW-hr., just as a “horsepower-hour” is a unit of energy.
Your reference to “MW per hour” makes an otherwise great post look slightly unprofessional.
And if that is the only criticism you garner for 365 days of fantastic analysis in terms that the average Joe can clearly contemplate, you deserve a doggone medal, TonyfromOz.
A very Merry Christmas to all, and especially Joanne and David, and for everyone I wish for a prosperous and revealing New Year. Unfortunately for those of us in the “Lucky Country” it is sure to be a year of badly needed austerity. If not, we are all sunk.
30
Thanks Rod.
If the average generation per hour (at any one point in time, averaged) is 2300MW, as per that graph, which shows it in MW, (MegaWatts) then over that 16 hour period then it comes in at 36,800MWH or 36,800,000KWH. Power multiplied by Time.
Tony.
30
Noble cause corruption, aka post modernism, can be very expensive.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t discriminate between its advocates and detractors.
This, in turn, makes it very appealing to those advocates and scrutiny must be rejected unilaterally.
It helps to have an establishment wedded to the ’cause’.
10
CATASTROPHIC CLIMATE CHANGE ENDS BRONZE AGE CIVILISATION
Pollen grains from Cyprus provided the clue that a huge drought hit the region about 3,200 years ago.
Inscriptions and clay tablets have described crop failures, famines and war all occurring during the same timeframe, suggesting that the drought triggered a chain of events that led to widespread societal collapse of these Late Bronze Age civilizations with population migrations and wars leading to new societies and new ideologies.
40
Which is probably why bronze is no longer in fashion for eating and cooking utensils, or swords, for that matter.
30
To Joanne and everyone that tirelessly works at JoNova a very merry Christmas from our two kids http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b626/Yonniestone/yonnie%20photo/20121213_201151_zpsfc14660d.jpeg 🙂
40
Jo I would like to share some photos of our walk on Mt Buninyong two mornings ago noting that the day before was 30c and it cooled overnight to 10c when on our walk, amazingly we survived this sudden change in climate and everything seems Ok, for now. http://s1295.photobucket.com/user/Yonniestone/slideshow/Buningyong%20morning%20mist
In hindsight using our evil SUV driving up there probably altered the climate and saved us and the entire mountain this time, god help us if we ever cycle up there in such conditions. 😉
30
A very interesting story for all parents and educators
10
Yes, a very good fictional look at where all of this “oneness” could lead!
00
And a story for all those concerned about Tibet
20
beautiful pic, jo.
happy hols to andrew, & anyone else who might disappear over the xmas season.
TonyfromOz –
given how much solar to the grid we now have in Queensland, and given it was all installed approx the same time relatively-speaking, what happens when it all reaches its use-by date around the same time?
20 Dec: Scientific American: A Solar Boom So Successful, It’s Been Halted
Photovoltaics proved so successful in Hawaii that the local utility, HECO, has instituted policies to block further expansion
By Anne C. Mulkern and ClimateWire
Hawaiian Electric Co., or HECO, in September told solar contractors on Oahu that the island’s solar boom is creating problems. On many circuits, the utility said, there’s so much solar energy that it poses a threat to the system and a safety issue. Studies are needed on whether grid upgrades are necessary. If they are, residents adding solar must foot the bill. And starting immediately, contractors and residents would need permission to connect most small rooftop systems to the grid…
“We can’t allow circuits to become dangerous,” said Peter Rosegg, a utility spokesman. “We can’t allow circuits to become unreliable because there’s too much PV on those circuits.”…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-boom-so-successfull-its-been-halted
20
We had some visitors this week from Stanwell. They pointed out that Qld has 800 MW nameplate of PV solar. I was shocked. Given the life cycle performance characteristics of this technology, I think simultaneous failure about 2019 or 2020 is a real possibility. Assuming the cooling trend is to continue, the subsidies on this garbage will quite possibly be well and truly over. I can’t help but wonder about its effect on the NEM, given that all this PV shuts down when it is nighttime or cloudy anyhow.
20
Rod.
Yeah!
800MW of INSTALLED CAPACITY for rooftop solar power in Queensland.
Man that’s huge. (/sarc)
Now, factor in the theoretical Capacity Factor of 12.5% and that 800MW comes down to 100MW.
The average installation is around 2KW, which the actual household residence would consume during the day, with barely a fraction of that fed back to the grid, probably less than 10% at best, so that takes it down to 10MW fed to the grids in the State.
That tiny amount of power would not even be considered by grid controllers at all when apportioning power for consumption, keeping in mind that total rooftop solar is spread across the whole of Queensland.
When the real facts are known, then it’s plain for all to see that rooftop solar is boutique power at best.
Even considering that overall total of 100MW, (what the residence consumes and what gets fed back to the grid) it still amounts to virtually nothing, and again, spread across the whole State would see not one coal fired power plant doing anything other than it does at all times, supplying it’s full rated power whilst in operation.
Who actually cares what happens when they all time expire. They lose part of their power after 5 years, and then more each further year, and if they even make it to 15 or 20 years, (forget about making it to 25 years) there will be virtually nothing left in them. The panels may last 25 years at best, but just wait till those Inverters start giving out and see how many people renew the Inverters.
Keep in mind you’re also locked into staying in the one house for those hoped for 25 years, and for optimum performance they need to be cleaned correctly on a regular basis, not just a hose down, but polish the panels, and how often have you seen solar panel owners on their roof cleaning their panels.
Solar hot water – Yes.
Solar power generating panels – you must be kidding.
Tony.
82
You may need to be more specific.
I’m worried this is the first I’ve heard of any plans to make me disappear over Christmas.
My mind is now racing to figure out which of my wild conjectures has turned out to be correct and made people in high places uncomfortable. Heyyyy wasn’t there a Mel Gibson movie with that plot?
No…no! Not the gravy!
00
Nuevo Albergis:
Although no housing or civil-structures have yet been officially identified, the complex is clearly man-made and measures at least 5 miles in diameter, so that whether is is a city, or an ancient agricultural system, it is still the largest known of its kind in prehistoric Chile and ranks alongside the largest man-made complexes in the Pre-Columbian America’s.
This discovery was first noted by Ms. Holly Ahlberg (Nov, 2012) from whom the inspiration for this article came.
At present, and following several e-mails to archaeologists and academics, there has been no reply concerning this discovery. The following images are taken from Google, and clearly show a vast and incredibly well laid out grid-network of fields and/or possible housing.
Other structures such as canals, roads and civil structures have been tentatively identified.
(All these images are easily visible in the highest definition on GoogleEarth)
Evidence for occupation at nearby San Pedro begins surprisingly at around 11,000 years ago
00
Looks like the Left have got what they wanted in Britain. The country’s energy industry watchdog is preparing a strategy to deal with blackouts during the winter. The blackouts are expected because ‘many coal and gas-fired power stations are being closed or mothballed to meet government promises to cut carbon emissions‘.
Another example of a gutless ‘conservative’ government caving in to the Left.
