JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

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



We are 95% certain you are a big-tobacco funded anti-semitic denier: alarmist keyboard leaked.

@GalileoMovement has been leaked a peek of the main Catastrophic Climate Change keyboard. This is where the emergency response team arguments are generated for the public debate.

For example: 97% of climate models didn’t predict the “pause”.

The correct response is…

Alarmist Debating Keyboard

… all of the above.

h/t, credit to Paul Evans of The Gallileo Movement.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (84 votes cast)
We are 95% certain you are a big-tobacco funded anti-semitic denier: alarmist keyboard leaked., 9.2 out of 10 based on 84 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ljf4cen

127 comments to We are 95% certain you are a big-tobacco funded anti-semitic denier: alarmist keyboard leaked.

  • #
    • #
      Bulldust

      I am guessing they just faceroll* the keyboard.

      * For those who do not game… facerolling is a derogatory term for people who appear to just spam an overpowered ability in a game because they haven’t learned to play properly: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=faceroll


      Report this

      41

      • #
        The Griss

        More like ‘face-plant’!


        Report this

        21

        • #
          Jimbo

          Here is the rebuttal for BIG TOBACCO FUNDED DENIERS. It really is just tooooooooo easy. ;)

          Please note that the BBC has some of its pensions invested in carbon schemes as well as big oil companies as well as cigarettes.

          The BBC Pension fund, as at 31 March 2013, had investments in the following tobacco companies:
          Altria Group
          British American Tobacco
          Imperial Tobacco
          Reynolds American


          Al Gore, the climate change campaigner, has been quoted in 1996 by the New York Times saying:

          “Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco,”……..”I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”

          Earlier in the same article the New York Times said:

          “Six years after Vice President Al Gore’s older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee….”

          8 June, 2012
          Masters of Hypocrisy: the Union of Concerned Scientists

          A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.
          http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/08/masters-of-hypocrisy-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/


          One of the founders of the wildlife and climate campaigning WWF is Dr. Anton Rupert. The now deceased Dr. Rupert made his fortune from the cigarette manufacturing company called Voorbrand, re-named Rembrandt, now consolidated into Rothmans.
          Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1508360/Anton-Rupert.html

          British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership: Fauna & Flora International, the Tropical Biology Association and Earthwatch Institute. Through the Partnership, we are involved in more than 30 biodiversity projects worldwide.

          We donated £1 million per year to the Partnership in its first five years, and £1.5 million per year for the five years from 2006. In 2010, we agreed the scope of work for the next five years of the Partnership, with a commitment of £1.5 million per year. ”
          Source:http://www.bat.com/ar/2010/directors-report/business-review/strategic-review/responsibility.html

          ——————

          Earthwatch partners with organizations across all sectors of business to improve both environmental and corporate sustainability…….
          British American Tobacco (BAT) is the world’s second-largest tobacco group,…..Royal Dutch Shell is a global group of energy and petrochemical companies,”
          Source:http://au.earthwatch.org/corporate-partnerships/partnership-profiles

          Climate change can seem like a remote problem for our leaders, but the fact is that it’s already impacting real people, animals, and beloved places. These Faces of Climate Change are multiplying every day.”
          Source:http://www.earthday.org/faceofclimate/?gclid=CN6Xp9Px9bkCFeY82wodKnAAMA


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Common Purpose are getting desperate, as demonstrated by that lunatic article in The Age. Climategate threw doubt upon the science of CAGW. Stockholm made public the political dispute, and AR5, with known sceptics allowed into the editing process, produced an honesty of the scientific assessment unknown since the first assessment, when the lid came off the wholly corrupt re-writing of scientific knowledge to fit in with a global narrative rejected by the vast majority of nation-states at Climategate. The Australian electorate decisively rejected Deep Green policies, the first developed nation to do so. The Brezhnevian EU, run by an unholy alliance between avowed communists and Green ideologues in a deeply undemocratic manner, is in trouble, with Green energy policies being overturned in favour of pragmatic use of fossil fuels and the CTS riddled with scams run by organised crime. The Marxist POTUS is abusing powers which were never meant to be used in the way he is using them. My poor UK is in the grip of a 3-party adherence to lunatic policies, as evinced by the Somerset and Kent floods when rivers and drainage channels were allowed to become blocked as it would never rain again. The campaign against Democratic governance has all the markings of an ill-prepared stroke forced by political events and an awakening of the First World electorates to the damage CAGW proponents are causing to their lives. Today we’ve seen that at least 40 years expansion of Antarctic ice is not a sign of cooling, while a tree falling over on an Australian beach is a sign of imminent catastrophe. The Greens are loosing, and they know it.


    Report this

    381

  • #
    pesadia

    I assume the “Headless Chicken” button is out of sight.
    Brilliant keyboard.


    Report this

    201

  • #
    Seth

    Would this post be an example of the “ad hominem attack”?


    Report this

    230

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Where is my favorite?

    “The science is settled.”

    Only ever used by those who have no clue about the science, but who think it makes a good political soundbite.


    Report this

    360

    • #
      Manfred

      The most egregious statement – settled science – enjoys a web definition:

      Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both

      I wondered when it was first invoked. Wikipedia provides one or two clues.
      The crowd over at Settled Science really like it – they have a little banner in which it is inscribed – just adjacent to the title: “Settled Science – Humans are Raising CO2 Levels.”


      Report this

      180

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Manfred,

        To be fair the statement “Settled Science – Humans are Raising CO2 Levels.” is not an unreasonable one. The disconnect occurs when they try to associate raising CO2 to any problem whatsoever. Raising CO2 levels is a good thing.


        Report this

        70

    • #
      William Astley

      The mantra that the science is settled is stated over and over, as the warmists cannot defend catastrophic warming based on the observations and analysis. The observations support lukewarm, warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which has caused the biosphere to expand. There is for example shrubs growing in high latitude Arctic regions where there was previously only tundra.

      Any warming is not evidence of dangerous warming. The warmists do not want to discuss past cyclic warming (which was in all cases followed by cooling periods) the Medieval Warm period for example, so they repeat the mantra “the science is settled”.

      It appears the planet was started to cool due to the solar magnetic cycle 24 interruption. If there is unequivocal cooling, it will be interesting to hear the explanations as the media and the scientific community gradually accept reality. If the planet cools it will be apparent to everyone, the AGW science was fudged, more than 75% of the warming in the last 70 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes.


      Report this

      230

      • #
        The Griss

        William.
        If you look at old records that haven’t been through the Hadcrut/Giss adjustment mill, you will see that the temperatures in the late 1930′s were comparable to the current temperatures. Steven Goddard uses a Japanese record, and puts it together with current post 1979 RSS. http://imageshack.com/a/img35/4914/haw6.jpg

        Phil Jones, in one of the ClimateGate emails actually commented that “they” had to get rid of the 1940′s peak, because it was in the way of the “story”.

        Has there actually been much warming I the last 70 years?

        Well yes, after a cooling period, it warmed again.

        From 1940, the temperatures dropped slightly then rose again from the early 1970′s and its that rise over a period of 20 odd years that this whole global warming malarkey is built on.


        Report this

        190

        • #
          The Griss

          And if you look at this graph you can see why it started to warm before 1940

          http://imageshack.com/a/img706/622/bwwj.jpg

          Obviously something happened around 1940 that caused some cooling, you know, like ‘stuff’ in the atmosphere from somewhere.

          Then it played catch-up until 2000 or thereabouts.

          Trouble is the sun has now dropped down to a DM or maybe even a MM laziness, and while the extra heat from the solar activity of the 2nd half of last century still hasn’t all left the system, there is not a lot of buffer left.

          I strong suspect that the prediction of Easterbrook and similar, for a significant drop in global temperatures over the next couple of decades is pretty much on the mark.. and will make a total nonsense of the CAGW agenda, and ruin a lot of scientific reputations.

          I hope they are ready for it, and have a decent back-up plan in place.. plenty of those ill-begotten funds stashed away…..

          …. because the world sure isn’t ready for another Dalton or Maunder Minimum.


          Report this

          60

        • #
          The Griss

          Also of interest..

          Referring to these charts

          http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/temper_thumb.jpg

          The 1998 ElNino released quite a lot of energy into the atmosphere, and the global atmospheric temperature took a jump of about 0.2C – 0.3C

          The 2010 smaller ElNino did not cause a jump in the global atmospheric temperature.

          The energy is leaking from the system. The world is cooling.


          Report this

          30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        William,

        I am interested, when you say:

        There is for example shrubs growing in high latitude Arctic regions where there was previously only tundra.

        Now I don’t doubt your word, or your sources, but my question is, “Where did the seeds for these shrubs eventuate?” Where they frozen in stasis in the tundra, from a previous warm period?


        Report this

        60

      • #
        john robertson

        William, you have a citation for those shrubs?
        Latitude?
        GPS co-ordinates?
        It is rather amusing what wonders are claimed of the Arctic, always in regions where there are no measuring devices or people.
        Tundra does include small shrubs, though it looks flat the small gullies and valleys have sufficient foliage to hide a grizzly bear.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    It needs a Reset button that takes the whole debate back to the origin of the theory that CO2 can warm the planet and whacks the stuffing (figuratively) out of the guy (need I name him?) who first proposed the idea.

