JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

Unthreaded Weekend

Carved granite  | Photo: Jo Nova

Each year the winter whitewater carves out a tiny bit more rock, and each summer we see the ripples in the granite.

It’s from the foothills of the Darling Scarp, which is on the edge of the ancient Yilcarn Craton — from the Archaean Eon –  one of the oldest lands in the world (mostly about 3 billion years old and over 4 billion in the Jack Hills range far far to the North). The SouthWestern edge of the Craton is 2.6 billion years old. I don’t know if this rock has been around that long. Perhaps  someone with more geology knowledge can tell us? Avon River, Bells Rapids.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.4/10 (25 votes cast)
Unthreaded Weekend, 8.4 out of 10 based on 25 ratings

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

129 comments to Unthreaded Weekend

  • #
    Joe V.

    What a great shot for uncluttering the mind. Somewhere in WA is it ?

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      If I was there it might unclutter my mind. As it is, too much going on to allow myself the luxury.

      It looks like very soft rock. Anyone with better geology knowledge than mine got an opinion on what it is?

      40

      • #

        Sorry, I added more notes after you commented which partly answer that. This is granite probably on the south western edge of the massive Yilgarn Craton. And I do mean “edge”. I think this is on the Yilgarn side of the edge (or east of the Darling Fault line) but I could be wrong, and the Perth basin on the other side of the Fault is much much younger – a mere 200 million years or so. Baby rock.

        This guide suggests rocks 10km due South in Boya have been dated to 2.6 Billion. (wow I did not realize that rocks so old were so close…).

        This page gives an easy to read summary .Yilgarn Craton, Darling Scarp The Craton itself is very old, but the edge of it was torn into a “Scarp” about 45 million years ago as India separated from Australia during the break up of Gondwana.

        This page is for the serious rock hunters: http://petrology.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/5/625.full

        The history of formation of the Darling Range granites contained with the zircon crystals suggests initial magma formation between 2690 and 2650 Ma…

        40

        • #
          Bones

          G’day Jo,to get away with all this talk of rocks being hundreds of million years old you have obviously got no creationists on your troll list.Aint that a shame,I really enjoy winding them up.

          10

          • #
            vic g gallus

            I don’t think geologists have good grasp on things either. They reckon that you don’t find fossils in igneous rocks. Obviously they didn’t count on a turtle being slower than lava.Its a basalt rock (I think) in O’Hares Greek near Wedderburn NSW.

            I also don’t think that you are as clever as the 17th century Bishop of Titopolis.

            00

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              In some parts of the Southern California desert there are black basalt lava rocks laying all over, mile after mile of them, along with lava outcroppings and larger pieces that are remnants of very old volcanic activity. The only fossils I’ve seen in any of it are the fossils of gas bubbles trapped in the molten rock as it hardened. I have a specimen sitting on a bookshelf (legally obtained) that demonstrates these fossils very well, almost dramatically. ;-)

              10

              • #

                You need to google ‘basalt fossil’. There are some impressive pictures. This one of a tree fossil is great. Only the middle is the tree. The radial pattern is the large difference in cooling at the centre due to the tree.

                10

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Vic,

                I was pulling your leg a bit — which you no doubt know.

                The fossil tree is interesting. I would have expected there to be quite different remains because I’d never have thought of the cooling effect of contact with the tree.

                The rocks I mentioned are thought to be from an older magma flow that was blown apart by a later explosive eruption, scattering pieces all over. Their age is something I have no information about.

                10

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Steno was an outstanding thinker. It’s not as easy as you would think to look at the obvious and come up with the right explanation. In his day he would have been taught a lot of things he needed to push aside so he could ask the right question, “What’s really going on here?”

              I wish a whole lot of global warming advocates could do as much.

              10

              • #

                Yes, corrected Descarte on a few things as well but a Catholic bishop so he can’t be a scientist. I wonder if some people here realise that most religious people in the late 19th century didn’t have a problem with Darwin’s book. It was people who worshiped nature who had a problem with the cruelty of natural selection.

                PS: Vic. Check your email. – Jo

                10

        • #

          Thanks Jo,
          I put a comment in the post below on Blogies that I hoped you would expand your posts to include geology. It has some relevance with climate to show how things have changed over time.
          I looked up your references and have downloaded the paper in your last link.
          For those with little knowledge of geology, my Field Geologist’s Manual has that Zircon is Zirconium silicate . Large colourless crystals of Zircon are often used to replace diamonds (my wife has a necklace with a big cut zircon). The hardness is 7.5 compared to diamond 10. It is recovered from mineral sands by gravity separation and is used in ceramics and refractories. Zirconia ( zirconium oxide) has melting point of over 2700C.

          00

          • #
            ianl8888

            Zircon crystals contain minute amounts of U238 atoms

            These have a half-life of 4.5bn years and naturally decay to Pb207 atoms, half-life of 700m years

            By analysing the ratio of U238 to Pb207 remaining in the zircon sample, a radiometrically obtained rock age is calculated to an accuracy of a few %

            (This is a bit simplified but contains the core of the dating method. One complication is that zircon crystals may have regrown or attained outer layers during tectonics)

            Although the earth-bound samples are now of necessity either directly magmatic or been transformed into metamorphics, the standard comparison is with meteorites, which are assumed to be the full age of our solar system and untouched by earthly tectonics

            10

        • #

          cementafriend, I did not see your comment about geology, but maybe I read your mind :- ).

          I love the undulating curves in the rock pools. Until I posted this photo and asked the question, “how old are these rocks”, I had not realized that potentially I may have been sitting on something over 2000 million years old. Though I still don’t have a definitive answer.

          I’m a big fan of granite – it makes beautiful colors when it’s wet and radiates a glorious warmth on sunny winter days. I’m always seeing rocks I want for the garden. But David can’t fit them in the car.

          20

          • #

            Yes Jo, granite can be attractive, and for kitchen benches and paving it has the advantage of being hard and resistant to stains. The pink granite in the Freycinet National Park -Coles Bay Tasmania is worth a visit.
            However, granite makes poor soil indicated by stunted trees and sparse vegetation. By contrast basalt country is lush with tall trees eg the Mt Tomah botanic gardens outcrop in the sandstone Blue Mountains west of Sydney. Our property is on basalt soil and one can just about see the trees grow. One tropical tree which has flowers on the trunk has grown from a seedling to about 15m in 5 years.

            10

          • #
            Bones

            I love the undulating curves

            G’day Jo,would it be a classed as cherry picking if I said “I love it when you talk dirty”
            On the reference to picking up rocks, my mate was fined for doing that.Rocks can lay around for thousands of years until someone takes a liking to them,then they are worth money.Careful what you pick up.

            00

            • #

              The rocks I really want for my garden weigh 3 or 4 tons.