60
Barry
You are wrong in saying “in caving to the left”, it should be “in caving to the Ecoloon Establishment”.
The UK’s energy ministry is ‘run’ by the LibDem’s Ed Davey, who apart from many other undesirable characteristics, such as a complete lack of scientific qualifications or experience, is a card carrying ecoloon.
The UK’s current energy policy is based on a dash for unreliable and expensive wind power, along with the closure of existing cheap and reliable energy producers. Ed Davey can be relied to fight tooth and nail to achieve Third World status, through energy poverty, for the UK.
His latest trick is to consult only green activist groups, such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, in regards to the UK’s future fracking policies. Of course, as an ecoloon the thought of consulting with anyone knowledgeable and competent, such as the fracking industry itself, makes no sense whatsoever, so he didn’t! The huge and obvious benefits of fracking to the US economy were ignored in favour of the dubious theories of those who would return us to the Stone Age if they could.
50
What serious industrial country puts an EcoLoon in charge of Energy ?
Isn’t that like putting kids in charge of the sweet shop ?
While a few opportunist grown ups will make a killing along the way, it can only lead to tears.
20
thanx for the responses.
TonyfromOz – am glad to hear the uptake so far should not pose any problem whatsoever to the Qld grid. any idea if Hawaii’s HECO is exaggerating the problem in that country?
down the gold coast, people complain about the salt buildup on their solar hot water panels but, even off the coast, i can’t believe the gunk that builds up on them. otherwise, do agree, solar hot water is great.
10 Dec: SolarServer: Feed-in tariff reduction for many German solar PV plants beginning on January 1st, 2014
As of January 1st, 2014, feed-in tariff payments for German solar photovoltaic (PV) plants from 10 kW to 1 MW in capacity and commissioned after April 1st, 2012 will cover only 90% of the electricity generated.
This remaining 10% of the electricity can be used by the system owner or sold to third parties, with a last resort option to sell the power to the grid at EUR 0.042 (USD 0.057) per kWh…
http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/2013/kw50/feed-in-tariff-reduction-for-many-german-solar-pv-plants-beginning-on-january-1st-2014.html
00
This is a new website http://uclimate.com/
Which lists all the latest climate news.
20
interesting – but we have Pat.
20
… lists all the climate
newscommentary that has been published.So useful reference site, and duly noted, but I will continue to come here for evolving opinion. And as janama says, we have Pat, who does a great job.
20
this article is popping up on a few websites as an endearing story about concerned grandparents. what caught my attention – & suspicion – was Barry Cash being a utilities consultant, & the specific attack on coal:
13 Dec: BristolPost: Jemma Buckley: Bristol police called to deal with “threatening” pensioners giving away mince pies
Known as Grandparents for a Safer Earth, the group were trying to garner support for their latest petition against the bank’s investment in fossil fuels, but bosses called in the police after customers told them they felt “threatened” by the pensioners.
One campaigner, ***Barry Cash, 63, said: “We have no idea why the manager called the police. We were just standing on the pavement outside. We didn’t go in and we didn’t hassle customers coming out. We were just chatting to passers-by.
“I offered the officer a mince pie,” added the ***utilities consultant from Bishopston…
The group say they “care deeply about the world our grandchildren will inherit” and held the protest outside RBS on Baldwin Street in order to urge the bank to stop investing in the coal industry and to increase funding to research and develop renewable energy…
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristol-police-called-deal-threatening-pensioners/story-20319838-detail/story.html
Barry Cash is not named in this earlier piece. the sincerity or otherwise of the four who are named is not of concern here:
14 March: BristolPost: David Clensy: Meet the Bristol grandparents who are trying to save the world
“If the coal output planned internationally in the years up to 2017 goes ahead, the International Energy Agency say we will see a rise in temperatures of two per cent since the start of the industrial revolution – and that will be a tipping point, from which there will be no return. That is the accepted limit for a possible safe level of temperature rise for human beings.
“That’s why we think time is of the essence with this – it’s not just a long term problem, it’s an urgent issue. When you reach a certain age, and you become a grandparent, you start to appreciate just how important the future of our planet really is…
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Meet-Bristol-grandparents-trying-save-world/story-18412705-detail/story.html
LiberalDemocrats: whyiamgreen: Barry Cash
I’m a member of Grandparents for a Safe earth. If you Google “The Grandparents Strike Again” you’ll find a video on U-tube that tells you about us.
David Cameron is reported to have recently said we should “get rid of all the green crap”.
Well Liberal Democrats like “green crap”. In fact, we like it so much we are creating 200,000 new green jobs.
http://whyiamgreen-libdems.nationbuilder.com/barrykash
19 Dec: LiberalDemocrats: Energy Act to create 200,000 green jobs – Ed Davey
The Energy Act, pushed through by Liberal Democrat Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Davey has received Royal Assent. The package of measures put in place by the law will support the creation of 200,000 jobs in the renewable energy sector including wind farms, solar and biomass…
Liberal Democrats in Government have already secured more than £30bn of investment in renewable energy which will support around 35,000 jobs and this new package of measures is expected to attract around £40bn of investment in renewable electricity by 2020.
This will provide enough power for 10m homes while at the same time reducing carbon emissions by around 20m tonnes – equivalent to 25 per cent of annual household emissions…
http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_news_detail.aspx?title=Energy_Act_to_create_200%2c000_green_jobs_%e2%80%93_Ed_Davey&pPK=18e54f0b-b24a-4116-81c5-580554458772
Sept 2011: Bristol247: Southmead by-election: Labour win, Lib Dems slump to third
Brenda Massey polled 1,109 votes, while the backlash against the Liberal Democrats continued – their candidate Barry Cash being pushed into third place by the Conservative Ronda Brace.
CASH Barry John – Liberal Democrat: 365
http://www.bristol247.com/2011/09/09/southmead-by-election-labour-win-lib-dems-slump-to-third-71675/
“Grandparents” are a partner in Greenpeace/350.org/Avaaz etc EndTheAgeOfCoal.Org, but only cached versions of their website are working:
a global coalition of organizations – End the Age of Coal
http://www.endtheageofcoal.org/partners
You can contact the #EndCoal web team at [email protected]. … Grandparents for a Safe Earth; Greenpeace Africa; Greenpeace Asia Pacific …
HOW AMUSING!
10
btw, if u check Barry Cash’s pic on the LibDem site he posted on, u will recognise him at 22 seconds into this video, organising this tiny protest group – the public face? – that manages to make the local MSM:
The Grandparents strike – again
Granparents for a Safe Earth continue their direct action against fossil fuel investment with an occupation of Bristol RBS offices…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6V7mqePObM
10
Beautiful picture. It is a scene of tranquillity. A perfect reflection.
Yet a disturbance has occurred at the bottom of the picture. A ripple, an interference pattern, an argument breaking out.
Can any good come from disturbing tranquillity? If it means breaking up a consensus I hope so. It is the only way forward.
20
Merry Christmas Jo!
Many thanks for the site.