    It should erase all the computer models and then reset the computers too. I always liked reset buttons. Turning off the power is such pain when you need to get control over a hung machine. Reset would help a lot.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Alas! No such button. :-(


      Report this

      70

      • #
        • #
          Truthseeker

          Andrew,

          The fundamental problem with all this careful information gathering done by SOD is that while the posts say that energy does not disappear (correct) it does not allow for the fact that energy can only be in one place at any point in time. If something is emitting radiation it is cooling. It cannot emit radiation, remain at the same temperature and then warm again by getting the original energy back again (by whatever means). The “greenhouse effect” is basically double counting. Physists that dispute the greenhouse effect do not dispute that radiation exists, they just dispute that it causes the climate system to have any more energy that what is gained from the Sun. The other issue with the SOD stuff is that it looks at things at a focussed micro level and can miss that there are important macro factors the actually determine the outcome.

          The fraud of the atmospheric greenhouse effect in pictures.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Konrad

          Andrew,
          you still don’t seem to get it. There will can be no solution to the AGW hoax that involves claiming ManBearPig is not real but that ManBearPiglet is.

          The NET effect of radiative gases in our moving atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

          There is a radiative greenhouse effect on earth but the NET effect of these gases is still atmospheric cooling.

          The reason is very simple. If all atmospheric features (including radiative gases) but excepting pressure, are removed from above the oceans then solar SW will drive ocean temperatures to near 80C.

          The NET effect of all atmospheric processes above the oceans is ocean cooling. The atmosphere has only one effective cooling mechanism. Radiative gases.

          How did climate “scientists” get it so wrong?

          Very simply they applied SB equations (instantaneous radiative balance calculations) to transparent and moving fluids in a gravity field. Worse they applied these equations to the ocean surface where molecular phase change is occurring. What could possibly go wrong? Everything, that’s what.

          I previously showed you this simple experiment to determine possible ocean temperatures in the absence of all atmospheric features except pressure -
          http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
          - to your credit, unlike Willis and Dr. Brown, you attempted an answer. Even though I cannot yet afford to run the experiment, I already know that your answer based on the standard SB solution is wrong. The reason is that I have already run the far cheaper verification experiment.

          You can try it yourself, a simple recipe I call “Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzmannic vinegar” Get two 100 x 100 x 10mm blocks of acrylic. Paint one black on the top surface, and the second black on the base. Spray both blocks with several layers of clear-coat on their top surfaces to ensure equal reflectivity and IR emissivity. Attach thermocouples to upper and lower surfaces. Insulate the blocks on the sides and base. Enclose each in a small LDPE greenhouse to minimise conductive losses. Now expose to strong solar SW. Then try again with intermittent SW. The same block will always achieve a higher equilibrium temperature. SB equations alone do not work for transparent materials. (caution – if trying this in full sun, make sure your insulation can withstand 115C ;-)

          I have previously shown by empirical experiment why SB equations alone cannot determine the temperature profile of a moving atmosphere in a gravity field.

          Sir George Simpson warned Callendar of all this long ago -

          “..but he would like to mention a few points which Mr. Callendar might wish to reconsider. In the first place he thought it was not sufficiently realised by non-meteorologists who came for the first time to help the Society in its study, that it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation. The atmosphere was not in a state of radiative equilibrium, and it also received heat by transfer from one part to another. In the second place, one had to remember that the temperature distribution in the atmosphere was determined almost entirely by the movement of the air up and down. This forced the atmosphere into a temperature distribution which was quite out of balance with the radiation. One could not, therefore, calculate the effect of changing any one factor in the atmosphere..”

          His words are as true today as when he wrote them in 1938.

          Near surface Tav in the absence of radiative gases would not be -18C, it would be over +50C. Our oceans need the atmosphere to cool and our atmosphere needs radiative gases to cool. You cannot kill the myth of ManBearPig while claiming ManBearPiglet is real. The Warmulons (ManBearPig believers) and the Warmulonians (more moderate believers in ManBearPiglet who forgo shriving the snout of catastrophe on Tuesdays) are both following the false prophet Stefan-Boltzmann.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Peter C

            Thanks Konrad,

            You can try it yourself, a simple recipe I call “Shredded Lukewarm Turkey in Boltzmannic vinegar” Get two 100 x 100 x 10mm blocks of acrylic. Paint one black on the top surface, and the second black on the base. Spray both blocks with several layers of clear-coat on their top surfaces to ensure equal reflectivity and IR emissivity. Attach thermocouples to upper and lower surfaces. Insulate the blocks on the sides and base. Enclose each in a small LDPE greenhouse to minimise conductive losses. Now expose to strong solar SW. Then try again with intermittent SW. The same block will always achieve a higher equilibrium temperature. SB equations alone do not work for transparent materials. (caution – if trying this in full sun, make sure your insulation can withstand 115C ;-)

            I will try that experiment.

            Can you explain what it is demonstrating?


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Konrad

              Peter,
              The experiment is demonstrating the danger of applying Stefan-Boltzmann equations to transparent materials. These instantaneous radiative flux equations would give the answer that when both acrylic blocks reached equilibrium temperature (the point at which energy being gained by the block equals energy being lost) they would both have the same temperature. The experiment demonstrates that this is not the case for transparent materials.

              The reason is simple. Within the blocks, non-radiative energy transports are occurring, and these are not instantaneous. The point of also trying the experiment with an intermittent SW source is that it shows why climate “scientists” should have never used averages for SW radiation into the oceans. SW entering the block with the black base is able to build temperature over time as the energy is slow to conduct back to the surface to be radiated.

              An every day application of this very basic physics (utterly missing from the “basic physics” of the “settled science”) is pool covers for swimming pools. For non insulated covers for outdoor pools exposed to the sun, clear covers lead to greater heating of the pool than dark opaque covers. With clear covers, SW enters the pool and heats the pool from the base, with the slow speed of convection and conduction slowing energy exit over the diurnal cycle. Dark pool covers re-radiate much of the energy they absorb before it ever conducts into the pool.


              Report this

              10

          • #

            Yep. I believe Manabe got 77 deg C with his early GCM s. Atmosphere cools.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Konrad,

            Thanks for the simple, or maybe I should say very well explained exposition on the problem. However, absent your statement of which block will be expected to get hotter than the other, your experiment write up has a fatal flaw. We don’t know which block you measured to be the hotter, therefore can’t test your hypothesis.

            I can guess which will end up hotter. But if I achieve that result I haven’t tested your hypothesis but mine instead.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              Konrad

              Roy,
              “Fatal flaw”? That’s a feature, not a flaw! ;-)

              “Tell me, I’ll forget. Show me I’ll understand. Let me do it and I will know.”

              But to save time, the block with the black paint at the base reaches the higher average temperature.

              The important question is – which block most closely resembles our oceans and which block most closely resembles how climate “scientists” modelled the oceans?


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                But to save time, the block with the black paint at the base reaches the higher average temperature.

                Given what you said and what I’ve learned from years of reading the debate going on here, that would have been my guess. I’ll also hazard a guess that the other block more closely resembles our oceans. Otherwise the supposed missing heat that the oceans have accumulated but no one can find would have been found by now.

                What have the modelers assumed? Something more like the block with the black paint at the base.

                Right or wrong, remember, I’m no physicist or engineer and do not have all the math background. So for me it’s always try to learn principles and apply them as best I can.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Konrad

                Roy,
                actually it is the reverse. Our oceans are heated at depth by SW and cooled at the surface by conduction, evaporation and radiation, similar to the acrylic block with black paint at the base. This is the block that always reaches the highest temperature in the experiment. The reason heat builds faster in this block is that SW instantly sends energy to the base of the block, but the slow speed of conduction in the acrylic slows it’s exit.

                For the block painted black at the top, SW is intercepted at the surface, some is quickly re-radiated and the slow speed of conduction slows the transfer of the remainder into the block, resulting in a lower average temperature.

                Stefan-Boltzmann equations alone cannot correctly calculate the temperature difference between the blocks. Climate “scientists” treat the oceans closer to the block painted black at the top, this is why they try to use the extra energy of DWLWIR to keep the oceans from freezing in their calculations. But the simplest empirical experiment shows that DWLWIR can neither heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporativly cool…


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Konrad, the basis of your assertions is only that they are written in bold type.
            It was mainly conjecture and red-herrings.

            Your domestic ambitions towards experimental evidence are of course commendable, but one wonders why you bother when vastly more precise equipment has measured the real thing in several latitudes and altitudes and the results published. I sympathise with wanting to see it with your own eyes, as I do too (and my own amateurish kitchen radiative experiments may reach fruition in near future). But there’s some things you can’t measure without expensive equipment and a lot of help.

            * The water in bucket photo shows a bucket of water got warm in the sun, not the death of The Dragon.
            * The nitrogen hot cell experiment has not been done, so it shows nothing yet.
            * The acrylic block experiment is interesting as it places a blackbody either at the top or at the bottom of a medium which passes SW light but blocks IR longer than 2.8um, such as that emitted by bodies cooler than 70°C. Since your chosen medium is not transparent to all of the wavelengths involved I don’t see how it proves the “SB equations alone do not work for transparent materials”. In any event it has not be tried, so there are no measurements to discuss.
            So I believe there are no measurements of your own that I am ignoring so far.