              Picking them up is theoretical…
              ;- )

              00

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Not necessarily……
                My first wife wanted big rocks like that. (Thirty years ago)
                I worked for a pipeline company that owned flatbeds with ten tonne Hiabs.
                Piece of cake.

                00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Sorry… — Jo Nova

        Don’t be. I never learn I guess. I was looking at the texture and color of the rock and asked a question out of idle curiosity — weekend thread ya know. I got more than I bargained for. :-)

        Maybe my courses in geology are out of date (a long way out of date) but it doesn’t look like granite to me. But a picture probably isn’t the best thing to judge from.

        In any case, thanks to everyone for the discussion and all the references.

        10

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Joanne:

    If you reread the article you will find that the scarp is much older than 45 million years. Not put clearly.

    India separated from Antarctica-Australia about 120 Mya when India began to move northward.
    Australia began to separate from Antarctica perhaps 80 Mya (Late Cretaceous), but sea-floor spreading between them became most active about 40 Mya

    New Zealand probably separated from Antarctica between 130 and 85 Mya, but don’t tell Rereke or we will get gibes about them Kiwis being years ahead of us.

    O/T
    I see there is a suburb in Perth called Baskerville; unfortunately probably named by a reader of Sherlock Holmes and not after the original.

    30

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Now the warmists have come up with an excellent idea.
    They plan to distribute Malthusian condoms for “Earth Day”.
    If we could convince the CAGW crowd that their use will save the planet, warmists will be extinct in a couple of generations.

    80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I assumed, before looking, that they would be green condoms.

      But now I have checked, I see they are quite gay colours.

      10

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      Nice find Rod. I first wondered what “Earth Day” had to do with population control. But the environmentalists state right up front of the article.

      The environmentally friendly condoms will be distributed in an effort to refocus the green holiday back to why it was started: to campaign against “runaway human population growth and overconsumption.”

      It’s also stated several times in several ways within the article.

      The emphasis on “fertility management” and population control comes as more and more evidence casts doubt upon the validity of the theory of man-made global warming.

      Just as many here predicted.

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I wonder what an “environmentally friendly” condom is. Maybe biodegradable? One wonders if they dissolve or what. Hopefully they don’t dissolve during use!? ;-)

        Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

        But maybe I’m wrong.

        “We need people across the country to help distribute 44,000 Endangered Species Condoms in time for Earth Day,” the Center continued. “These colorful, fun condom packages feature six species threatened by our growing human population — already more than 7 billion — along with talking points to help get the conversation started.”

        Does this mean the endangered species are going to use them? Not very productive if you ask me. ;-)

        The whole thing looks like more hot air and frantic arm waiving.

        10

  • #
    Peter Miller

    Photo is a classic example of how CO2 rich waters – as in ‘catastrophic acidification’ – are leaching even inert granite.

    The danger is clear and we need to do something dramatic to save our planet’s precious rocks.

    Perhaps we should get Lewandowsky to.write a paper on the subject,, no one writes better BS than him and a pal reviewed paper on “Saving Our Rocks to Fight Climate Denialism” would be easy for someone of his talents.

    80

  • #
    edwina

    ELECTRIC CARS

    From 7:30 Report ABC 18-3 2014
    These are some parts of a report on the ‘wow’ factor regarding electric cars.

    PATTI MCBAIN: Range anxiety? Well it’s because you have to charge your car and then you have to recharge it. So you can’t just stop into a petrol station, you have to plug in somewhere.
    CLAIRE MOODIE: According to the growing EV fraternity, there aren’t enough public charging stations across Australia where electric car owners with limited range can plug in.
    CHRIS JONES: It’s a classic chickens and egg situation. I mean people are less inclined to buy an electric car if they know that they can’t leave town. But if for a very small investment you can give them the option of leaving town they may well ditch their petrol powered car all together.
    (Talking to customers) Each distance is sort of 55k, 43k, well within reach of most electric vehicles.
    ———————–

    CHRIS JONES: We’ve effectively got a captive audience for 20 minutes to 30 minutes in each town and while your car is charging you can have a coffee, you can read the paper, visit a museum, check out the main street. I mean the local councils in these towns, they want people to stop and this is a great way to do it.

    This is important. The time needed to recharge means it would have to be done at home or at stations. If the latter, there would need to be many plug in points instead of just the 8 or so petrol pumps that deliver fuel to cars in just a few minutes. Already tempers can flare if someone takes too long filling their tank or checking tyre pressures. Imagine if many dozens of cars are waiting in line for half an hour per each car in front.

    I have not seen a costing for recharging a battery driven car compared to refueling a petrol powered one. The same cost analysis applies if a station is one where a depleted main battery set up is exchanged for an already charged one. You would need one or two paid attendants… no elf filling.

    So electric cars don’t seem practical especially so when energy in Australia comes mostly from distant coal power stations.

    70

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Mitsubishi Motors Australia are announcing the Outlander PHEV which will be available soon.
      They are spruicking less than 2 litres per 100 km and 800 km range.

      30

      • #
        Hasbeen

        For the average motorist, the cheapest cost of motoring is the fuel used.

        The average cost of fuel is less than $2000 a year, doing 15000 kilometers a year. This is insignificant compared to depreciation, insurance, maintenance, & general running costs.

        Throw in the huge battery replacement cost, & the much greater rate of depreciation on electric vehicles this causes, & you need your head examined, or perhaps the electric charge applied to your posterior, for even thinking about them.

        Anyone who actually buys one should be immediately charged with being unkind to trees & be fined accordingly.

        90

        • #
          janama

          I think you’ll find that Mitsubishi offer a 5 year/100,000 km new car warranty for the electric version and a 3 year price capped servicing deal.
          But it still is a $52K car pricewise.

          20

          • #
            BilB

            That is a lot to recover from fuel savings (52k). Fuel prices are certain to rise to nearer the $3 pl as it is in many parts of Europe now, so those savings will rise significantly withincthe life of the vehicle. At $3pl the electric use would save me $4000 py. At that petrol cost 10 years savings make the vehicle very cheap. With solar at home saving nearly $2000 sustainable technology really makes a difference. It is all a matter of choice.

            06

        • #
          Rolf

          Ok, if gov invested part of the desal plants 24 billion in subsidizing independent petrol stations for one (1) Hydrogen fuel pump each along most of Australians links between major metropolitan centers, and let market forces (car companys) determine if it is a workable solution for the intermediate future? You develope a automotive industry! A hydrogen industry, fuel prices could be halved and its something the plebs can still get their head around filling up at a petrol station?
          Using hydrogen made by electricity and water! And can still raise road taxes as well!
          Anyway, just a thought :)

          00

      • #
        BilB

        Good tip Rod. Apart from the 2l engine this meets my needs. 52 klm battery only range gets me to and from work every day electric only. That is up to 18000 klms per year, no petrol required. The daily trip costs under $1.25 charged off peak at night. Alternatively it can be charged at work by solar for nothing. When the petrol engine is rarely used maintenance involves changing tyre, vacuum the interior and clean the widows. Batteries are a once every 8 years cost but the old battery has a significant resale value

        For people doing average commutes this is an essential standard of living improvement.