60
And the climate prat of 2013 is …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/climate-prat-of-2013-we-have-a-winnah/
Pointman
90
couldn’t you just say who it was without the laborious commentary?
13
Jesus Janama, foreplay with you must take hours or perhaps alternatively you’re a wham, bam, thank you Mamn type.
Pointy
41
Pointy – I’m naturally suspicious of those who present themselves as emerging from the dark people with serious skin problems. How should I act any other way?
03
That’s a seriously sad remark. Pathetic even. I’ll leave you to your life. Enjoy it.
Pointman
21
Some ladies find camouflage face paint to be quite attractive, and even manly — as long as it is not applied solely to the eyelids.
Jus’ saying …
00
Should readers be spared that by announcing it here ?
Or might that be unfair, because it is Pointman’s Pratt after all ?
11
I went to Pointmans site to find out but I couldn’t be bothered dredging through the laborious commentary.
Perhaps if he’s put the commentary after the announcement I might have stayed to listen to his reasons.
23
Well, I know who it is, but I can’t tell, ’cause it’s a secret.
30
Pointy, I note that Prof. Judith Curry has commented on your award, saying that a ‘skeptical award’ might be needed.
It should be pointed out to Ms. Curry that there is no second prize.
30
Almost a eulogy for a pratt, who seems to have enjoyed it. Did it benefit from any libation in the preparation I wonder.
10
Actually, when considering prattishness, there is such a variation of types and degrees, we should probably devise a matrix upon which they can be measured. Over time, we could then identify specialist prats, who have the ability to be a total and utter prat in one specific area. We could also identify the genuine, all-round, utility, prats, whose versatility means that they can be totally obnoxious in any setting.
We could even add a third dimension, regarding their sphere of influence, which would give an indication of the potential damage (both targeted and collateral) that the more well-connected prat could cause in various areas of human endeavour.
30
And my nominations are:
1) – The Master Baiter
2) – Dribble Bladder
3) – Maggot
20
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology may be able to torture ‘record’ warm temperatures out of their outdated, location affected land based temperature gauges and claim GLOBAL warming is happening in Australia, but it isn’t happening in the rest of the world. This temperature record (from 1997 to 2013 inclusive), is from the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at the East Anglia University which is charged with collating the temperature data from all around the world for the official global temperature record. This temperature data series called HadCRUT4 is also used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Clearly it shows no increase in GLOBAL average temperature since 1997.
Incidentally, to put the global average temperature of 14.5C in perspective and all the fearmongering about a possible rise of 2 – 4 degrees C, it might interest you to know that Bangkok’s annual average temperature (not maximum), but mean daily temperature every 24 hours 365 days a week is 29.0C, exactly twice the global average temperature. Yet the city isn’t melting, the oceans aren’t boiling and the plants grow fine and the fish and animals breed well, and the population is thriving! The only disruption there is political not climate!
102
Hate to say this… …really do. But what is the meaning of the, “GLOBAL average temperature?” There’s no place on earth where that figure tells you what’s going on temperature wise, nowhere.
That term has bothered me for a long time. It homogenizes the milk a little too much for me, a guy who doesn’t trust averages very much in any case and even less when the obvious intent is to confuse, obfuscate and hide the fact that the average is meaningless. Even the average temperature at one given spot, let’s say my patio where I have a fairly decent thermometer, means nothing. It’s like surveying 50 different merchants selling X and computing the average. So what, it don’t tell you what you’ll have to pay for X.
I may be interested in the temperature on my patio right now, 68.2 F (+- 2.5 because I haven’t calibrated it). I may be interested in the highest and lowest readings I’ve seen. But the average temperature?
If I’m wrong about this someone take me to task here and explain why I’m wrong.
20
Like Willy Soon says about sea level, it’s more of a concept than a measurement.
Fundamentally, measuring a parameter with devices whose accuracy when new is one tenth of a degree, then ignoring the inaccuracies of age, reading, and location, and coming up with values in one hundredth of a degree is no more scientific than burning witches.
40
Rod,
At least there’s some real usefulness in the concept of MSL (mean sea level) as any pilot will tell you. But even assuming you could measure temperature accurately to hundredths or even thousandths of a degree, where are you when you average those measurements?
Pilots, by the way, know better than to trust MSL numbers published on charts to better than +- two or three feet or readings on their altimeters better than +- 20 feet. GPS is another thing though. Autoland using GPS can put you on the ground with amazing perfection but it has nothing to do with MSL measurments and everything to do with the ability of GPS to determine location in 3 dimensions.
10
.
Agree with you entirely, Roy. And it doesn’t have to be “global”.
Comparing ANY two places on the basis of their “average” temperature is meaningless.
Without bothering to look up the actual figures, let’s say where I am on Bribie Island in Queensland, the overnight minimum is around 15 deg C, and the maximum is 25 deg C. That gives us an “average” of 20 deg C. The climate here is truly magnificent most of the year. Not quite sub-tropical, and rarely ever truly cold.
Now let’s go out to the middle of Australia, to Alice Springs, with, say, overnight minimums of zero deg C, and daytime maximums of 40 deg C. It is a truly terrible place to live and work without air-conditioning, but has the same “average” temperature as idyllic Bribie – 20 deg C!
“Average temperature” is as meaningless a concept as the “ozone layer”, which in truth exists only as a mathematical construct, but which an awful lot of people actually believe really exists as a protective “layer” somewhere out at the edge of the atmosphere, “protecting” us. I’ve even read it expressed that the mythical ozone layer is, in fact, the “roof” that provides the greenhouse effect.
20
Speaking of idyllic Bribie, have booked a penthouse ‘On the Beach’ for early January.
I will be taking sea level measurements and temperature readings that will qualify our holiday as a tax deduction.
Open for a beer or fine Shiraz.
10
Totally agree Roy!
00
“The only disruption there is political not climate!”
I think that is the same all over the world.
Politicians thinking they know what is best for the rest of the population. If only they would just let us get on with our lives without the constant interference.
And a Very Merry Christmas to Jo and most contributors.
10
I had a wild idea about your carbon tax. Could Abbott at least manage to repeal the dumb-ass provision that prohibits retailers from telling their customers how much the price of goods and services has gone up because of said tax?
Nothing is a better disinfectant than exposure to the cold hard light of day, as this blog in particular has been proving every day for some time now.
40
The Pickering Post is not the most reliable source I admit, but this excerpt is from a recent article:
Well, Larry”, he said, “the ATO is not interested in the minutiae of tax legislation, only what is due. It depends on what the legislation actually says, but I would be surprised if it had not allowed for timeous variations in collection. The ALP would want the ability to make tax ‘provisional’ or be collected in advance.”
“Thanks mate, we’ll organise a game in January, ok?”
So I checked with Greg Hunt, Minister for Environment: “The first payment for carbon tax liabilities incurred during 2014-15 is due on 15 June 2015 with final payment due 1 February 2016.