            This is the 2nd time you’ve ignored the atmospheric radiation measurements.
            Here is a recurring pattern.
            Whenever Greenhouse Unbelievers are shown the observational evidence establishing the accuracy of the standard radiative transfer models, they ignore the measurements and go off on a tangent.
            So I cannot argue with you. There can be no fruitful discussion if you get to choose which measurements may be discussed and which ones are to be wilfully ignored.

            Ignoring them is somewhat understandable, if not forgivable. As soon as you admit the standard equations accurately predict DWLWIR at single line precision, it implies altering the gas mix in the model would also give a credible prediction; A prediction as credible as one could get without having a spare Earth to do the full scale controlled experiment for real. When “climate skeptics” (ie “Warmulonians”) such as Ed Caryl and “Steven Goddard” run their simulations (eg using MODTRAN line data) they find there is increased DWLWIR flux density from increased CO2 – an enhanced “Greenhouse” effect. Gee what a surprise. The only leap of faith required here is to believe that equations which exactly match current reality will continue to remain faithful under slightly altered gas composition. If you cannot take that leap then we will have to just disagree.
            You are unlikely to disprove these RT models because the check of whether they match the radiative reality has been done precisely. They don’t just match painted blocks of acrylic, they match the atmosphere. You’ve seen the results from different sources collected by Petty. What else is there to say? Were the measurements faked?

            You know increased DWLWIR increases the equilibrium temperature of whatever it hits, right?
            You know the sea has changed temperatures over the decades so it clearly is not a perfect evaporative thermostat, right?

            You are right about one thing. I don’t seem to be getting it – Slayer fever I mean.


            Report this

            12

            • #
              Peter C

              Thanks Andrew,

              Perhaps you have explained what Konrad is getting at. Is the acrylic block supposed to simulate the atmosphere? If acrylic plastic is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared, is it a good analogy to the atmosphere?

              I don’t know which block gets warmer because I have not tried it. I doubt that Konrad has tried it either. In any event the experiment does not control for convective heat loss and the block with the black surface at the back has a lot more insulation (by the block itself).

              You know increased DWLWIR increases the equilibrium temperature of whatever it hits, right?

              I don’t know that either. None of my experiments so far have shown that a radiating black body (heated), gets warmer when it radiation is reflected back apon itself. Call that poor experimental design or technique if you will, but has anyone actually shown a different result?

              Until I see an actual empirical result to the contrary I incline to the view that real bodies do not absorb infrared radiation in the way that a theoretical black body is supposed to.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Konrad

                “None of my experiments so far have shown that a radiating black body (heated), gets warmer when it radiation is reflected back upon itself. Call that poor experimental design or technique if you will, but has anyone actually shown a different result?”

                Peter,
                reflecting IR back to most materials can slow their cooling rate, it just doesn’t work for liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

                The simplest check you can do is go outdoors on a cold clear still night and hold a piece of reflective foil near one cheek. You can feel one cheek warmer than the other.

                The best way to confirm this experimentally is with the use of vacuum to eliminate conductive and convective interference with the experiment. In this experiment -
                http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
                http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
                http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
                - the target plate in chamber 1 reaches a higher temperature as the thin black foil layer is absorbing outgoing IR and re-radiating half of it back toward the target plate. This experiment works, and this physics is the basis of the AGW hypothesis, but as it involves no non-radiative energy transports or moving fluids, or transparent oceans it is totally inapplicable to anything to do with atmospheric physics, let alone the oceans.

                A clear demonstration of why Tremberth was so very wrong treating the oceans and land as equally responsive to back radiation can be seen with this early experiment of mine -
                http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
                here water samples cool from 40C, with IR reflected back to the surface of one sample. When the samples are free to evaporatively cool there is no measurable difference in cooling rates between samples. However when surface evaporation is prevented with thin films of IR transparent plastic, the sample under the foil cools slower.

                Radiative physics is fine, it’s just that it has been misused by climate pseudo scientists.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                > “If acrylic plastic is transparent to visible light but opaque to infrared, is it a good analogy to the atmosphere?”

                Radiatively… it’s close but not quite, because it lacks the “atmospheric IR window” of the atmosphere. The fact the atmosphere is partially opaque at some wavelengths of the thermal band and totally clear in others seems to be a pretty important part of how Earth’s climate works. Probably Konrad would agree with myself and Lindzen that convection is the main cooling mechanism in the troposphere, so the acrylic blocks are not going to be a good analogy for the whole atmosphere for that reason alone. I’m not saying we can’t learn anything from the acrylic block example, but you have to be careful not to take the analogy too far. The GHE is a radiative argument which ignores convection, so a lab model which prevents convection helps test the “radiative blanket” theory but doesn’t help you prove that the GHE doesn’t really happen in the atmosphere. The acrylic would be okay for studying radiative differences but I can’t say more than that without thinking about it some more.

                > ” the experiment does not control for convective heat loss”

                Actually Konrad is smarter than that. He did say “Enclose each in a small LDPE greenhouse to minimise conductive losses”, but I think that was just a typo and he probably meant to type “convective losses”, because stopping convection (to exaggerate and focus on radiative transfer) is the usual intent in these setups when surrounding the target with LDPE film (ie- saran “cling wrap”).

                > ” None of my experiments so far have shown that a radiating black body (heated), gets warmer when it radiation is reflected back apon itself.”

                You have to be careful with your wording. Nobody has ever said that a hot cooling object will increase in temperature when its radiation is reflected back on itself. The reflected radiation causes the object to cool more slowly, but its temperature will still be going down. The body is “warmer” only because it is warmer at any given point in time than it would have been without the reflected radiation. The term “warmer” is comparative between cases, not across time. Any impinging radiation will do this as long as the body is capable of absorbing it – which it certainly will be if that radiation was emitted from that body to begin with.

                Also, why does the Thermos company make the inside of the outer glass layer of their vacuum flasks with a reflective silver coating? It costs them money to do that instead of having plain clear glass. Would they do it if it made no difference to the hot liquid’s cooling rate? If it made no difference you would think the market would figure out a cheaper version from their competitors worked just as well. If the silver coating works to slow the cooling, then how? A 14 year old can understand the answer.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Konrad

              Andrew,
              I think I’m seeing a pattern here –

              “conjecture and red-herrings”, “domestic ambitions”, “amateurish kitchen radiative experiments”, “not the death of The Dragon”, “Greenhouse Unbelievers”, “Slayer fever”…

              - perhaps I should write a paper for the pattern recognition journal? ;-)

              “The basis of your assertions is only that they are written in bold type.”

              No the basis of my assertions is the results of simple repeatable empirical experiments. You know, science.

              “But there’s some things you can’t measure without expensive equipment and a lot of help.”

              This may be true, but the “basic physics” of the “settled science” is so incredibly wrong expensive equipment is not needed.

              “The water in bucket photo shows a bucket of water got warm in the sun, not the death of The Dragon.”

              I made no such claim about this photo -
              http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
              I clearly pointed out that that water sample was still exposed to DWLWIR and was only a verification of “solar pond” physics.

              “The nitrogen hot cell experiment has not been done, so it shows nothing yet”

              Even before it has been built and run it has already shown very valuable results. It has show quite clearly how shrill and panicked Willis and Dr. Brown can get when ManBearPiglet is threatened ;-)

              “The acrylic block experiment is interesting as it places a blackbody either at the top or at the bottom of a medium which passes SW light but blocks IR longer than 2.8um, such as that emitted by bodies cooler than 70°C. Since your chosen medium is not transparent to all of the wavelengths involved I don’t see how it proves the “SB equations alone do not work for transparent materials”.”

              No, that is exactly what it proves. SB equations would tell you that the equilibrium temperature of each block exposed to the same amount of SW would over time be the same as both have exactly the same ability to radiate IR and absorb SW. But the blocks end up at clearly different equilibrium temperatures.

              “In any event it has not be tried, so there are no measurements to discuss.”
              Why would you even try that?
              http://i61.tinypic.com/2z562y1.jpg
              (that’s the indoor version with 25% duty cycle halogen lamps and air cooled IR shields between the lamps and target blocks) So owned.

              “So I believe there are no measurements of your own that I am ignoring so far.”

              In the experiment with the acrylic blocks a 17C average temperature differential between blocks can be achieved with 3 hours of full sun. Base temperature of the the hotter block can reach over 115C.

              “You know increased DWLWIR increases the equilibrium temperature of whatever it hits, right?”

              I have shown the two shell radiative experiment before. Incident LWIR slows can heat or slow the cooling rate of most materials, just not the oceans. As I have shown by repeatable empirical experiment -
              http://i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
              DWLWIR cannot heat nor slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

              “This is the 2nd time you’ve ignored the atmospheric radiation measurements…”

              No, I am not ignoring radiation measurements. I am simply giving other blog readers simple repeatable experiments that show Sir George Simpson was right and Callendar was wrong. Remember what Sir George Simpson wrote way back in 1938 -
              “it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation.”
              This is just as true for the oceans as it is for the atmosphere.

              You cannot sell your ManBearPiglet in a poke. There will be no “soft landing” for any of the AGW fellow travellers, lukewarm or otherwise.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Konrad used Intimidation, it’s super ineffective.