        04

        • #
          vic g gallus

          You might want to read this.

          00

          • #
            BilB

            A good point, Vic G. Something to be aware of for long trips away. I’m not keen on non hybrides other than electric fork lifts.

            The hybride ticks all of the boxes for me. We’ll see how that comes out. I prefer the VW Golf GTE formula with is smaller engine and 8kwhr battery (less battery to replace) for the same performance as the Mitsubishi, but they have no plans yet to bring it to Australia.

            03

          • #
            BilB

            From America Today article on vehicle values.

            ” Some buyers had hesitation about the durability of hybrid batteries a decade ago, but the fears proved unfounded. They don’t conk out or lose storage capacity at the rate some feared. And resale values of Chevrolet’s Volt, a plug-in with a backup gas engine are holding up”

            03

    • #
      DT

      Tesla US have a sedan and a sports car that run about 450 kilometres per charge but they are very expensive to buy and heavily subsidised by the US socialist government. Without the subsidy I understand that the prices of these cars would be twice retail price. Apparently quite a few have been sold, has to be very wealthy people with more money than common sense in my opinion.

      Regarding recharging, I read about a business installing charge points in parking meters and parking stations for electric vehicles, husband of a former Union Labor NSW Premier is a director, so with a little help from the Green Mayor the business should have no problem obtaining planning permission. Maybe they will then ban all but electric vehicles from the City of Sydney?

      There are a number of charging methods being considered including swapping battery packs at drive through service centres where the bills would cover age of battery pack as well as electricity supplied.

      Considering the giant leaps forward engines using petrol or diesel are making in fuel efficiency and at far better prices than electric cars so far I cannot see electric vehicles being a significant part of the fleet here in Australia in the forseeable future.

      10

    • #
      Brett

      Add this article to the Electric car list.

      “Lot of folks have dealt with record setting winter storms and cold temperatures for months now. If you live in these cold areas and have an electric vehicle, the weather is doubly bad for you.
      AAA has released the results of a study that looks at the driving range of an EV in winter temperatures compared to more moderate temperatures. According to the study, an EV that can drive 105 miles per charge in 75-degree weather will only be able to go 43 miles when it’s below freezing.”

      10

    • #
      GregS

      So let me get this straight, a charge of 20-30 minutes will get me around 50 Km?

      So as I live around 150 Km from the nearest large city that I have to travel to on occasion. Currently it takes me around 1.5 hours direct without stops. In this new wonderful green vision I’m supposed to think that it will somehow be better for me to:
      - drive for 50 Km (30 minutes)
      - recharge (30 Min)
      - drive for 50 Km (30 Min)
      - recharge (30 Min)
      - drive for 50 Km (30 Min).

      AT the end of the journey my battery will need another charge and it can do that while I am doing whatever that I went to the city for, assuming that I can leave it in a secure charging place, otherwise I will need to allow another 30 minutes or so recharging. My 1.5 Hour journey now takes 2.5 hours with possibly another 30 minutes recharging. Double it for the return journey.

      I hope that they make 4WD versions of these cars as I’ll have trouble getting through the creek on the farm and through the lower paddock when it rains.

      The people who propose these things never have to leave their inner city or suburban streets, do they?

      I wonder where they imagine their local supermarket gets their fruit and vegetables from?

      40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      So electric cars don’t seem practical especially so when energy in Australia comes mostly from distant coal power stations.

      They never tell you that. It’s the dirty little secret about electric powered anything — and anywhere. :-(

      But can anyone give me a reason to want to spend 30 minutes or more filling my gas tank when I can be on my way again in 5?

      20

      • #
        DT

        The answer must surely be vehicles that have both electric and internal combustion motor/engine? That’s right we can buy them now for premium prices. lol

        00

  • #
     D J  C o t t o n 

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not a simplistic rule that heat always transfers from warmer to cooler regions if there is a temperature difference.

    In the early pre-dawn hours the lower troposphere still exhibits the expected thermal gradient, but meteorologists know that convection stops. Yes energy flow stops even though there is warmer air at lower altitudes. That is because there is thermodynamic equilibrium, and when we have thermodynamic equilibrium – well, you can look up in Wikipedia all the conditions and things that happen.

    The real Second Law of Thermodynamics takes quite a bit of understanding and many hours, maybe years of study. You guys have absolutely no understanding of it, as I can detect from my decades of helping students understand physics.

    To understand it you have to really understand entropy for starters. Then you have to really understand thermodynamic equilibrium and all the other states, such as mechanical equilibrium, thermal equilibrium etc which the Second Law embraces. That is why, for example, you cannot disregard gravity and gravitational potential energy when determining the state of maximum entropy attainable by an isolated system.

    If you want to stay in the mid-19th century when much of this physics was not widely understood, and if you want to imagine, for example, that radiative heat transfer does not obey the Second Law, then all I can say is that you must live in a strange and isolated planet, because you sure can’t answer my questions about other planets with your climatology paradigm.

    When you truly understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics then, and only then, will you start to understand how it explains the so-called lapse rate and how the pre-determined thermal profile supports surface temperatures everywhere, not back radiation from a cooler atmosphere. Thus you will understand why it’s not carbon dioxide after all.

    22

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Hi Doug

      While concurring with the thermodynamic thrust of your comment I have spent a few moments trying to work out who it was addressed to.

      The statement “If you want to stay in the mid-19th century” tends to suggest you are addressing all of us here on this site but I suspect you may have been talking to warmers.

      Many of us here have very extensive and practical experience with the big picture of thermodynamics and are flabbergasted that warmers got away with the simplistic models and poor thermo analysis that passed unchallenged as “climate science” for so long.

      Trust has been broken and the climate science divisions of western universities will take a long time to recover after the big crunch which is still coming.

      Back to the top; who exactly was this meant for?

      KK

      90

    • #
       D J  C o t t o n 

      Yes Kinky.

      Because the Second Law has to (and does) apply to thermal energy apparently transferred by radiation, back radiation from a cooler atmosphere does not penetrate water surfaces, even though such surfaces are almost completely transparent to the infra-red radiation that makes up about 48% of the incident solar spectrum. If back radiation were to penetrate and warm the water beneath the surface, this would be a violation of the Second Law, despite what climatologists teach climatologists about so-called net effects.