“However, as the existing legislation will be abolished effective 1 July 2014, there will be no further liabilities beyond the current financial year. Hope that helps, Larry”, he replied
10
Rod,
Last I saw (or maybe assumed from what someone said) there were still political impediments to repeal of the tax. But sudden death by repeal sounds great. 🙂
How certain is that July 1, 2014 date? Or should I ask?
10
Every time there is an election for the House of Reprehensibles, there is a “half senate” election. On September 7 the half senate election produced a plethora of small parties. There are a few of these senators that will more than likely be in favour of getting rid of the tax on air. The new senate sits 01 July 2014. However, there are three “Palmer United” senators that are, in my opinion at least, unreliable fruitcakes that are against any thing and everything. However, they seem to be loyal to the big buffoon Clive Palmer, and he wants not only to get the tax dead and buried, but to have what has already been collected returned. He would stand to net six million if that were the case, so it is difficult to imagine Clive directing his brainwashed little minions to retain the tax. Is that clear as mud?
10
Can I vote “present” then wait and see? 😉
10
WUWT has new tornado reference page showing all the data on tornadoes over many years. It goes without saying that 2013 has been a low count year and F3 to F5 tornadoes have not increased over the years.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/22/introducing-the-new-dana-nuccitelli-commemorative-wuwt-tornado-reference-page/#more-99705
Like Jo we owe Watts a debt of gratitude for having the guts to give us the facts and tell the truth about this scam of CAGW that has ignorantly led to the super expensive, much greater scam of OECD mitigation.
60
In normal circumstances households pay for electricity 3 ways. There is the hot water system. Then there are the off peak and on peak tarriffs. The smart meters are a bit of a mystery to me just now.
Anyway, my point is that if society does get to the point where electric cars will need overnight charging there is sure to be a surge in use of power, say, between 11PM and 5AM. This will create a new peak period with a probable surcharge. Also that will create arguments about kms per cost of electricity just as arguments about petrol costs rage on.
20
Don’t worry Edwina. Electric cars, like other technology that belongs to a previous century, will never catch on. Witness the Mitsubishi withdrawal of its MIEV, and the financial condition of Tesla.
30
Given that the total tax on gasoline is approx. >50% of the pump price in NZ and >70% in the UK, and elsewhere at various higher/lower values the shortfall to The-Ministry-of-We-Know-Best-For-Your-Own-Good created by declining sales is potentially substantial. I have alluded to this before and see it discussed now elsewhere….one of those unintended consequences?
How fuel efficiency is changing our transportation infrastructure
By Ken Philmus | Senior Vice President, Transportation, Central and Local Government, Xerox
00
up late watching the gripping finale of the South Africa/India test match. foolishly switched on the radio to catch the LAST FEW MINUTES of the repeat of the Ian Chubb interview, with Chubb saying he has tried to get scientists to speak out much more often on their areas of interest, & do so early, so the public is walking along with you. (SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING) Chubb thinks OFTEN of “climate change” & how public opinion has changed, & he suspects it’s because scientists didn’t bring the community with them from the early days so, when the fruits of their labours became obvious, & scientists had to tell us something had to be done, it was easy for people to oppose that, and to shift public opinion. i think we weren’t careful enough to start from early days & get it out there.
RICHARD AEDY, ABC: do you think the scientific community, in which there is almost no debate about man’s actions causing climate change, can find a way back.
CHUBB: yes, it can do so, by explaining to people in accessible language what it really means & why they believe the science is robust. it’s very hard for a scientist to fight back an argument based essentially on emotion/instinct. it’s part of science to have a debate about different evidence that’s showing something different, that’s how science advances. admits no certainties in science, only probability. if you want 100% certainty, go to people who believe they can say what they want to say, & that must be certain because they say it.
AUDIO: 22 Dec: ABC Sunday Profile: Ian Chubb
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/sundayprofile/ian-chubb2c-australia27s-chief-scientist/5166924
00
There is nothing about repeatable or verifiable observations. There is nothing about repeatable experimentation. There is nothing about addressing the null hypothesis. Just philosophical discussions, and deciding which of the discussions they happen to have had, in their friendly chat around the barbie, is the most likely to be right.
I am glad that they spell science with a small “s”, because it ain’t real Science.
20
Chubb is an utter moron, a rank failure who has been an embarrassment since day one in his position as “chief scientist”.
An utter waste of space, and since he covers a lot of ground with that ample butt of his, that is saying something quite substantial.
But of course, I’m sure he speaks very highly of me.
51
worse was to come following the RN news headlines…NEW DIMENSIONS:
not a mention of CAGW in the lengthy summary here, nor in the introduction to this guy by the off-with-the-fairies presenter who said Sam was all about eradicating poverty but, the moment this guy spoke, i knew where it was heading. apart from the usual self-aborbed hippie talk, CAGW takes up most of the program…purely from a leftist point of view of course, and beyond insane. lots about how they smooch tea party congressmen, editors. unbelievably crazy stuff. the only remedies to CAGW he ever mentions is CARBON TAX, CARBON TAX, CARBON TAX (SAM’S TRICK IS TO ALWAYS SAY CARBON TAX & DIVIDEND). talks of influencing Richmond Times-Dispatch newspaper, including a conservative libertarian journo there. final ten mins of the program gets to the poverty question:
23 Dec: ABC: New Dimensions: Effective Grassroots Activism with Sam Daley-Harris
Sam Daley-Harris challenges civic despair and offers a powerful and effective model of citizen empowerment and leadership. His organisation, RESULTS, is committed to healing the break between people and government, and to helping people take back their democracy…
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/newdimensions/effective-grassroots-activism-with-sam-daley-harris/5153224
I JUST KNEW SAM’S ORG, RESULTS, WOULD BE TAX-EXEMPT, LIKE NEW DIMENSIONS ITSELF:
Sam Daley-Harris is president and founder of RESULTS Educational Fund, a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to mass educational strategies to generate the will to end world hunger.
http://results.techriver.net/website/article.asp?id=1598
About New Dimensions
The New Dimensions Foundation is a social profit, public benefit, tax exempt, 501(c)(3) educational organization supported by listeners…
http://www.newdimensions.org/about-new-dimensions/
on ABC last nite, Sam said in first 8 months of 2013, this lot have had 745 letters to the editor published on carbon tax plus 141 op-eds published, plus 602 meetings with members of Congress or their staff. & this is why JIMMY hansen says …(quotes the following) :
Sam Daley-Harris
In addition to his continuing work in microfinance, Daley-Harris has guided the emergence of the influential Citizens Climate Lobby, of which leading climate scientist Jim Hansen has written: if you want to join the fight to save the planet, to save creation for your grandchildren, there is no more effective step you could take than becoming an active member of Citizens Climate Lobby.”
http://www.csbsju.edu/Center-for-Global-Education/Archives/Sam-Daley-Harris.htm
guess Sam was right about the Richmond paper. only mention that the following is pure advocacy comes at the bottom of the piece; however, a pic of Lagarde with Associated Press prominently displayed, gives the impression it’s an authorative AP report:
18 Oct: Richmond Times-Dispatch: Guest-columnists Mercer and Nelson: Shifting gears on carbon
BY MARY ELLEN MERCER AND WILLIAM NELSON Richmond Times-Dispatch
The evidence on climate change and the carbon culprit continues to pile up, covered extensively by responsible media like the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
(AT BOTTOM OF ARTICLE) http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org .
http://www.timesdispatch.com/opinion/their-opinion/columnists-blogs/guest-columnists/mercer-and-nelson-shifting-gears-on-carbon/article_ee6a8279-202c-545a-834f-bcc5f9060fdf.html
and to complete the nightmare, there was Christine Milne when i turned on ABC RN this morning (does she live there?), going on and on and on and on and on and on….
now i’m off to do christmas shopping.