                My full reply is 1974 words long and counting. It is a hard slog to trace where the energy is going in these contraptions, to either explain the discrepancy or improve the design.
                Probably I will not post the reply until tomorrow night.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Andrew, Konrad,

                In the end the real world is showing us that CO2 isn’t having any impact on anything except maybe accelerated growth rate of CO2 dependent vegetation. When the theory says it should be hotter than it is then QED, the theory is wrong.

                I enjoy and try to learn from the debate. But when the chips are all down and the bet has been called, global warming has the losing hand.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Konrad

                “Konrad used Intimidation…”

                Is that you Dr Mann? Is this me?

                Andrew,
                Intimidation was not my intent, however your bold claim about the acrylic block experiment – “In any event it has not be tried, so there are no measurements to discuss.” was well out of order.

                “My full reply is 1974 words long and counting.”
                I will admit to being impressed if not intimidated. Although I would ask if 1.974 pictures would have been a more efficient response, after all -
                “A pictur_ t_lls a thousand words”
                Which is not to say words are without value. (Could I buy a vowel for $250 please Vanna?)

                I for my part will replace the acrylic blocks with transparent water blocks to check the effects of internal convective circulation on the experiment.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Konrad,
                I had hoped to have some more experimental evidence to show and tell by now, but unfortunately the black paint on my improvised radiator is still drying, so perhaps tomorrow. I can see a war of words will not be enough, some practical evidence is called for.

                In the meantime here is the response I wrote last night, I can’t be bothered editing it now so there may be a couple of irrelevancies hanging around in it.
                To permit you to reply while keeping the comments somewhat clustered, it is split into three comments, this comment for the miscellaneous stuff, and a comment for each of your two main experiments.

                - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

                A. The Bucket.

                > I made no such claim about this photo 27xhuzr.jpg

                I’m sorry if it appeared that I was putting words in your mouth, but your whole line of argument is that the existence of GHE can be disproven by simple lab experiments, and so I had to wonder where the hot bucket figured in all that. I was only saying it doesn’t disprove the GHE, not that you had claimed it did.

                B. Acrylic Blocks

                (See next comment at 6.1.1.2.5)

                C. Convective Cells Show Water Is Special.

                (See next comment at 6.1.1.2.6)

                D. The DWLWIR Measurements.

                > “No, I am not ignoring radiation measurements.”

                This is now the 3rd time you have ignored the DWLWIR radiation measurements. You are ignoring them until you state what implications those measurements have in any GHE investigation.
                (Presumably you will say they are irrelvant due to your Special Water Immunity hypothesis.)

                E. Radiation Effects on Air Temperature.

                > “it was impossible to solve the problem of the temperature distribution in the atmosphere by working out the radiation.”

                Yes and No, depending on what he meant by “distribution”.
                Firstly, his inability to solve the problem does not mean radiation is irrelevant. The map is not the territory.
                Secondly, many texts on atmospheric physics present a derivation of a formula for the vertical dry adiabatic lapse rate… and the formula does not depend on any radiation component. Nothing new there. Surely you should be asking the opposite question; if the whole GHE relies on radiation being absorbed differently by different gases that are not uniformly distributed then why on Earth doesn’t the lapse rate depend on radiative effects and optical depth? It is part of greenhouse theory that the optical depth at any wavelength determines the average height of OLR at that wavelength and more GHGs means a higher and colder height of emission. So either the lapse rate is not considered part of the climate of the surface (sounds like a technical escape clause) or else lapse rate should depend on radiation.
                Thirdly, as to what the actual absolute temperature may be at the surface, you only have to accept that the insolation level affects equilibrium temperature to see that radiation from any source would affect surface equilibrium temperature. Whether it is LW or SW makes no difference, as that is just determining whether the radiation came from 1 AU distance or 1m distance, it is still radiation absorbed by seawater. Quantifying that temperature increase is the billion dollar question, but increased radiation must have some increase on temperature or else the ocean wouldn’t warm up when the cloud cover decreases.

                According to the Earthshine experiment by Palle’ there was probably an albedo decreased due to cloud cover decrease between 1984 and 2006, which co-incided with rising temperatures, which is the opposite of what you’d expect if cloud formation was a negative feedback on warming. Ergo, the clouds disappeared first, caused by cosmic ray reduction. But you say this albedo reduction could not affect earth’s SST because the increased insolation should be immediately compensated for by increased latent heat evaporation? Surely the earth has already done a giant experiment that shows water *can* be warmed by DWLWIR and that tropospheric temperatures are affected by changes in radiation?

                In your hypothesis the ocean around PNG should be no warmer than the ocean around Sydney because in the tropics the evaporation rate would increase to exactly offset the higher Lambertian cosine law solar power of an equatorial location. No doubt the evaporation rate increases but clearly not by enough.

                F. Crafty Stuff

                On the plus side, you seem to have the same funky dual thermocouple meter that I was going to get from Jaycar. I had no idea they showed time series graphs of the temperatures too. Nice.
                The single temperature probe I bought was cheaper and it was a major step up in accuracy from the other probe I already had which was only 1 degree accuracy (but went up to 750°C). I put a data logger in the OTT basket since occasional scribbling on paper is yielding enough data at present.


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            [Thread graft. Detail of reply to Konrad's 6.1.1.2.2]

            B. Acrylic Blocks

            > “SB equations would tell you that the equilibrium temperature of each block exposed to the same amount of SW would over time be the same”

            So that was a red herring, again. It’s got nothing to do with the transparency. If you use only a radiative equation for a solid object cooling and neglect convection and conduction then the prediction won’t match the real test. Yes, that’s not surprising, it’s why all these radiative experiments have to use so much insulation and cling-wrap to control for conduction and convection.
            It also doesn’t change the fact that the acrylic material isn’t transparent to thermal band IR, which would be required for a test of S-B discrepancies for transparent objects. If it was not important that the material was transparent then why say it?

            I’m beginning to think you didn’t know that acrylic was opaque to thermal infra-red, which would go a long way towards explaining why you thought the S-B law would predict they should end up the same temperature. In that imaginary world, the blacked surfaces are both radiating straight through the acrylic into space, with the relative vertical position of conductive heating making no difference to final temperature. All very logical under the wrong assumptions.
            Here is acrylic’s absorption spectrum. At 115°C only 0.078% of the paint’s blackbody emission would be in the transparent band of acrylic. Oops?

            > “the blocks end up at clearly different equilibrium temperatures.”

            The blacked surface becomes the source of heating for both blocks. As Peter first noticed, the bottom blacked block is inhibited from conduction, convection, and radiation in both directions, whereas the top-blacked one is exposed to convective cooling and can radiate almost freely through a clearcoat as thin as paper. Surely these differences, radiative and non-radiative, affect the final temperatures and Mr S and Mr B need not be jeered so vociferously?

            > Why would you even try that?

            I didn’t “try” anything. I am not your stalker. I know nothing of what you have done other than what you say here. I had never seen you say that you actually performed the experiment and all your talk here has been about what “will” happen if it were done. eg quote from your previous comment: “The same block will always achieve a higher equilibrium temperature.” That’s future tense. I can only proceed on what you literally say, not on what you wish you had said.
            This is first I have heard of the experimental results.

            Now that I can see a photo of the acrylic block rig, I wonder why the LDPE greenhouse is missing, and why there are now fans and IR shields involved that were not mentioned the first time. As long as their external radiative forcings from the lamps are the same, why intervene prior to the block’s top surface? Surely that shield is shadowing some of the incident radiation and producing a lower signal-to-noise ratio in the experiment? Wouldn’t it also mean the blocks would heat primarily from the sides instead of through the top? Well you wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t needed so I must be misunderstanding the goal of the design. It looks like the shield functions as a radiative heatsink, but you have a giant lamp sitting there, so the heatsink may end up working as a heater for the blocks. What’s the purpose of the extra “shield”?

            > In the experiment with the acrylic blocks a 17C average temperature differential between blocks can be achieved

            That’s a significant difference. The challenge is figuring out what you’ve measured.
            Also you never said where the thermocouple is located on each block.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            [Thread graft. Detail of reply to Konrad's 6.1.1.2.2]

            C. Convective Cells Show Water Is Special.

            > Incident LWIR can heat or slow the cooling rate of most materials, just not the oceans.

            Wow. It’s an extraordinary claim.
            I don’t know why you bother with the acrylic budgies when you have a Pacific Ocean-sized turkey to fry.

            > As I have shown by repeatable empirical experiment – i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg

            That’s a design diagram not a photo. Is this “have shown” really a “have not yet shown”?

            Okay, so you added so much convection to suck the heat out at a high linear rate equal in both cells that the power-law radiative cooling signal got lost in the noise. As I said 2 weeks ago, check that what you have measured is only what you were trying to measure. Proving a phenomenon does not exist and failing to find it are two quite different propositions.

            The temperature difference (and cooling rate difference) due to incident LWIR should become more pronounced as the water temperature drops since the DWLWIR from the hot plate begins to represent a more substantial fraction of the water’s total outgoing power. The fans cause far more cooling to happen by convection than by radiation, so the initial cooling rate is not going to be an accurate discriminator of the hypothesis. The final equilibrium temperature of the two samples will be a better measure. You have to set a definition for that, say, when a thermometer reading has changed by less than 0.1° in 10 minutes.