      Radiation one way is a completed independent process, and cannot be combined with any other process in order to derive a “net” result. You cannot have entropy decreasing in any such natural (spontaneous) process. You cannot justify a decrease in entropy just because entropy may increase more in some subsequent independent process.

      I was probably the first in the world to publish in March 2012 a comprehensive explanation as to why the apparent transfer of thermal energy by radiation is in fact a one-way process, with the amount being transferred corresponding to the area between the Planck curves.

      The rest of the radiation is common to both the Planck function for the warmer source and the Planck function for the cooler target. It is this radiation which undergoes what I called “resonant scattering” but others were starting to call “pseudo scattering.”

      This process involves photons raising electrons between energy states, but then the electro-magnetic energy (that became electron energy, but not kinetic energy) is immediately re-emitted as part of the target’s Planck function, because the target can indeed radiate that frequency and intensity. Hence the target uses less of its own molecular kinetic (thermal) energy and so its radiative cooling rate is slowed. However, non-radiative cooling is not affected and can indeed accelerate to compensate.

      Anyway, this is how and why the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to radiation. So back radiation never transfers thermal energy to a warmer surface. Thus it cannot raise the maximum temperature to which the Sun’s radiation can heat a surface.

      In any event, it doesn’t work that way, and you need to understand the whole new paradigm relating to temperatures that are supported by the tropospheric thermal profile, the gradient for which is formed by the gravito-thermal effect.

      20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Doug,

        I can see that the “meat” of your comment is in the third last paragraph which seems to suggest that all that “loose canon or Spare type

        radiation” that the warmers talk about is only able to delay cooling of matter and never increase it’s temperature.

        The power of the Sun in this matter is illustrated, at least at my latitude of about 34 degrees S both on a daily and seasonal basis.

        In summer it gets hot through the day and a bit cooler at night if we are lucky. When we tilt away during winter we may get a bit

        warmer during the day but start to get bloody cold at night.

        A thought experiment.

        In the middle of winter; what would the next day’s temperature be like if there was No SUN.

        Regardless of the amount of CO2 in the air we would all be frozen without tomorrows Sun.

        Obviously Solar variations and changes in our Earthly orbital swamp all other effects wrt atmospheric temperature.

        KK

        60

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      D. J. and KK,

      Every time I think I have a basic understanding of thermodynamics along come a couple of guys like you who actually understand the subject and make my head spin.

      Having neither been educated nor worked in the field of physics I feel like I’m always behind the 8-Ball. Entropy sounds so easy until I read something like your exchange above and the material you link to. And I do take the time to read it all.

      Sometimes I think I’m getting too old to fight it anymore. I’ve been over and over what you discussed for several days and I still can’t honestly say I understand it.

      But I do get one important point. The very worst CO2 can do is slow the cooling of the Earth by a small, insignificant amount. It can’t ever warm anything.

      10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Roy,

        Don’t be too hasty, I have a very surface understanding of the finer points being put by Doug and the mention of entropy and enthalpy takes me back to about 1967 when I could actually tell you what they meant.

        I don’t have a clue now but the basic concepts never leave so I can sort of tell what is OK and what might be BS.

        Now to your problem of “what dos it all mean”.

        Well a gas molecule can be seen in the analogy of a car.

        I know you’re saying What?

        Yes a car.

        A car moves along at speed and depending on the speed and mass (weight) it will have a certain amount of energy of movement ( kinetic energy or KE).

        Gas molecules also move and have KE which can be transferred to other molecules when the inevitable collisions occur.

        Now, both the car and gas molecule can have another type of internal energy. Say for the car that is left out in the sun; it gets hotter as the solar energy is absorbed into the metal structure and that stored internal energy can be felt by touch.

        Gases also have stored internal energy that is variable and is associated with the bonds holding atoms together and is separate from the KE mentioned above.

        I think what Doug is saying is that to some extent KE and internal energy of gas molecules can be interchangeable.

        This is a very fine detail analysis and I’m not sure how relevant it is to putting the Man Made Global Warming theory to it’s grave.

        There are simpler mechanisms to study and quantify.

        Not sure that this analysis is 100% but it may be a start.

        KK :)

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          KK,

          Thanks for the reply. I really do appreciate it.

          I’m not saying, “What?” But this is exactly the kind of connection I’m not getting.

          I think what Doug is saying is that to some extent KE and internal energy of gas molecules can be interchangeable.

          It tells me that there must be a mechanism that can transform the higher energy state of the CO2 molecule that just absorbed a photon, into kinetic energy of the air mass containing that molecule; move that air mass in other words. And this violates the physics I was taught (yes I did pay “some” attention) because the excited CO2 molecule should, according to what I think I know, lose that extra energy very quickly by radiating away a photon again, not by moving itself or the air around it in any particular direction.

          Entropy has always seemed so simple. When you write the bottom line, all systems run downhill as far as they can and there they’re stuck unless there’s external stimulus applied again. An isolated system will reach thermal equilibrium and then stay there in the case we’re talking about. A heat engine will always waste energy as in the engine in your car because it’s not isolated and can always lose heat to it’s surroundings. Combustion in the cylinders will heat the block and you can’t stop that.

          And now if I haven’t already made a complete fool of myself I better stop before I make it any worse. ;-)

          10

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Yes Roy

            Your comment about “lose that extra energy very quickly by radiating away a photon again, not by moving itself or the air around it in any particular direction” is right on target and you seem to know as much about this as me.

            If what Doug says is real, and it may be, the relevance to CAGW is still so far away from the guts of the discussion as to be a bit of a sideshow.

            We already know that the mass of atmosphere above any particular level is held there by gravity and that height above ground level does things to density of air etc : compression from this source makes gases warmer than they otherwise would be and the gas molecules move faster and have more collisions as a result.

            On a rarefied look at gases we know that water for example with its butterfly shaped molecule of H-O-H tends to flip flop and any movement like this uses energy.

            I don’t want to go that deep just to explain why CAGW is a scam; not necessary.

            KK

            00

  • #
    Heywood

    Saw this on FB. Thought it appropriate. :)

    “Arguing with warmists…it’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious.”