11
Pat;
I agree about the forever “renewable” supply of Christine Milne on the ABC. If they can’t get her then there will be someone equally green (and equally stupid).
Fortunately I have a fast acting OFF switch. Completely eliminates green drone from the ABC. Of course I don’t get to listen to the rest of their slanted content, but it is a small price to pay.
00
There’s possibly a good market out there for some sort of electronic device which can be easily programmed to recognise certain MSM radio and TV voices through their tonal inflections and characteristics and switches the audio off when it recognises those tonal inflections which are basically specific to every individual .
And then restarts the audio when another voice comes on.
Guess there is one already.
Its called the “mute” button but you still have to press it so lets go the full hog to an “auto audio mute”
Come on all you electronic dabblers. The market awaits you with high anticipation.
10
Somehow I think this bush poem with it’s pioneer settlement and christmas theme from Henry Lawson still means a lot to Australians as even today many of us often face those same circumstances.
Lawson’s poems still give the essence of the times in his poems even if most of the old bush terms and terminology can no longer be understood by many in an urbanised Australia.
From; http://www.learningonline.com.au/topics/15/books/206
The Fire at Ross’s Farm
The squatter saw his pastures wide
Decrease, as one by one
The farmers moving to the west
Selected on his run;
Selectors took the water up
And all the black soil round;
The best grass-land the squatter had
Was spoilt by Ross’s Ground.
Now many schemes to shift old Ross
Had racked the squatter’s brains,
But Sandy had the stubborn blood
Of Scotland in his veins;
He held the land and fenced it in,
He cleared and ploughed the soil,
And year by year a richer crop
Repaid him for his toil.
Between the homes for many years
The devil left his tracks:
The squatter pounded Ross’s stock,
And Sandy pounded Black’s.
A well upon the lower run
Was filled with earth and logs,
And Black laid baits about the farm
To poison Ross’s dogs.
It was, indeed, a deadly feud
Of class and creed and race;
But, yet, there was a Romeo
And a Juliet in the case;
And more than once across the flats,
Beneath the Southern Cross,
Young Robert Black was seen to ride
With pretty Jenny Ross.
One Christmas time, when months of drought
Had parched the western creeks,
The bush-fires started in the north
And travelled south for weeks.
At night along the river-side
The scene was grand and strange –
The hill-fires looked like lighted streets
Of cities in the range.
The cattle-tracks between the trees
Were like long dusky aisles,
And on a sudden breeze the fire
Would sweep along for miles;
Like sounds of distant musketry
It crackled through the brakes,
And o’er the flat of silver grass
It hissed like angry snakes.
It leapt across the flowing streams
And raced o’er pastures broad;
It climbed the trees and lit the boughs
And through the scrubs it roared.
The bees fell stifled in the smoke
Or perished in their hives,
And with the stock the kangaroos
Went flying for their lives.
The sun had set on Christmas Eve,
When, through the scrub-lands wide,
Young Robert Black came riding home
As only natives ride.
He galloped to the homestead door
And gave the first alarm:
‘The fire is past the granite spur,
‘And close to Ross’s farm.’
‘Now, father, send the men at once,
They won’t be wanted here;
Poor Ross’s wheat is all he has
To pull him through the year.’
‘Then let it burn,’ the squatter said;
‘I’d like to see it done –
I’d bless the fire if it would clear
Selectors from the run.
‘Go if you will,’ the squatter said,
‘You shall not take the men –
Go out and join your precious friends,
And don’t come here again.’
‘I won’t come back,’ young Robert cried,
And, reckless in his ire,
He sharply turned his horse’s head
And galloped towards the fire.
And there, for three long weary hours,
Half-blind with smoke and heat,
Old Ross and Robert fought the flames
That neared the ripened wheat.
The farmer’s hand was nerved by fears
Of danger and of loss;
And Robert fought the stubborn foe
For the love of Jenny Ross.
But serpent-like the curves and lines
Slipped past them, and between,
Until they reached the bound’ry where
The old coach-road had been.
‘The track is now our only hope,
There we must stand,’ cried Ross,
‘For nought on earth can stop the fire
If once it gets across.’
Then came a cruel gust of wind,
And, with a fiendish rush,
The flames leapt o’er the narrow path
And lit the fence of brush.
‘The crop must burn!’ the farmer cried,
‘We cannot save it now,’
And down upon the blackened ground
He dashed the ragged bough.
But wildly, in a rush of hope,
His heart began to beat,
For o’er the crackling fire he heard
The sound of horses’ feet.
‘Here’s help at last,’ young Robert cried,
And even as he spoke
The squatter with a dozen men
Came racing through the smoke.
Down on the ground the stockmen jumped
And bared each brawny arm,
They tore green branches from the trees
And fought for Ross’s farm;
And when before the gallant band
The beaten flames gave way,
Two grimy hands in friendship joined –
And it was Christmas Day.
61
December 20, 2013
TO THE BARRICADES
The only way to stop climate change now may be revolution
In a provocative study published earlier this month, Hansen and a group of colleagues make the case for why radical action is needed. The now commonly embraced international target of keeping global warming at a maximum of 2°C above pre-industrial levels—a hard-won, but politically negotiated goal—is actually much too high, Hansen says, and we should instead aim for 1°C.
via Greeniewatch
00
Does anybody know what Ruddy Kevin is planning to do, now that he has finished his task of destroying Australia’s credibility in the Pacific, and everywhere else, except China?
Does anybody know the current status of the police investigation into Jooliar’s alleged magic morphing of union monies into private houses?
We need to keep track. Corruption in politics needs to be outed, because the contagion can spread to other institutions upon which democracy depends.
21
KRudd has denied he is lining himself up for a nice plum UN sinecure.
Yep! You hafta’ believe him as the denial was said with both passion and feeling [ /sarc]
Mind you, putting KRudd in charge of anything to do with the UN would be like putting a Jihadi in charge of buggering up a perfectly good train wreck.
40
I think your metaphors are just great, ROM.
20
This is about as up to date as anything I know of.
00
Thanks Rod, I will keep an eye on it.
00
Last I heard of Rudd he was joining what I would call “a schmoozing club for Chinese debt deal brokers.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/rudd-advises-on-global-china-scholarship/story-e6frg90f-1226626160286
FORMER prime minister Kevin Rudd has joined global business and political heavyweights as an adviser on a new, $US300 million, China-focused scholarship program established by a billionaire US businessman.