            I’m sure we both insist that Energy is conserved, so the extra LWIR must have gone somewhere. Time for case analysis on the hot cell.
            First step, either the DWLWIR energy enters the water or never gets as far as the water.
            Pushing fresh air across the water allows more of the DWLWIR to reach the water directly without being absorbed by water vapour (compared to a natural convection setup). Consider that case first.

            If the extra LWIR does enter the water: Is it the 0.1 degree resolution of the thermocouple can’t show the difference? Well I have seen radiative cooling rate differences using a 0.1 deg res thermometer at 70 C temps, so no, probably the meter resolution is okay. How about latent heat. The latent heat of evaporation by definition does not show up as an increased water vapour temperature. But the evaporation cools the remaining water by removing that energy. The moving air also reduces the amount of back-radiation that can return to the water sample. In the lab the extra energy disappears out the side, never to be measured. On the Earth the wind can only blow it sideways around the sphere so it cannot leave the troposphere until it radiates out the top of a cloud. That’s one reason why the lab result doesn’t extrapolate to the real ocean.

            If the extra energy didn’t ever reach the water surface: It could be that the extra energy went into the water vapour as it was being sucked out. The WV absorbed the LWIR energy and moves it away before it can radiate to the water surface below. This is a hazard of discarding the vapour. So in this case there may be a difference in outgoing airflow temperatures (which you are not measuring), but both samples convectively cool at the same rate and reach the same temperature because the hot side never received any extra energy.

            Probably the first case is happening much more than the 2nd. In both cases it was possible for the extra energy to not result in higher surface temperature due to more mundane processes, so this setup is not going to prove water has diplomatic immunity from LWIR.

            A materially closed (but not energetically closed) system would be a better test. Don’t throw the vapour away, recycle it. This allows condensation to form on the underside of the cold heatsink, but the effect there will be to allow the cool plate to warm a bit quicker, so slightly reducing the difference in radiative forcing between plates. It’s so much colder than the hot case that I don’t think that would throw the result by much.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            You may reply to my 6.1.1.2.4 using this comment since that other one is now below the allowed nesting level.

            > “Although I would ask if 1.974 pictures would have been a more efficient response”

            Exactly what I was thinking too last night. Very well then, you asked for it!
            Roasting the ‘Water IR Immunity’ Hypothesis (image album).
            How do you like that for Kitchen Science, eh?
            Can’t get much more kitchen than that! :D


            Report this

            01

            • #
              Konrad

              Andrew,
              I will take my time to read through your multiple responses.

              I would advise that in the time it has taken you to type, I have run initial tests on water blocks replacing acrylic. (eliminating micro bubbles makes me hate you forever!) Initial run was un- insulated, however the sample with SW absorption at depth showed +2C differential in under 30 min exposed to 25% duty cycle SW.

              While I would have preferred 1.9 pictures, I will take the time to read through 1900+ words and respond.

              However my initial response to this -

              “Wow. It’s an extraordinary claim.
              I don’t know why you bother with the acrylic budgies when you have a Pacific Ocean-sized turkey to fry.
              > As I have shown by repeatable empirical experiment – i42.tinypic.com/2h6rsoz.jpg
              That’s a design diagram not a photo. Is this “have shown” really a “have not yet shown”? “

              - is this -

              Andrew,
              I provide build instructions for other readers to try empirical experiments. If I am vague about results it is intentional. I want others to think, and preferably try the experiments for themselves. After all, “type is cheap” If I claim an empirical result, then I have tested the experiment myself, and refined and simplified it so others can replicate. Always. No lies. Challenge me on this? How did you go claiming I had not run the acrylic block experiment? You failed. Think! (it’s always a trap)

              “A design diagram not a photo?” http://i47.tinypic.com/694203.jpg
              Initial version from 2011! I mean how epic can your fail be?! (again…)


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                So if I show you the design for The Great Tower Of London you would expect that I had been to visit it?
                You consistently expect others to be telepathic. There is no point in showing me the photo now and then pretending I have ever seen it before. That’s just contriving an excuse to be upset. Neither you nor I can send information backwards in time.
                Plus you had already exhibited one instance of describing a past event as a future event, so it was only prudent that I asked whether this other experiment had been done or not yet done.

                Okay, you have built what you’ve designed and you’ve actually seen what you say happens. I get it.


                Report this

                00

            • #
              Konrad

              An oven? SWIR? Gas conduction?

              Clean! Keep it clean!

              You can do better than this Andrew.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                SWIR??
                In SW there’s a bit of red, but it’s a dull red, nothing to worry about.
                Not sure what you mean by “SWIR”. According one chart I have, the Near Infrared goes from visible up to 3μm, the Thermal Infrared goes from there out to 30μm, where the Far Infrared takes over until 100μm. I have just tried measuring the heating element of the grill and could only get as high as 530 with the probe pressed length ways against the bar, but it looked like it wanted to go higher. I’d guess it is 600 Celsius at most. Well do the Planck calculation.
                At 0°C about 99% of the power is between 3μm and 100μm.
                At 600°C about 90% of the power is between 3μm and 100μm.
                Pretty much everything coming out of the heating element is LWIR, just as your hypothesis requires.

                As for “gas conduction”, look at the setup, the fan ensures no conduction between the heating element and the water because all the air flow is horizontally out of the oven at that point, across a 7cm gap.
                If the water was being heated by convection, then the foil at the front should also have been heated the same way by a 600 degree radiator, yet the foil (at front and on top near the edge of the water) and the tray were both cool enough to touch long after the first “hot” photo was taken and before the grill was switched off.

                Okay. Do I have to measure the foil temperature too? If I have a second thermocouple sitting right on the foil, just above the water line, with heat conductive paste to get a good reading off the foil, and another small foil hat over that probe to prevent direct irradiation, would the readings from that prove whether the water was being convectively heated? In other words, to be a valid test, that 2nd foil measurement would have to be 10 degrees (or more) below the water temperature, which would show the main heat flow was radiative and not via the air. Yes?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                On second thoughts, a probe at that position on the foil could be affected by hot air from the evaporated water, so the water vapour would be heating the foil at that point too, and in that case due to latent heat it would show the same reading as the water temperature.
                So actually the foil temperature could be a degree or 2 above the water temperature and that would still imply most heating was radiative, because a convective heated air temperature would be much higher.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Konrad

                Andrew,
                My apologies, instead of picking holes your experiment last night, I should have first congratulated you on actually doing an empirical experiment. It is a great disappointment to me that so few climate bloggers are prepared to do more than type or cut and past.

                What I was saying about “keeping it clean” means controlling how energy is received by the water so the effect of just variance in incident LWIR (longwave infra-red) can be determined. This is why in my experiments the water container is always insulated on the sides and the base, so energy entry and exit is restricted to the water surface.

                Other factors to control -
                - The LWIR source should also be “clean”. The problem with the oven element is that it is emitting SWIR (shortwave infra-red) which penetrates below the skin evaporation layer and SW visible. If you can see red reflected from your tray, that’s SW visible (known to heat water) entering and exiting the tray. It is also illuminating the thermometer probe.

                - Thermometer probe. The exposed thermocouple is not the best device for liquids. I use a thin aluminium tube around it to keep it dry. (Jaycar QM-1282 is “off the shelf”) The probe then measures an average of all water in contact with the tube.

                - Control sample. You will note in the images I posted previously there are always two water containers, one exposed to stronger LWIR. However both containers have the same airflow pattern over the water surface. All objects above 0K are emitting LWIR, all you can do with room temp experiments is test the difference between two samples with differing levels of incident LWIR. Everything else between sample must be identical.

                - Air flow. Directing the air through the oven is not the best idea. The oven element is conductively heating the walls of the oven and this is transferred to the air flow. The fans shown in my experiments are under-volted to make the air flow very light. They are not intended to force evaporative cooling, but to prevent gas conduction from the LWIR source to the water surface.

                - Evaporation control. This is the “Bingo!” moment for the experiment when you get it running clean. You re run the experiment with a thin film of cling wrap floated onto the surface of each water sample. Cut to fit, do not overhang the edges (as capillary action allows heated water to leak away) or get water on top of the film. Suddenly you find that LWIR heats one water sample. This is how climate scientists such as Trenberth consider the effect of DWLWIR over the oceans, but in reality the oceans are cooling primarily by evaporation and LWIR cannot penetrate more than a few microns into the skin evaporation layer.

                The experiment design I showed with the water blocks as IR sources is expensive but it allows the strength of the IR source to be controlled and ensures only LWIR is incident on the sample surface. I will work on a cheaper version using a black card sample cover and a halogen desk lamp and get back to you.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    Yonniestone

    I think the warmists have perfected the idea of an “Any Key”. :)


    Report this

    100

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    I can’t see a key for ‘ignoring the bleeding obvious’!


    Report this

    022

    • #
      handjive

      Quote: “I can’t see a key for ‘ignoring the bleeding obvious’!”

      It might be the large blinkers you wear, which are bleeding’ obvious to everyone except the ignorant.


      Report this

      230

    • #
      Rastuz

      Being that it’s a warmist keyboard, just look down at your own. It’s between the ‘YouTube Propaganda’ key and ‘Richard Alley Raunchy Pics’ key.


      Report this

      150

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      ‘handjive
      February 4, 2014′

      ‘It might be the large blinkers you wear’ naw, I haven’t got one! It’s been worn out with all the times I’ve been forced to press it.