    290

  • #
    pat

    21 March: Opinion: Time to rein in the climate change carbon baggers
    Why are World Economic Forum, IMF and World Bank being so obstinate in maintaining an increasingly discredited position?
    By Michelle Stirling-Anosh, special to the Vancouver Sun
    (Michelle Stirling-Anosh is the communications manager of Friends of Science.)
    Even NASA and the IPCC have acknowledged there has been a 16-plus year natural pause in global warming. Climate expert Roger Pielke presented evidence of no trend in extreme weather events to the U.S. senate committee on environment and public works in July…
    But that hasn’t stopped organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund from continuing to raise fears of catastrophic global warming.
    According to its website, the World Bank is heavily invested in low-carbon projects for the Third World, while the IMF is touting the benefits of carbon taxes even as the carbon markets in Europe have collapsed completely, to the point that Germany has gone back to building over 20 coal plants because the carbon risk of increased taxes to investors is now considered negligible…
    All this makes one wonder why the World Economic Forum, IMF and World Bank are being so obstinate in maintaining an increasingly discredited position.
    So many roads lead to Chicago, climate change, carbon and Lagarde’s tenure at Baker and McKenzie, a Chicago law firm recognized “as one of the first global law firms to establish a climate-change practice.” U.S. President Barack Obama spent over six years as a board member of the Joyce Foundation that financed the founding of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which eventually collapsed. The Joyce Foundation also funds TIDES and other ENGOs that loudly proclaim climate terror despite no scientific evidence…
    In a power-point presentation from 2007, Baker McKenzie gave us an example: a Chinese plant sells its emissions credits; a private fund and the World Bank buy them, then resell them through “the IM process” and the World Bank, raising “$1.2 billion in 23 minutes.”
    By contrast, the Financial Conduct Authority of the U.K. reported in September that not a single ordinary investor has made any money in carbon credits. Ordinary investors are not able to sell or trade carbon credits once acquired…
    It’s time we all stopped being suckers for climate scare.
    http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Opinion+Time+rein+climate+change+carbon+baggers/9646666/story.html

    off to Yokohoma to whip up another scare!

    23 March: Guardian: Robin McKie: Global warming to hit Asia hardest, warns new report on climate change
    Flooding, famine and rising sea levels will put hundreds of millions at risk in one of the world’s most vulnerable regions
    The report – Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability – makes it clear that for the first half of this century countries such as the UK will avoid the worst impacts of climate change, triggered by rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. By contrast, people living in developing countries in low latitudes, particularly those along the coast of Asia, will suffer the most, especially those living in crowded cities.
    A final draft of the report, seen by the Observer, will be debated by a panel of scientists set up by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) this week at a meeting in Yokohama, Japan, and will form a key part of the IPCC’s fifth assessment report on global warming, whose other sections will be published later this year…
    The report makes grim reading. “This comprehensive scientific assessment makes clear that climate change is having a growing impact in the UK and around the world, and that the risks of catastrophic consequences increase every day as more greenhouse gas pollution is pumped into the atmosphere. I hope David Cameron will read this report and understand the huge dangers of delaying the bigger cuts in emissions that are required to protect our children, grandchildren and future generations against this devastating threat,” said Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/22/global-warming-hit-asia-hardest

    20

  • #
    pat

    a writer i have detested for years, reminds me once again why i feel such loathing for him:

    23 March: Guardian: Nick Cohen: The climate change deniers have won
    Scientists continue to warn us about global warming, but most of us have a vested interest in not wanting to think about it
    In other words, the most distinguished scientists from the country (U.S.) with the world’s pre-eminent educational institutions were trying to shake humanity out of its complacency. Why weren’t their warnings leading the news?…
    A survey of 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in the last 20 years found that 97% said that humans were causing it…
    If global warming is not new, it is urgent: a subject that should never be far from our thoughts. Yet within 24 hours of the American association’s warning the British government’s budget confirmed that it no longer wanted to fight it…
    All of which is a long way of saying that the global warming deniers have won. And please, can I have no emails from bed-wetting kidults blubbing that you can’t call us “global warming deniers ” because “denier” makes us sound like “Holocaust deniers”, and that means you are comparing us to Nazis? The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do…
    A part of the answer may therefore be that conservative politicians in London, Washington and Canberra are doing their richest supporters’ bidding. There’s truth in the bribery hypothesis. In my own little world of journalism, I have seen rightwing hacks realise the financial potential of denial and turn from reasonable men and women into beetle-browed conspiracy theorists…
    Clive Hamilton, the Australian author of Requiem for a Species, made the essential point a few years ago that climate change denial was no longer just a corporate lobbying campaign.

    (SURELY COHEN IS WRITING ABOUT THE FOLLOWERS OF AL GORE/HANSEN & CO!!)
    … The movement was in the grip of “cognitive dissonance”, a condition first defined by Leon Festinger and his colleagues in the 1950s . They examined a cult that had attached itself to a Chicago housewife called Dorothy Martin. She convinced her followers to resign from their jobs and sell their possessions because a great flood was to engulf the earth on 21 December 1954. They would be the only survivors. Aliens in a flying saucer would swoop down and save the chosen few.
    When 21 December came and went, and the Earth carried on as before, the group did not despair. Martin announced that the aliens had sent her a message saying that they had decided at the last minute not to flood the planet after all. Her followers believed her. They had given up so much for their faith that they would believe anything rather than admit their sacrifices had been pointless.
    Climate change deniers are as committed….

    I could write about the environment every week. No editor would stop me. But the task feels as hopeless as arguing against growing old. Whatever you do or say, it is going to happen. How can you persuade countries to accept huge reductions in their living standards to limit (not stop) the rise in temperatures? How can you persuade the human race to put the future ahead of the present?
    The American historians of science Naomi Oreskes and Eril M Conway …
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/22/climate-change-deniers-have-won-global-warming

    30

  • #

    Let me show you what a subsidy looks like.

    You may have heard that recently that rooftop solar power in Australia reached a milestone, breaking through 3GW of power.

    Type Australia rooftop solar 3GW into any search engine you use, and notice the number of entries.

    3GW (GigaWatts) or in truth 3,039MW of installed Capacity (Nameplate)

    That’s huge, or is it? In a word, no!

    It sounds quite large when you consider the Nameplate of Bayswater is only 2640MW, so this makes rooftop solar power effectively the largest power plant in Australia, which is probably what solar power urgers would have you believe.

    Now, look at the image at this link.

    Note how that Nameplate is 3,039MW and there are 1,157,000 separate installations. That equates to an average installation of 2.62KW, or a system with 12 Panels.

    Let’s break that total down to actual power generated. The current average yearly Capacity Factor (CF) across the whole of Australia for rooftop solar is 13%. Some Companies claim a CF as high as 19% for some of their top of the range systems. With that CF at current total of 13%, then that effectively means that the total REAL power comes in at just 395MW, say 400MW, a lot less than the Nameplate of 3,039MW.

    Let’s break it down even further. During daylight generating hours, the residence itself actually consumes virtually all the power generated by a system of 1KW, so with an average of 2.6KW, then 1.6KW is being fed back to the grid, which equates to 40% for the home and 60% fed back to the grid.

    60% of that power is 250MW being supplied to the grid, now a helluva lot lower than 3,039MW.