00
He has apparently been “speaking on global affairs”.
He can embarrass us even when he’s gone.
“I will just continue to lecture, to talk and to write in the great world of ideas such as the ones I was seeking to address [tonight], whether that is here, in the United States or in China or back home.”
00
Rekkers, Since you are a busy bloke I have listened to the “on-the-record” portion of this Rudd speech at Harvard in April and have transcribed the bits most relevant to Rudds future decisions.
* Blames the collapse of Copenhagen on too many late nights drinking scotch on conference calls.
* Early at ANU he studied dissent in China and the anti-Rightist movement. Rod McFarquar’s book on that topic shaped his view of Chinese politics.
Chinese domestic political reform:
* New Chinese president Xi Jin-ping is “strongest Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping.” (Military background, well-read, and a good memory.) Rudd says lots of other nice things him.
* Eliminating corruption is said to be important.
* National Unity is still #1.
* Their “Chinese Dream” vision statement creates diverse expectations amongst the public which will be difficult to meet.
Economic:
* China’s economic growth model will be “transformed”. Transformation of economy from Investment to Consumption and continued Urbanisation.
* Major reform of state-owned enterprise sector to create more room for private enterprise, which is challenged by the traditional “patronage” system. <== Possible Rudd opportunity ties in with Schwarzman’s China school?
* The projected lowering of growth to 6.6% by 2022 is a concern because this rate not considered sustainable and the rate of growth has to be appropriate to the economic transformation goals.
Foreign Policy with USA:
* Their new conceptual framework for Great Power Relations is predicated on the historic inevitability of the rise and fall of great powers / empires, but claims to provide a way to avoid the instability and war that has previously occurred during the fall of great powers. (Sounds like a formula for avoiding war with the USA when the USA inevitably collapses, but YMMV.)
* Progress in Sino-American relations relies upon mutual recognition of “core interests” which seems to imply the USA should back-off the South China Sea, thus it is “problematic”.
* This Great Power Relations idea is currently lacking detail and the Chinese are employing domestic think tanks and foreigners to help them figure out how to achieve it. (More Rudd ops?)
* Rudd hopes the USA will work within the Chinese doctrine to build strategic trust and international co-operation. (Possible hint of globalist “anti-wedge” strategy there.)
The rest of the conversation is off-the-record. Who knows how much of the previous statements are propaganda, flattery to promote his Chinese career goals, and diluted for the Harvard audience.
My guess… Rudd has globalist aspirations but in the early phases he has to pick a side to work on, he has picked sides years ago, and he sided with the greater economic power: China. This means he’s arguing from a Chinese perspective on how to remove barriers and distinctions between the Asian region and the American region. Whether this allows American corporate cronies to set up shop in China, or allows greater Chinese expansion in Asia/Pacific and acquisition of American companies and assets, I do not know.
00
Of this we can be certain, however.
Whatever Komrad Krudd is up to is for the benefit of him and no other.
His ego must be fed, and feed it he will.
00
Australias hottest year, remarkable when you consider that it is a neutral ENSO year and the sun has slightly cooled over the last 60 years. But fits predictions of AGW where temps are high and being held up by enhanced greenhouse gas forcing, despite overall cooling natural factors that should see temps as low as in the 50’s.
“2013 is the year Australia marked its hottest day, month, season, 12-month period and, by December 31, hottest calendar year.
“We’re smashing the records,” said Andy Pitman, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science at the University of NSW. “We’re not tinkering away at them, they’re being absolutely blitzed.”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20131220-2zqpf.html#ixzz2oHbwworS
“
19
Oh look, everybody. Michael has found a science free zone, that he can play in, all on his own.
Michael: Have a look at the sidebar graphic, in the newspaper you reference, that is supposedly from the BOM, and then please give us your definition of what they mean by “normal”.
Then, for bonus marks, please explain why anybody who actually understands science, and the scientific method, should take you seriously.
60
To use another metaphor, Michael the Realist is not the brightest snail on the foot path.
30
No, but he might be the slowest.
10
He should read the link from the archives titled Eight reasons the Australian heatwave is not “climate change” from earlier this year as well. The link is http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/eight-reasons-the-australian-heatwave-is-not-climate-change/ I’ll some of them for his convenience
2. The “records” we are breaking are pitifully short
Even if this is the hottest heatwave “ever recorded”, it doesn’t mean much in the long term scheme of things. Natural climate cycles work on scales of 11 years, 60 years, 200 years, 1500 years, and 100,000 years. We have decent temperature records for many locations for only 50 years. We have a scratchy patchy thermometer record for 150 years. Any scientist raving about breaking a 50 year record as if it means something is … embarrassing. There is too much noise in this system and too little data.
6. Global temperatures have been increasing for 300 years
Given that our data is shorter than that, it is entirely predictable that we will set “new records” even though the climate is now cooler than it was 5,000 years ago, 130,000 years ago and for most of the history of life on Earth. Our records are short (point 2) the trends are not unusual (point 7) and we aren’t certain what caused the world to start warming circa 1700, but it wasn’t due to CO2. Not too many air-conditioners or SUV’s in King William III’s time.
30
Recent research on spending on anti science shows who is actually making the money from this anti climate science scam. Just be a scientist, think tank or political opinionist ready to sell his soul and you can make big bucks.
“Conservative groups may have spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.
The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.
“
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20131220-2zqpf.html
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-013-1018-7
110
Michael the Realist
December 23, 2013 at 6:16 pm
A billion dollars a year?
Sounds like pretty small beer to me when compared to just one of the big eco-nazi organisations such as Greenpeace with it’s plus $700 million annual budget and then the WWF’s even bigger budget to fight the skeptics.
And thats only two of a whole raft of eco-nazi outfits all of which slurp up as much of the public’s hard earned as they can get their ugly snouts into.
Plus all those psuedo academic outfits which are a dime a dozen who are also using the public’s hard earned to give lavish grants to churn out unreadable crap which is passed as off as science by would be third rate so called researchers who calls themselves climate warming scientists.
Just a few more billions of public money down the gurgler in the name of CAGW
Jo has pointed out in one of her very recent headline posts that a billion dollars a day about $350 billion dollars a year is being splurged around the world on the global warming scam which makes the measly billion dollars a year claimed by the alarmists but never proven, of spending by skeptical organisations as very small beer compared to the eco-nazi spending on the same meme.
And it seems the skeptics are using their own money but the alarmist cult followers are as usual incapable of acting honestly but get their lip stick painted snouts right into and gorge themselves on the deepest swill in the public trough.
EU FUNDING £90M GREEN LOBBYING CON
60
Since when have links to the Sydney Morning Herald and Springer.com been “valid research” Is this really the best you can do? If you are going to say that as you put it
You should be able to say what they are “denying” and where. Otherwise you are asserting facts that are baseless in a attempt to use a tactic called ““poisoning the well” – It allows the user to avoid engagement with the substance
of the argument that is in play.It’s an intensely anti-rational, unfair and ugly thing to do.