      Report this

      115

    • #
      David Smith

      Do you mean ignoring the bleeding obvious lack of warming for the past decade and a half?


      Report this

      180

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘Do you mean ignoring the bleeding obvious lack of warming for the past decade and a half?’ oh, have you not heard, it’s been found at the bottom of the ocean!

        Trenberth’s ‘missing heat‘!

        ‘Warming is going on the human fingerprint is clear in the data, but there are other things that are also in the game, the top figure there which has the global temperature the one below is the El Nino influence. If you put a huge amount of hot water in the middle of the Pacific, the atmosphere can’t heat it up very easily. If you put a huge amount of cold water in the Pacific the atmosphere can heat it up easily and so whether the heat is going mostly into the atmosphere or the ocean for the short term is influenced by El Nino and La Nina and in the last decade much of the heat has been going into the ocean and less into the atmosphere. This is something that wobbles…ultimately the ocean and the atmosphere have to be coupled and it is simply how much warming is already been realised in the atmosphere…the long term picture yes heat is still accumulating in the earth’s system with high confidence, no there hasn’t been a stop in global warming…where did it go and there is finally the ability to make statements about heat going into the deep ocean, the Argo floats and other advances have come just in time…I think this is fair to say that this is just enough to see what is going on…a lot of heat has got into the ocean and it’s gotten pretty far down…that’s really deep!’ R Alley.

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

        And

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/pacific-ocean-warming-15-times-faster-than-ever-before-8916297.html

        If only we could measure the global ocean to one thousandths of a degree those numbers might mean something… – Jo


        Report this

        06

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          FAO Jo.

          ‘If only we could measure the global ocean to one thousandths of a degree those numbers might mean something… – Jo’ Who knows as technology advances perhaps the Argo floats will be-able to do it, but as R Alley indicates, other advances are in the pipeline! Say tuned in to hear the latest developments. You know it makes sense.


          Report this

          05

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            You have the right tense – “Advances”. It is not there yet, so her comment is accurate and yours is not.


            Report this

            10

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              In reality there isn’t any need to wait for them to register ‘thousandths of a degree’, because ‘there is finally the ability to make statements about heat going into the deep ocean, the Argo floats and other advances have come just in time’ as R Alley makes perfectly clear1


              Report this

              04

              • #

                Statements about heat going into the ocean don’t mean anything if the trend is less than instrument error and the ARGO measurements are. Even if we assume ARGO is accurate, the trends it shows are less than half those predicted by the models. You have nothing.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘ and the ARGO measurements are’, links needed for this evidence.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                You are the one that makes claims about heat going into the deep oceans, and the Argo floats coming “just in time”. So you must have the data to back up that claim, and it is therefore disingenuous of you to expect Jo to repeat research you have obviously already done.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                blackadderthe4th:

                Please indicate evidence of any portable device capable of accurately measuring temperatures to a thousandth of a degree.

                “If you put a huge amount of cold water in the Pacific the atmosphere can heat it up easily”

                HOW? and by How much?

                “This is something that wobbles”
                I think I know what the wobbly thing is that you bring to this blog.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                blackadderthe4th

                ‘Graeme No.3
                February 5′

                ‘Please indicate evidence of any portable device capable of accurately measuring temperatures to a thousandth of a degree’ ask Jo. she made the claim!

                [Nope. I made the claim that the ARGO buoys were not accurate enough to be confident those trends are significant. You are ignoring the point. - Jo]


                Report this

                02

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                Keep moving the goal posts. You were shown to be wrong, so now you hide your homework and claim the dog ate it.

                There is no evidence that the thousands of a degree have gone into the oceans. That is a supposition, that has yet to be tested or even a method to test it.

                Again. man up and admit when you are wrong. Stop acting like a petulant child.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                The Griss

                umm Phil.. he is not acting.


                Report this

                10

        • #
          Heywood

          More Richard Alley pillow talk.. *yawn*.

          Don’t you ever tire of repeating the same crap propaganda over and over and over again?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          Here is the website that you needed to find and read before trying to educate people.Probe used Argo Robots(?).. Each one measures the temperature with a precision of ± 0.1°C. using a thermistor.

          The Argo data is supposed to measure a predicted rate of 0.07°C per decade rise in temperature. So far, this has not happened.. The data show warming over the decade that is not even 1% of the uncertainty in each measurement. We need a 100 years at this rate to get a statistically meaningful result.


          Report this

          40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      “I can’t see a key for ‘ignoring the bleeding obvious’!”

      It’s called the “blackadderthe4th key” and is the first key to wear out on a warmists keyboard.


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Fred Allen

    Missing a lot of keys: “97% of scientists”, “Peer review”, “Climate is not weather”, “The science is settled”, “Arrhenius determined CO2 was a greenhouse gas”. And then there are the re-direct keys: “Ocean acidification”, “Particulate pollution”, “Ocean heat content”, “Migratory route changes”, “Permafrost melting”. It goes on and on and on and…


    Report this

    230

  • #
    MadJak

    I would bet the backspace never gets any use – these guys seem to have a physical allergy to accepting that they made a mistake.


    Report this

    230

  • #
    pesadia

    Off topic.

    Jo, I am still trying to hit your tip jar but cannot
    workout how to transfer funds from Spain or UK.
    Am I missing something.
    E Mail.[snip - email sent to you, best not to leave it posted here lest spam bots find you - Jo]


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Val

    http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/01/27/john-cook-is-a-filthy-liar/

    Isn’t Cook paid by the University of Queensland, aka the government?


    Report this

    90

  • #
    Dave Broad

    “Unprecedented”


    Report this

    30

  • #
    bullocky

    -
    A must for ‘key players’.

    (sorry!)


    Report this

    30

  • #
  • #
    Gee Aye

    Hey great parody post!


    Report this

    05

  • #
    john

    Now for the big PR push.

    Liberty Global (UPC) and Discovery to buy stake in Formula 1

    (Reuters) – Liberty Global and Discovery Communications have made a joint approach to CVC Capital about buying a 49 percent stake in Formula One, the Telegraph reported, without citing sources.

    The talks are at an early stage but could value the auto-racing company at more than 6.5 billion pounds ($10.62 billion), the paper said on its website. (link.reuters.com/qev56vink)

    It added that U.S. cable group Liberty Global and Discovery Communications, the media company behind cable channels TLC and Animal Planet, had requested access to private information about CVC’s finances.

    Private equity firm CVC currently owns 35 percent of Formula One, including all the voting rights. The Telegraph said that CVC declined to disclose details of where the remaining 14 percent would come from.

    Representatives from CVC, Liberty and Discovery were not immediately available for comment.

    ——————

    There seems to be a few issues regarding F-1. Here are 2 articles regarding Carbon (and fraud) that appeared later last year…

    The UK Insolvency Service’s Oddly-Timed Carbon Scams Press Release Highlights Its Own Slow Response

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/the-uk-insolvency-services-oddly-timed-press-release-about-carbon-scams-merely-highlights-the-dismal-state-of-investment-scambusting-in-the-uk.html

    One of the roles of the UK Insolvency Service is to function as a sort of quick’n dirty enforcer of last resort against scam companies:

    One of the main drivers of The Service’s enforcement regime is to clamp down on corporate abuse, whether by directors involved in companies which have become insolvent or by companies which are still trading.

    In relation to companies which are still trading, we use powers under the Companies Act to conduct confidential, fact-finding investigations into the activities of live limited companies in England, Scotland and Wales. Since October 2009 we have also been responsible for the investigation of companies in Northern Ireland…

    …At least the Insolvency Service investigation does have visible results: in the last 15 months, 19 scam companies, that ripped off 1,500 investors for £24M, shut down (at least until the former directors have got a new PC, web site and domain registration), 2 directors disqualified. In addition, the police have raided and closed another half dozen companies in the same time frame, if my info is up to date. So, 25 companies busted.

    Let’s extrapolate. Assume the FCA’s exhausted the possibilities, with its 183 suspicious firms, less the 25 caught in 15 months. That still leaves 158 firms to be clobbered, lightly or firmly, at a rate of 25 firms every 15 months. At the current rate of progress, that means it’ll be another 95 months, call it 8 years, before all the scammers have either been tickled by the UK Insolvency Service (in which case, they’ll merely move on to the next scam), or bust by the police (which might actually discourage some).

    To put a money value on the scamming, we’ll ignore upscale horrors (tens of millions each, or more) such as AGT or MH Carbon, which actually sought liquidation (oh dear, could it be that Insolvency proceedings actually suit carbon scam companies?). Based on the Insolvency Service sample of 19 firms, each carbon credit scam outfit pinches ~£1Mn a year. We’ll assume, perhaps gloomily, that the 158 remaining firms are just as successful, as scams, as the ones already busted. Even if they’ve stopped scamming, that’s another £158Mn of investor losses in the pipeline, and 158 companies to investigate and liquidate.

    But if they haven’t stopped scamming, then, at the current rate of forced liquidations and police busts, we have 158 firms lasting (on average) another 4 years. On that basis, there is somewhere north of £600Mn worth of scamming to come, just in carbon credits. So we’re getting close to a billion dollars, ignoring any big single scams, such as MH Carbon or AGT.

    =================================================

    Surely the Lotus F1 Team Isn’t Just Slinking Quietly Away From Its Embarrassing Team Partner, AGT?