    That 250MW is not just one plant supplying the grid, but 1,157,000 tiny plants spread across the whole of Australia, which amounts to just 1.3% of total power generation across the whole of Australia on a year round basis. Some of those articles actually found ONE DAY when all those panels supplied 8.25% of the total power. Now if that’s for one day, imagine how low it must be on some other days. THAT is why we use the yearly average power delivery.

    Remember the subsidy I mentioned at the top of the comment.

    Look at the image at this link.

    This shows the cost of these rooftop solar installations for just one Company. Look at the third one down, the 2.7KW unit, which is the average Australian installation. The second column from the right shows the rebate, and most system installers just take that off the total price, and then claim it from the Government. That rebate (FROM) $3,042. So multiply that total by the number of installations.

    $3.52 BILLION.

    That’s how much the Government has paid in incentives to have rooftop solar power installed, for what is basically the equivalent of a 400MW power plant.

    A subsidy. A flat out gift from the taxpayer.

    As to the cost for that actual power being fed back to the grid. Well, that FIT varies, but the average would be around 40 cents some higher some lower. That figure comes in at $915 MILLION for each and every year until their contract at that rate expires.

    That money has to be recovered, part from the sale of the electricity, and the rest from all consumers of electrical power.

    I mentioned that the total Nameplate is now 1.15 times higher than the Bayswater Power Plant. Total power generated by these rooftop systems over one whole year (residences plus grid supply) is being delivered by Bayswater, under normal operation in 72 days.

    Once all that has sunk in, now look at perhaps the most telling point of all. The total number of installations is 1,157,000, so now go back to the first link and look at the total cost for that 2.7KW system. That cost is $14,575. The total cost now comes in at $16.863 BILLION.

    $16,863,275,000!

    Costs for rooftop solar power have come down a fair bit, and you could probably pick up the cheapest in the range rooftop system for that average 2.7KW for around $5000, keeping in mind that the retailer then claims the rebate which he has taken of the price the customer pays. However, there are a number of Companies, each with a range of units, usually three or four from the cheapest through to the top of the range systems. While that linked chart has that cost at $14,575, with costs coming down and the range of products, that average cost could be down around $10,000, keeping in mind that people purchased these plants across that period when prices fell, and some would have actually paid those original prices, so $10,000 would probably be close to the mark.

    So, the cost for all those existing those one million plus installations would still come in at around $11.5 Billion, still a huge cost for what is basically a 400MW power plant.

    Do not ever try and tell me rooftop solar power is cheap.

    Tony.

    140

    • #
      Bryl

      Tony, do you a website where all your analyses are. I do so want to forward some of your information on.

      40

      • #

        Bryl,

        information like this is current only for the time it is written, because it is so fluid. Three Months ago, the information differed, and three Months from now, it will have changed again, only slightly, but a change nonetheless.

        To utilise this information here at this comment, you could just link to it by using the link of the red date indicator directly under the screen name I use at the top of the comment. Either that or you might copy and paste it into a word processor, and these days recent word processors also include links so again, copy the whole of the comment, and that way the link back to Joanne’s sit is included as well.

        I do have a home site, the Pennsylvania based, PA Pundits International, which operates out of Harrisburg PA, and that site can be accessed by clicking on the red screen name I use at the top of each comment. However, as I am here in Australia, a lot of information I have at that site is U.S. oriented. Having said that, information about electrical power generation is generic, so a lot of that information would cover all forms of power generation.

        As I do live here in Australia, the Comments I make here at Joanne’s site are (mostly) specific to Australian situations, other than generic information.

        So, I just research the information, work it all out, and then compose the Comment, working on it until it is correct, and then Posting that Comment here. Having been at it now for 6 years, (and 6 days) it’s a relatively easy task to translate the information, the only minor problem then becoming making it easy to understand for someone who may only have a basic understanding of what I’m trying to say.

        While my screen name takes you to the Home Page of the site, finding my Posts at that site is a matter of searching down the list of Posts there. However, it would be considerably easier to just search my articles alone, so to do that click on the link below which is my Bio at that site. At the bottom of the main text for the bio is a link that will take you to just the Posts under my name.

        TonyfromOz Bio

        Again, you’ll have to search for any articles which interest you, and you can then copy and paste them, or link to them if you wish.

        That search also may be long as I now have more than 1200 separate Posts over those 6 years. The Posts date from the most recent backwards, and there are 14 Posts to a page, and just click on earlier entries to take you to the next page, and I think there may be around 50 pages or so. A lot of the most recent Posts are my regular Sunday Music Posts, because I find I’m mainly contributing Comments here at Joanne’s site (a big thank you to Joanne for allowing me to actually do that) because I can be more Australia specific here. The Posts at my home site will be generic, and also specific on some things regarding all forms of electrical power generation.

        So, I hope this will be of some help to you in locating or further using the information you need.

        Tony.

        80

        • #
          Bryl

          Thanks Tony. Will have to create a file and start saving your posts. I remember you posted about the solar power station being constructed out western NSW. A relation lives in Moree and thinks it will supply over 30,000 homes. I couldn’t remember what you said exactly so didn’t bother arguing with her. Be nice to send her some real facts.

          20

          • #

            Bryl,

            15,000 homes.

            So 15,000 X 7MWH gives a total of 105GWH of power for the whole year. (THEORETICAL)

            Total Power 56MW X 24 X 365.25 = 491GWH per year.

            CF 21.4% – Oh yeah! Good luck with that, more probably 17% at best.

            So 24 hours X 17% means equivalent total power for 4 hours and 5 minutes, which, umm sort of destroys the supplies 15,000 homes with all their power, 24/7/365.

            Link to Moree Solar project

            Tony.

            20

    • #
      Robert JM

      What is worse is that is a subsidy for the rich at the expense of the poor.

      90

    • #
      toorightmate

      Tony,
      The pundits also forget to cost in poles and power lines.
      These have either been provided and maintained by “Jo Blo” consumers OR the fairies.

      30

    • #
      speedy

      Tony

      My understanding of the capacity figure for solar panels is that (in Australia at least), they generate about 4.2 kWh/kW installed capacity.

      The 13% you mention relates to the conversion efficiency solar energy conversion efficiency to electricity.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      00

      • #

        speedy,

        this is probably where I draw the most flak, because some people, (mostly renewable power supporters) confuse efficiency with Capacity Factor, two entirely different things, and here, not just for solar power, but for all forms of power generation, even, and probably more importantly for those anti coal fired power people who perpetually misunderstand Efficiency in comparison with Capacity Factor.

        So, allow me to explain here using that same second link I have in the original Comment, the image at this link.

        Now go to the average system size for all Australian rooftop solar installations, which is the third one down from the top, for a 2.7KW installation, and that Australian average is as I mentioned close to this at 2.62KW.