40
Don’t you just love Michael’s naïvety … ?
The first seven words of Michael’s quotation, sets the tone, and veracity, for the rest of what he writes:
.
May?, or May not?, or maybe they thought about it, and wished they could, but didn’t. But we are not sure. Are they sure? They might have meant to spend it, but forgot. They could have dreamt it. Or perhaps somebody has lost the money, and it might have accidentally been spent, by accident, since they do happen, as we know because it may be statistically proven.
Spent up to? So the money that may have been spent (although we are not sure) could be less than the 1bn quoted? That would make sense. I think Jo bought a new pencil this year, and that certainly cost less than $1bn. The year before, she may have bought a new eraser, and that would have cost less than $1bn. So what can we spend the rest of the money on, since there are only a few days left in this year? What about paper clips? They are always useful, and they will help us achieve our $1bn target, but we mustn’t buy too many, because we do not want to blow the budget.
And then we get this little gem …
Ooo … that is scary. You can picture them, can’t you, sitting in high backed carved wooden chairs, arranged in a circle, each with a white persian cat on their lap, and not smiling because they are conservative, and therefore restrained, and seriously serious.
And what about these secretive funding networks? How secretive are they? Are they so secretive that they tell a newspaper about their own existence, so that nobody will believe they exist when the newspaper publishes the fact that they do exist but are very secretive. That sounds like a cunning plot.
And what about:
How do they know it is 91? It is a very precise number, accurate to zero decimal places. How do they know that there are not 92? Perhaps one is so conservative and secretive that it defies being counted. It might be a stealth think tank. Or it could be an “off-the-books”, clandestine, industry association. It might be hiding under your bed, Michael. How would you know?
70
Now the meme is “anti-climate”?
WTF is that Michael?
I am weary of your “Big Conservative” conspiracy theories.
20
Michael–invalid argument. “Follow the money” is not a scientific method. It matters not who paid for the study. It might be acceptable to look at who studied what and then take a closer look at the data based on the funding source and possible malfeasance (which is true for ALL studies, including those funded by greens), but it NEVER proves a theory wrong to list those who fund it. That’s not science–it’s political propaganda.
The number of “secret” organizations can NOT ever be counted–they are secret. If we can count them, they are not secret. How can you not understand that? “Secret societies funding ‘x'” is just a made up number. Now you make up numbers to prove your point???
00
Graeme No.3 –
WHAT I CAN’T BELIEVE IS ABC GAVE MILNE A WHOPPING 11+ MINUTES ON ABC BREAKFAST!
7 mins in. (SUBJECT HAS CHANGED TO COAL): MILNE ANTI CLIVE PALMER, ANTI TONY ABBOTT)
THEN MILNE SAYS: AUSTRALIANS would be horrified by that. people love renewable energy. PEOPLE love the way we’re rolling out renewables, love the pace we’re rolling it out, & in fact the Greens are saying we should lift the target to 90 PERCENT BY 2030. (HOW ANYONE VOTES FOR HER IS WAY BEYOND ME.)
AUDIO, NO TRANSCRIPT: 23 Dec: ABC Breakfast: Greens accuse Abbott of going ‘soft’ on whalers
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/greens-accuse-abbott-of-going-soft-on-whalers/5172050
can’t believe ABC gave the Greens two separate items on their flagship morning news programs on the same topic. Yaxley’s “He’s” refers to Greg Hunt:
23 Dec: ABC AM: Greens lash out at the Environment Minister for breaking his promise to monitor whaling
LOUISE YAXLEY: He’s defended the decision, saying it gives greater range, flexibility and the ability to cover multiple vessels in a whaling fleet which can well be dispersed.
But the Greens Senator Peter Whish-Wilson says that won’t work…
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3916359.htm
OH, & THERE WAS THIS!
23 Dec: ABC Breakfast: Malcolm Turnbull recalls his boyhood summers
As Australians head to the beach this summer, many politicians are digging out their beach towels as well.
Swimming enthusiast Malcolm Turnbull recounts his most memorable boyhood summers from the Now Hear This story telling event at the New South Wales State Library.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/malcolm-turnbull-recalls-his-boyhood-summers/5172064
AND THIS:
23 Dec: ABC AM: Obama acknowledges tough year in final press conference of 2013
JANE COWAN: Fox news’s Greta Van Susteran is scathing.
GRETA VAN SUSTERAN: The president’s most powerful weapon as president has been his ability to inspire. That’s his greatest strength. And then he comes out around the press conference: he was depressing, he was pathetic, he sucked the oxygen out of the room; the media beat up on him, the media had bad questions, they kept punching him. I mean, he ends the year where you just want to slit throat almost because it was so depressing.
JANE COWAN: It’s criticism not surprising from the right…
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3916303.htm
COWAN CAN’T SEE GRETA IS NOT EVEN CRITICISING OBAMA, SHE’S EMPATHISING. IS COWAN IGNORANT OF GRETA’S SISTER LISE RUNNING AS A DEMOCRAT FOR THE SENATE, WITH GRETA MAKING AN APPEARANCE AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE TO ANNOUNCE HER RUN? IS COWAN UNAWARE THAT GRETA IS KNOWN AS A HUGE SUPPORTER OF HILLARY & BILL CLINTON & HAS ATTACKED HER OWN FOX COLLEAGUES FOR CRITICISING HILLARY?
TOO COMPLEX FOR ABC. IF IT’S RUPERT MURDOCH, IT MUST BE RIGHTWING. END OF STORY.
00
Interesting read below:
“The views of an independent physicist” by Professor Pierre DARRIULAT 1 to the Energy and Climate Change Committee’s inquiry about the latest conclusions of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Review (AR5)of the IPCC
Be interested to hear the usual “trolls” responses to this statement.
Waiting, waiting,waiting.
Cheers,
10
have forgotten to say on abc’s nightlife last week, tony delroy interviewed David Attenborough. didn’t hear the beginning, but it seemed it was via phone from england, from what delroy said at the end. tried listening to some audio the next day, but didn’t find it. in fact, i’ve found no mention of this anywhere – not on the Nighlife website, not on abc searches, not on any blogs by people who heard it. nothing. strange for an interview that would have been considered a big thing not long ago.
of course, it began with the OVERPOPULATION RANT. funny thing: he said there were 1 billion people on earth when he started out, but now there are SIX billion! (I THOUGHT NOBODY TELL HIM WE’RE WAY ABOVE SEVEN BILLION NOW OR HE MIGHT GO ON A KILLING SPREE). delroy didn’t correct him. anyway, u know where this interview was going.
delroy asked him about CC (not CAGW) & said the usual u used to be sceptical bit.
no, Attenborough said. he’d never been a sceptic but maybe 10 years ago he would say “scientists say” as opposed to endorsing it himself because, in his position, u need to be cautious.
BUT NOW THAT THERE’S NO DEBATE, IT WOULD BE INCREDIBLE TO BELIEVE BILLIONS OF HUMANS WOULD NOT HAVE A HUGE EFFECT ON THE CLIMATE. THE WORLD IS WARMING.