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/lotus-f1-team-caught-in-the-act-of-slinking-away-from-its-embarrassing-team-partner-agt.html

    By Richard Smith

    Here’s an interesting timeline.
    October 22, 2013: The web archive of Lotus’s Official Team Partner list includes a firm called AGT. (Update 11/11: the snazzy website formatting didn’t make it into the Wayback Archive that I usually consult, but a kind reader provided links to another archive with snazz)

    November 6, 2013: Relying heavily on posts at the blog http://www.redd-monitor.com (posts that google.co.uk, under spurious legal threat from AGT, has redacted), Naked Capitalism suggests that AGT is an investment scam which is getting the wholly undeserved appearance of legitimacy from its association with Lotus F1:

    …For instance, Lotus might want to clarify whether their deal with AGT included payments from AGT. Payments from AGT would have been, in effect, scam takings from hoodwinked investors. I certainly wouldn’t want to imply that Lotus were aware of this; though I do think they were pretty slipshod in their due diligence about their partner.

    Alternatively, it might be that Lotus have overpaid for carbon credits, if they bought any from AGT, which would mean that Lotus were carbon scam victims, too, alongside another 1,000 victims of AGT in Dubai, and another 1,500 investors (and rising) who bought in to other carbon credits scams in the UK.

    Either way, disclosure about their relationship with AGT, from a high profile outfit like Lotus F1, would be welcome: it would help educate a public both oblivious to the danger of carbon credits scams, and unprotected by the regulators. I hope Lotus F1 accept the opportunity to educate.

    Meanwhile McLaren F1 continue to display the Carbon Neutral Investments logo. Wakey, wakey, McLaren!

    …as do Sauber F1. Wakey, wakey, Sauber!


    Report this

    40

  • #
    handjive

    O/T:

    Here Is What Happens When A Magnet Is Dropped Through A Copper Pipe
    When a magnet is dropped down a conducting copper pipe, it feels a resistive force (assuming that magnets have feelings).
    The falling magnet induces a current in the copper pipe and, by Lenz’s Law, the current creates a magnetic field that opposes the changing field of the falling magnet.

    Thus, the magnet is “repelled” and falls more slowly.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    where will this lead? only time will tell:

    4 Feb: Herald Sun: Stephen Drill: Yallourn power plant fire an act of sabotage, say police
    An independent review of the incident at Energy Australia’s Yallourn plant found that a circuit breaker had been overloaded.
    That led to the blaze that happened just hours after the company locked out Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union workers in June last year.
    Sen-Det Catlan Chiswell, of Morwell, said police were hoping to make arrests in the case…
    He said a switch had been tampered with and that caused an “overload to a circuit breaker.”…
    “This caused a fairly significant risk to the community and to staff and the power station.
    “Whoever was responsible for this specific action, it was potentially life threatening for themselves.”
    Three generators were shut down as a result of the fire, with engineers called in from NSW to fix them…
    The CFMEU was locked out in June last year after the union demanded greater control over the running of the plant.
    The workers accepted a 22.5 per cent pay rise in September after more than 100 days locked out without pay.
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/yallourn-power-plant-fire-an-act-of-sabotage-say-police/story-fni0fee2-1226817454887


    Report this

    40

    • #

      This will be interesting to watch as it plays out.

      However, what I do want you to look at is what the roll on effect is when something like this happens.

      The, umm, Union involved was waging a campaign against the plant operators for most of the weeks leading up to this fire in the high voltage circuit board which tripped off the three units in operation at the plant.

      In a quote, this was mentioned:

      ….. one or more people with “knowledge of plant processes and equipment” – who also possessed approved access to the circuit board area – were likely responsible for the incident.

      Now, allow me to explain the roll on effect with respect to the cost of power to make up the power that was lost to the grid.

      Now, actual power available suffered barely a blink as immediately, other plants were brought on line to cover the huge loss.

      That caused the cost of power to spike to almost 4 times higher than for normal ….. and that’s just the average for the Peak period of 7AM to 10PM, so up until the fire, power was at (well, sort of) normal cost and then spiked up beyond probably as high as $1,000/MWH+ to raise that average so high. ($205.44/MWH for the FULL 15 hour Peak period)

      So then, that’s for Victoria, a pretty big roll on there in itself. However, the roll on effect covered two other States.

      Victoria now has to suck up all it can from Tasmania, via Basslink, taking the absolute maximum the lines can take. This is at a Premium price. That can be shown by the cost for power in Tasmania, which dropped dramatically, as now they are selling huge amounts of power to Victoria at a Premium, lowering the overall cost in that State, because now they are making shirtloads of money for its power being sold into Victoria.

      Then, Victoria is still committed to supply power to South Australia, in desperate need because of their reliance on Wind Power, struggling to deliver 400MW of its 1200MW. So now, South Australia has to purchase the (now) more expensive Victorian power being sent into its State, adding a spike to South Australian power prices for that day.

      So, while this umm, unlucky fire (how inconvenient that it happened right at the time there was a major Union dispute) affected Victoria, there was a roll on effect that covered 3 States in all.

      With respect to where I mentioned in brackets above (well, sort of) also note that in the week of the dispute leading up to the fire, Victorian power costs were higher than at usual times, again, rolling effects from, umm, a Union trying to make its point.

      Again, I could have just made up all of the above here, couldn’t I?

      I explained it all and now I can link into the chart showing those prices. Look at the costs for power for that day in question, 21Jun2013, and in the few days leading up to the umm, fire.

      AEMO Average Daily Prices June 2013

      Isn’t it just amazing what actual data can show you. (once correctly explained)

      Lucky this er, fire was in Winter and not in the middle of Summer, when Victoria would be needing an extra 1200MW. Something like this might have led to rolling blackouts, a cascading effect. Now tell me grid controllers are not at the absolute top of their game, instantaneously reacting to something they only see on a board in front of them, now having to phone smaller plants to run up immediately. (and half an hour ago would have been preferable) First the phone call to someone from the Government who would have told them ….. at any cost, get those other plants on line now. (half an hour ago would have been preferable)

      Tony.


      Report this

      120

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Seems most warmists just continually do the double fisted smash on that keyboard.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    handjive

    Climate Alarmist Bingo

    How to play: If you are ever caught in a room where a climatist is droning on about the doom that is sure to come if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels, take out this handy bingo card. Climate Alarmist Bingo (TM) turns an otherwise tedious situation into fun for you and your friends.
    Check off each square as it is mentioned.
    Shout “BINGO!” the moment a vertical, horizontal, or diagonal row of 5 is completed.

    If you want to shout a different two-syllable B word, well, who am I to tell you what to do?

    It randomly regenerates with each reload of the page. There are 11,420,609,241,913,781,691,285,504,000,000 different cards!


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Bulldust

    I thought I’d read the ‘offbeat’ piece in the West today,about starfish ripping themselves to pieces. As I was reading I thought climate change would be just around the corner:

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/offbeat/a/21256935/starfish-ripping-of-their-own-arms/

    Almost got to the end, and was mystified… where was the warming/climate change link? Then there it was:

    According to The Blaze, scientists do not know if a pathogen or ocean acidification is causing the illness.

    Here’s betting someone gets a big marine biology research grant to find the link to ocean ‘acidifcation.’*

    * Decreasing alkalinity, but hey, acidification is so much more scary!


    Report this

    41

  • #
    Grant (NZ)

    Surely there is a shortcut key that outputs “carbon” when the context would suggest CO2 or carbon dioxide. Or is that an autocorrect built into the Word for CAGW?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Bulldust

    BTW anyone else stunned that Mediawatch actually stated that the ABC got it wrong on the boat refugee burned hands story? Johnathon Green claimed to have voted Liberal in the last election as well.

    I almost never watch aunty (except a bit of QI here and there) but I seem to pick the best times to channel surf them LOL Just got that snippet as I was surfing.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz -

    have noted your comments re Yallourn.

    here’s another one, from our public servant who quit, for your response:

    20 Jan: RenewEconomy: Michael Mazengarb: Can one day make or break an energy source?
    According to several media reports, including from both The Australian and the Australian Financial Review; 15 January 2014 was the day renewable energy failed Australia.
    However, analysis of the National Electricity Market may suggest that its woes are in fact indicative of a volatile electricity market that would exist without renewable energy…
    So, what can we take away from the performance of the NEM last week?
    When we become completely reliant on fossil fuel generators, we experience higher wholesale electricity prices.
    When we become completely reliant on fossil fuel generators, we experience significantly higher levels of volatility in the electricity market.
    Wind, despite its variable nature, seemingly has a calming effect on the market. It’s supply keeps the market in check, prices low and predictable…
    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/can-one-day-make-break-energy-source-13448

    posting the following simply because ABC doesn’t indicate in the article that he’s a public servant, tho the expanded profile includes “An environmental mercenary, he has worked for, and volunteered with, several government and non-government organisations on policy development in the fields of renewable energy, climate change and sustainable development”:

    June 2012: ABC The Drum: Michael Mazengarb: Denying sustainable technology to poorer countries
    Michael Mazengarb is an engineering and science student at the Australian National University. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4073670.html

    LinkedIn: Michael Mazengarb
    Assistant Manager – Power Stations
    Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator – Canberra
    June 2008 – April 2012
    http://au.linkedin.com/pub/michael-mazengarb/3a/57b/6b6