        Now, see the Installed Size shows it at 2700W (2.7KW)

        Let’s pretend that the Sun shines directly over these panels for the full 24 hours in a day, so the theoretical total power which they could generate under the most optimum conditions is now:

        2.7KW X 24 = 64.8KWH, now expressed in power versus time, hence KWH (KiloWattHours)

        Now, back at the image in the second column, KWH Per Day, the quoted (theoretical) total shown there is 10.8KWH. Let me stress here that this again is the theoretical total.

        So the Capacity Factor here is:

        10.8KWH divided by 64.8KWH and multiplied by 100 to give us a percentage total of 16.67% which is the Capacity Factor of this 2.7KW installation

        The panels are (hopefully) mounted on a North facing roof, bolted in a stable and immovable position, so the power generation goes like this.

        Early AM, following Sunrise – small amounts of power generated. (angular light shining on the panels)

        Mid daylight – highest power, close to maximum of that average 2.7KW. (direct sunlight shining straight down on the panels with some angularity depending on where in the Country of Australia the installation is situated)

        Late afternoon towards Sunset – small amounts of power. (angular light shining on the panels)

        Just during daylight hours on clear and cloud free days.

        So More in Alice Springs (clear and bright) and less in Hobart. (angular light, even in Midsummer)

        More in Summer than in Winter.

        More on cloud free days than cloudy. (losing perhaps two thirds to three quarters of their generating capacity)

        So, because of that, the real time Capacity Factor, Australia wide, and across the whole 12 Month period is in fact that 13% and not the quoted theoretical of 16.67%.

        That is the Capacity Factor.

        The efficiency rate concerns the panels themselves. In much the same manner as a Commodore has a base model and a top of the range model with a number of models in between, then the same applies with the panels.

        They have the bottom of the range panels which have lesser efficiency, and the top of the range panels which have a higher efficiency, in other words producing more power (slightly so) per panel than the cheapies.

        Again, this could lead to a higher Capacity Factor, again, only marginally, and when you take into account that more installations will be the cheapies as opposed to the top of the range panels, then that Capacity Factor still stays close to 13% when all installations are averaged out.

        It’s sometimes a difficult concept to grasp, and I hope I have explained it so it can be a little better understood.

        Tony.

        30

        • #
          janama

          This page demonstrates what Tony is pointing out Speedy.

          http://solar.uq.edu.au/user/reportPower.php

          00

          • #

            Thanks janama,

            now, while you look at this image, note the (reverse) spikes downwards as the daily generation rises in the middle there, and then drops away in the afternoon.

            Those downward spiking dips are a cloud flitting across the face of the Sun, just one small cloud passing by.

            Note how quickly the power generation drops off, and just how far it drops.

            Generation has fallen, in this case by 75%.

            Imagine if you will a totally overcast day, or a period of extended overcast for a couple of days.

            The panels will only generate between 10% and 15% of their rated power.

            Tony.

            00

          • #
            Richard111

            Thanks for that link. Backs up what I see here:
            http://www.milfordweather.org.uk/solar.php
            These are just sunshine records, but you can see the solar panel possibilities (or not). Some 20,000 plus fixed panels have been installed in fields, all within half a mile of that solar recording thingy.
            http://www.mhpa.co.uk/liddeston-ridge-solar-array/
            Interesting to see that subsidies for ‘green energy’ are being reviewed.
            http://opinion.financialpost.com/2014/03/18/governments-rip-up-renewable-contracts/

            00

            • #
              janama

              Unfortunately the people who have solar don’t experience those drops in output when a cloud comes over. If they were relying entirely on their solar and doing the washing the washing machine would be starting and stopping and glitching all over the place but their inverter switches back to mains whenever that happens – i.e there has to be coal power running in the background all the time.

              10

    • #
      BilB

      If there is no subsidy, Tony, do you have a prkblem with solar PV?

      13

      • #

        BilB,

        You’re new here, aren’t you?

        Selective reading at its most blatant. Only read what reinforces your belief system.

        Tony.

        40

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Tony;
          the quality of trolls is declining rapidly. 4 years ago when I first read JoNova they could spell and appear fairly coherent.

          Lately they’ve come across as barely literate, completely innumerate and often hysterical. Most just try to disrupt the blog with abuse or unconnected waffle.

          I think it must be connected to the increasing number of people who try to read up on Global Warming/Climate Disruption and soon realise that there is no proof and that it is a series of contradictory statements. That leaves only the stupid and gullible to “man” the troll brigade.

          51

          • #
            BilB

            Graeme as someone who has just put up an adusive unconnected waffly comment it is reasonable to assume you refer to youself.

            As far as the spelling is concerned I put together most of my comments on my phone doing my very best to hit the correct tiny little squares with my big fat fingers. Then the editing is sometimes particularly difficult on longer comments as the screen jumps all over the place. I don’t think that it comes out all that bad. I make a point of not commenting on others spelling as these forums are more of a conversation than a novel for volume reproduction.

            —-
            Interesting. The phone-commenting-thing might explain a lot more than the spelling. Must be hard to find and write links, and read long documents too. Not to mention – think. -Jo

            02

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              BilB,

              I’ll buy the phone explanation. Besides which, I’ve never criticized spelling or grammar except for the most excruciatingly bad stuff that comes along only rarely. But none of that phone difficulty is an impediment to straight thinking or thorough reading. When you can demonstrate that you understand what the contributors here, for instance, Tony, are talking about you’ll be much better received.

              Tony called you out for legitimate failure to show that you understood what he was talking about.

              BilB,

              You’re new here, aren’t you?

              Selective reading at its most blatant. Only read what reinforces your belief system.

              Tony.

              20

              • #
                BilB

                Tony was just having his usual “everything is bad and I’m the only one who knows anything” whinge.

                On your other comment solar panels have a far longer life than 10 years, more like 40 and even then they will not all fail at once. They are more likely to be superceded than fail. The panel life is more a function of quality of assembly than intrinsic life span.

                01

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                BilB,

                I would not put down Tony’s knowledge if I were you. He has long experience in the field and is a tireless researcher on the subject as well. He’ll shoot you down easily.

                About solar panel life: I gave you exactly what the homeowner told me the expected life would be. I’m well aware that newer panels are expected to have a longer life. We came home a week ago to find a slick little brochure on our doorstep from an outfit offering solar panels with a 40 year life, a 25 year warranty on the system and a 15% return on investment (15% is very tempting bait). There was also the heart wrenching picture of an elderly couple looking so relieved that their energy future would be secure.

                Now there are a few obvious points that I shouldn’t have to state. But given the willingness of some to swallow solar without question I’ll state them.