00
Big Green acquires Weather Station.
Rumours of over $4 billion, and some people say that “$1bn a year on the effort to deny science” by big oil and business. Talk about lack of reason. Rothschild can promote their CAGW agenda to make more money, same as all the GANG GREEN GRAVY TRAIN pigs.
00
The $1bn a year meme is pure and poor propaganda.
20
substitute abc for bbc – tho i doubt much will come of this:
21 Dec: UK Telegraph: Steven Swinford: TV licence should be abolished, major inquiry into future of BBC to hear
BBC has lost touch with ‘value for money’ and the licence fee should be abolished, former head of Channel 5 David Elstein to tell MPs
He will make the comments when he appears before the Commons’ culture, media and sport committee, which begins a “fundamental examination” of the future of the BBC next month.
Lord Hall, the BBC director-general, and Lord Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, will also be questioned by MPs.
The body’s findings will inform a government review of BBC funding after 2016, when its Royal Charter expires…
Mr Elstein said: “They [the BBC] are handed £3.6billion a year without having to demonstrate anything, they don’t have the same care for money as private companies.
“A membership subscription system would give the BBC much more freedom to vary its offering to the viewer. You could have people subscribing to just BBC One and BBC Two, to all channels, to premium channels like arts, sports and documentaries.”
Mr Elstein will also highlight figures that show the BBC was responsible for more than one in ten prosecutions last year as the number of people taken to court for non-payment hit a new high.
Some 180,000 people were accused of watching television without a £145.50 licence…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10532598/TV-licence-should-be-abolished-major-inquiry-into-future-of-BBC-to-hear.html
10
The AGW truthers are apaprently now conjuring up a magical conspiracy theory to try and explain why their CO2 obsession is failing in the public square after years of domination. For the climate obsessed it cannot be that their predictions have failed. It cannot be because they have been caught lying and fabricating evidence. It cannot be because AGW promoted ‘solutions’ like wind and solar are unmitigated wastes of money and hurt the the environment. No, for the AGW truther, it must be because of an intricate billion dollar per year conspiracy.
What a pathetic group out climate obsessed friends have become.
00
From Belgium I wish everyone on this blog a very lovely christmas and a happy new year!
10
Why doesn’t this surprise me?
Iceland’s elves blamed for road project delays
Date
December 23, 2013
6 reading nowRead later
Jenna Gottlieb
submit to redditEmail articlePrint
Showing some elf-respect: Teenagers on a frozen lake in Iceland?s capital, Reykjavik.
Showing some elf-respect: Teenagers on a frozen lake in Iceland?s capital, Reykjavik. Photo: New York Times
Reykjavik, Iceland: In this land of fire and ice, where the fog-shrouded lava fields offer a spooky landscape in which anything might lurk, stories abound of the “hidden folk” — thousands of elves, making their homes in Iceland’s wilderness.
So perhaps it was only a matter of time before 21st-century elves got political representation.
Elf advocates have joined forces with environmentalists to urge the Icelandic Road and Coastal Commission and local authorities to abandon a highway project building a direct route from the Alftanes peninsula, where the president has a home, to the Reykjavik suburb of Gardabaer. They fear disturbing elf habitat and claim the area is particularly important because it contains an elf church.
Iceland, a land alive with geysers and volcanoes, is also home to people who believe in elves.
Iceland, a land alive with geysers and volcanoes, is also home to people who believe in elves. Photo: Reuters
The project has been halted until the Supreme Court of Iceland rules on a case brought by a group known as Friends of Lava, who cite both the environmental and the cultural impact — including the impact on elves — of the road project. The group has regularly brought hundreds of people out to block the bulldozers.
Advertisement
And it’s not the first time issues about “Huldufolk,” Icelandic for “hidden folk,” have affected planning decisions.
They occur so often that the road and coastal administration has come up with a stock media response for elf inquiries, which states that “issues have been settled by delaying the construction project at a certain point while the elves living there have supposedly moved on.”
Icelandic singer Bjork believes in elves.
Icelandic singer Bjork believes in elves. Photo: AFP
Scandinavian folklore is full of elves, trolls and other mythological characters. Most people in Norway, Denmark and Sweden haven’t taken them seriously since the 19th century, but elves are no joke to many in Iceland, population 320,000.
A survey conducted by the University of Iceland in 2007 found that 62 percent of the 1000 respondents thought it was at least possible that elves exist.
Ragnhildur Jonsdottir, a self-proclaimed “seer,” believes she can communicate with the creatures through telepathy.
“It will be a terrible loss and damaging both for the elf world and for us humans,” said Ms Jonsdottir of the road project.
Although many of the Friends of Lava are motivated primarily by environmental concerns, they see the elf issue as part of a wider concern for the history and culture of a very unique landscape.
Andri Snaer Magnason, a well-known environmentalist, said his major concern was that the road would cut the lava field in two, among other things, destroying nesting sites.
“Some feel that the elf thing is a bit annoying,” said Mr Magnason, adding that personally he was not sure they existed. However, he added, “I got married in a church with a god just as invisible as the elves, so what might seem irrational is actually quite common” with Icelanders.
And at Christmas, Icelanders await not just one Santa Claus, but 13 trolls known as the “Yule Lads” who come to town during the 13 days before Christmas. Each has his own task, putting rewards or punishments into the shoes of little children. They include Stufur, or Stubby, who is extremely short and eats crusts left in pans; Pottaskefill, or Pot-Scraper, who snatches leftovers; and Hurdaskellir or Door-Slammer, who likes to slam doors at night.
One of Iceland’s most famous daughters, the singer Bjork, displayed no hesitation when asked by US comedian and TV host Stephen Colbert if people in her country believed in elves.
“We do,” she said. “It’s sort of a relationship with nature, like with the rocks. (The elves) all live in the rocks, so you have to. It’s all about respect, you know.”
AP
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/icelands-elves-blamed-for-road-project-delays-20131223-hv6pv.html#ixzz2oKt4YnrB
10
Magnason’s quote: Yes, he got married in a church with a god just as invisible as the elves”. However, how many Icelanders chain themselves to bulldozers and declare the God of the church where Magnason was married ordered them to do so? No one would object if the “believers” got married in the Church of the Elves. Here in the US, claiming God commanded you to do something gets labelled “mental illness” and “cult”, not to mention “hate speech” and “moralistic”. So why are the elf belevers not so labelled?
Another interesting observation I have made over the last couple of decades: Want to steal land and tie it up so only you can use it, but not invest a penny? Claim it has “religious significance”. It’s one of the best ways to take what is not yours and feel morally justified in the theft. There is most probably a reason some religions lean heavily on geographic locations and declare them sacred–and it does not appear to be about “religion” at all.
00
Yes , in Godzone the Taniwha is alive and well , and protecting the “taonga”.
However , suitable “koha ” may lead the taniwha to issue his approval 🙂
Direct credits are acceptable.
00