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    read the comments – the public ain’t buying it:

    3 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Sarah Griffiths: Global warming is ‘almost definitely’ caused by humans, UN report claims
    Finalised version of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report has been released
    Co0nsists of 1,500 pages of text, 600 diagrams and cites 9,000 publications
    Warns CO2 has reached levels unprecedented in at least 80,000 years and scientists are 95% certain that man is to blame for global warming
    Concedes that world temperatures have barely risen in past 15 years
    But it concedes that world temperatures have barely risen in the past 15 years, despite growing amounts of greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere.
    Temperature rises have dropped from 0.12°C per decade since 1951 to just 0.05°C per decade since 1998.
    This slowdown has been seized upon by climate sceptics who claim carbon dioxide is not as damaging as has been suggested.
    IPCC scientists, however, believe the pause is temporary and a return to ‘substantial warming’ is expected in coming decades…
    In order to show the way drafts and reviews of the report were put together, the IPCC has also released all of the 54,677 comments by experts that informed the final version…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2550951/Global-warming-definitely-caused-humans-UN-report-claims.html


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    wow:

    3 Feb: Forbes: Patrick Michaels: Will the Overselling of Global Warming Lead to a New Scientific Dark Age?
    Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That’s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists.
    Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). The latter is Australia’s equivalent of the National Science Foundation, our massive Federal Laboratory network, and all the governmental agency science branches rolled into one…
    Climate scientists have been profoundly defensive about the known problems. Paltridge elegantly explains that this has to be the case, and describes the likely horrific consequences when the day of reckoning finally arrives.
    That day is coming closer, because, as Paltridge notes, people are catching on:
    “…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.”
    The scientific establishment has painted itself into a corner over global warming…
    When the climate science tsunami breaks the shore, the destruction will be massive and universal. It’s fair to say that scientific seismologists like Garth Paltridge have already detected the P-wave of the earthquake, in the form of the lack of warming, which is now likely to extend to at least 23 years. The S-wave isn’t far behind. Scientists, run for cover. Now.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/

    from a Florida community newspaper – worth a read:

    3 Feb: Longboard Key News: Tom Burgum: Maybe, just maybe, we’re getting cooler
    I beg to disagree: the debate isn’t settled.
    Today, of course, we talk about climate change rather than global warming, a change necessitated by the failure of the global temperature to increase over the past decade. The climate is, of course, changing as it has done throughout the history of the planet but the change might not lead to global warming…
    Most recently, Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory announced: “We could be in for a cooling period that last 200-250 years.”
    Danish Solar Scientist Svensmark declared “global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning . . . Enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
    Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warned “global cooling is almost a slam dunk” for up to 30 years or more.”
    Most recently, Professor Judith Curry, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta stated: “Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year pause to the cooling since 2002 . . . this shift and the subsequent slight cooling trend provides a rationale for inferring a slight cooling trend over the next decade or so . . . “…
    Anastasios Tsonis, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee believes we are entering a period of global cooling. He published a peer-reviewed paper in January 2010 that held the world goes through periods of warming and cooling that tend to last thirty years and he believes we are now in a period of cooling that could last up to fifty years. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science believes “We can expect the onset of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055.
    Professor Cliff Ollier of the School of Earth and Environmental Studies at the University of Western Australia, not only believes that a cooling period is coming, he took on Al Gore and his acolytes head on. In a paper presented in Poznan Poland, he credited the sun as the major control of climate, not greenhouse gasses. Ollier criticized recent projects of global warming because the projections are too centered on computer models.
    Global warming of the past 30 year is over, at least according to Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications in an address to the Washington Policymakers in Seattle, Washington, said: “The shifting of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) . . . has significant implications for the future and indicates that the IPCC climate models were wrong in their prediction of global temperatures soaring 1 degree per decade for the rest of the century.”…
    http://www.lbknews.com/2014/02/03/maybe-just-maybe-were-getting-cooler/


    Report this

    20

  • #

    Thanks pat.

    Judas Priest! I have never read so much bovine excrement in a long time

    This umm, person has got it barse ackwards (and that’s a spoonerism there) where he says this: (My Bold)

    When we become completely reliant on fossil fuel generators, we experience higher wholesale electricity prices.
    When we become completely reliant on fossil fuel generators, we experience significantly higher levels of volatility in the electricity market.
    Wind, despite its variable nature, seemingly has a calming effect on the market. It’s supply keeps the market in check, prices low and predictable…

    It’s because of THE LACK OF Wind Power that the cost spikes, and because Wind Power crashes, other and more costly units are called on to supply power to the grid so that power is actually THERE for consumption. Those smaller units are way, way, more expensive than traditional power plants, and with the addition of the CO2 Tax, even more expensive again, and I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve actually said all this before.

    Those large scale coal fired plants just hum along as normal, supplying what they always do, huge amounts of power at their normal operating price.

    If Wind power was actually supplying, then those more expensive smaller plants would not be needed at all. They also have their CO2 Tax impost budgeted for the year to run at around 2 or 3 hours a day, and if they have to run for 15 hours or more for five days on end, as happened here, then that cost spikes even more. If there was enough normal power to cover the actual demand, and no CO2 Tax, then there would be no spikes like this at all, and have you noticed that nearly all of those huge spikes have been in South Australia, a State reliant on wind more than any other State.

    I also mentioned that specific day, 15th January, at the comment at this link in Joanne’s Unthreaded Post two weekends back.

    And hey, how much of a calming influence can Wind power actually be when it only supplies just under 3% of all power being generated for consumption?

    Tony.


    Report this

    61

  • #
    Considerate Thinker

    Has anyone logically thought the CAGW scam through and realise that with the American Government intelligence agencies bugging the UN and other Government communications. That the US Government agencies well know the fraudulent underpinnings of the movement to hoodwink ordinary people throughout the world to in effect contribute to their own downfall and economic loss. Now why would any government put up with such an attack on their own economic position and actually go along with something that has potential harm and deprivation and divides their populations on that social and economic alter? I have no doubt that the US intelligence can and does bug the leading proponents, including scientists inter communications, so the lack of credibility of the warmist claims must be known. The only reason that I can see for well informed governments, is that they see some political advantage in not exposing the false claims. While it remains a meme that can be maintained with mere handwaving, reference to vague scientific forums such as the UN IPCC they maintain a façade of deniability when and if the declining temperatures over the next few decades finally wakes the dumb public up to the fact they have been hoodwinked – but who gets sacrificed?, whose reputations are trashed? and most of all what political opportunities are opened as the politicians finally step in. In reality no savvy politician of any political persuasion wants to commit till the full extent of the whole issue is cut and dried. In the hue and cry of exposure anything becomes possible.

    If you want confirmation of that extreme caution and mealy mouthed response, just write to Greg Hunt and point out your concerns at the way science in Australia has been perverted, our taxpayer funded media is biased to the meme and that you as a voter are extremely upset. You will get a reply from a functionary in his office, referring to the need for the Australian Government to take heed of UN IPCC reports and the usual hand waving consensus style, and definitely no ticker to investigate for themselves, or even set up an inquiry or commission to examine the science – perfect politicians who like the media want the answers served up to them by voters rather than taking any lead.

    My take is that they know well that it is Bulltish but wait there might be a political advantage to be exploited ion waiting for the inevitable. That so many of us are sick and tired of dealing with warmist garbage, taunts, implausible claims of funding of sceptics when it is obviously the other way, our resentment is growing, and the more it grows and the science falls further into the ridiculous, those wounded feelings and resentment can be exploited.

    In the end all of us lose in the final analysis, but the worst letdown will be reserved for the well known names, who knowingly promoted a fraud on society, they get thrown to the wolves of history. We end up with the politics and politicians and energy politics of the day all spun for our consumption.

    I don’t see it as a clear cut win, win, situation.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Tim

      There has been a building anger among those who have investigated this for years and now find it incomprehensible that governments have not had the ticker to investigate for themselves.

      Let’s hope that the anger will filter through to the majority and build to a critical number. There’s evidence that this awakening is beginning.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Eddie

      Such sentiments wouldn’t be discussed overtly though, in a way that intelligence monitoring might pick up on.
      It is the hive mind at work and UN selection processes , couched in doublespeak terminology, would ensure the right kind of minds recruited where such sentiments coild either be presumed or be cultivated covertly, to avoid any need for expressing openly.

      The Left are masters of such methods remember.


      Report this

      50

  • #
  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz -

    thanx. your response to our former taxpayer-funded public servant’s piece was pretty much what i expected.

    Debbie -

    this is the writer of your Digital Journal piece in response to Patrick Michaels’ Forbes’ piece which i had posted earlier:

    Digital Journal: Paul Wallis (expanded profile)

    Digital Journalist based in Sydney, Australia. Joined on May 27, 2007
    Expertise in Health, Pharmaceuticals, Unemployment, General business news & info, Music, Personal finance, Small business, Environment & green living, Government, Holistic health, Books, Stocks & trading, Education, Politics, Food, recipes, Careers & workplace, Technology, Science & space, Social media, Internet, Jobs.
    http://digitaljournal.com/user/195582

    how EXPERT can u get! no wonder he felt competent to critique & insult Michaels & Paltridge. LOL.


    Report this

    20

  • #

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>