                1. No one has the 40 year history of those panels that it takes to know they’ll last that long, absolutely no one.

                2. By the end of the 25 year warranty the company behind the warranty is very likely to have been gone for 10 or 15 of those years.

                3. The tax breaks that make investment in solar panels look attractive are not going to last. Governments can’t withstand that forever. And when those incentives disappear, so will the solar industry. I looked up the company in question here. They’re operating out of a suite not more than 10 miles from me in a commercial complex and they buy panels from someone else, they contract for installation and maintenance from someone else. And they can disappear overnight if things start to go south for them.

                4. And not least by any means, the manufacture of those solar panels is a toxic waste problem that no one knows how to deal with.

                5. Around any city, large or small, there is no end of dirt in the air, which settles on solar panels as easily as it settles on anything else. The output from dirty panels drops off pretty fast and you have to keep them cleaned off with water and a squeegee on a regular basis or there goes your 15% return on investment. I know this problem from first hand experience, having had solar water heating.

                6. And this is the best objection. Utilities are only buying power from home and office systems because government is forcing them to do it. They don’t want anything to do with what could amount to hundreds of thousands of small, erratic producers. Not only will government change policies eventually (government is very fickle) but the utilities will eventually balk.

                So none of this “get your power from the sun and be energy secure” nonsense is on a sound footing going on into the future for even 25 years, much less 40.

                The brochure gave an email address so I tried to get them to answer some questions, the same ones I would have asked if I’d been home when their representative came around. But no, the guy would rather come talk to me face to face and give his sales pitch. So then I asked if they had a couple of installations reasonably close with owners willing to talk to me about their experience and satisfaction with their systems. I never got a reply to that request.

                That’s not the way I would do business. I’d be jumping at the chance to show off my product to a prospective customer — at least that’s what I would do if I knew I had the product my brochure was advertising.

                And the worst of this is that the government incentives are tempting people into the business who wouldn’t stick their necks out and risk their money but for those incentives. They produce just good enough stuff to last until they can disappear into the woodwork with a tidy profit and then they’re gone and the buyer is left holding the bag. I know this from firsthand experience too.

                10

          • #
            Rod Stuart

            This one must be a product of “unschooling” that they just had on 60 minutes.

            10

        • #
          BilB

          I read what you wrote. It started as a comment on subsidies and then drifted into efficiencies. So I suspect that the energy availability aspect urks you as well.

          If peopke put panels on their rooves fully at their own cost why should the efficiencies concern you? After all it has been ok for 140 years fir us all to drive around in cars that are just 25% efficient, wasting 75% of the fuel energy, and thisis fuel that must be exrracted from the ground, it doesn’t arrive from over head as solar energy does.

          There are plenty of things that can be done about those solar capacity factors. You can use higher efficiency panels such as the panasonic 20% panels or the new 35% efficient Semprius panelshttp://www.semprius.com/products.html
          , then you can mount the panels on a one axis tracking base and get another 25% overall efficiency. Then to make the panels even more effective you can have your panels fitted with solar thermal back panels to add another 30% energy throughput.

          The quick fix panels that most are familiar with are only a little bit effective. Add all of those together and the solar capacity becomes more like 28%, better than the average car on the road today. Solar PV distributed energy generation is energy sector with real scope for improvement. Don’t you think?

          03

          • #
            Bones

            BilB,Tony’s opinion on subsidies means nothing,the real fact is without subsidies and rebates solar energy on your home is not cost effective.You will still pay your power bill(although reduced)for those after dark moments and the supply service cost to your home.The only time this is worthwhile is Janama’s example.

            20

      • #
        janama

        BilB – I have a friend who is well away from the grid. To connect would cost $100k.

        So he installed a $50k solar system with batteries and a diesel backup unit. If the batteries fall below a set charge the diesel automatically steps in.

        He runs a fully electric house, electric stove included. He has refrigeration, airconditioning etc as well.

        It that situation solar works well, he’s on acreage, on top of a ridge facing north so he has a special shed with the panels on top and all the gear inside.

        Unfortunately someone living in the inner suburbs on the southern side of a hill in an apartment block wouldn’t fare so well.

        20

        • #
          BilB

          Yes, Janama, its not for every one. Just nearly everyone, or at least those who want to have those reduced costs.

          I wouldn’t have put the stove in the system. I’m installing gas cylinders just for cooking. Without the stove the battery and inverter system can so much smaller. An average upright electric cooker can pull over 6.5kw unless it has electronic synchronised energy regulators. Air conditioning can be done very differently as well.

          Your country friend might find this interesting

          http://m.motorcycle-usa.com/7/18015/Motorcycle-Article/Hero-Shows-Diesel-powered-RNT-Utility-Bike.aspx

          04

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            BilB,

            Here’s the experience of my neighbor with solar panels on his roof. He’s the only one around. If you read it you’ll see that by his reckoning, not mine, in the end it will not have benefited him because by the time his system is paid for the panels will be near or at the end of their life and need replacing.

            The fact that the system provides 70% of his electricity isn’t what counts. What counts is the total cost of running your electric appliances, lights and electronics over the years you’re using the solar system on the roof.

            You’re right, efficiency is his concern. If he ignores the totally outrageous placement of panels so they don’t face the south at the right angle (northern hemisphere here) it’s his business. But I would never allow such a system on my roof.

            20

      • #
        Truthseeker

        BilB,

        I think that anyone can use Solar PV to generate electricity for themselves as long as two conditions apply;

        1. They do not force me to help them pay for it through tax-payer subsidies. Solar is your decision and therefore your cost.

        2. They do not put their badly phased power back into the grid polluting the uniform and constant phased power provided by the energy companies that I am paying for. The energy companies go to a considerable expense to ensure that the power they provide is even and phased with a small tolerance range. Household solar PV does not have the same phasing controls and so adds badly phased power to the uniformly phased power from the real power generation businesses.

        30

  • #
    PeterS

    The SouthWestern edge of the Craton is 2.6 billion years old. I don’t know if this rock has been around that long. Perhaps someone with more geology knowledge can tell us? Avon River, Bells Rapids.

    You will not find any geologist who lived that long who can confirm that age. It’s all based on interpretation, not facts. Besides, I fail to see any logical reasoning could explain how a rock can take millions let alone billions of years to erode when there was supposed to be many major catastrophic changes to the earth’s surface over that period. It just doesn’t add up. It’s like those dinosaur footprints found just below tide level in WA and other areas around the world. We all know it doesn’t take long for water erosion to wipe out surface features yet we are to believe these fossilized footprints withstood many thousands let alone millions of years of erosion. Total nonsense.

    01

    • #
      Robert JM

      Look up the geology of craton, they are the roots of mountain ranges.
      Mountains are like icebergs they consist of lower density rock floating around on denser basalt rock that make up the ocean crust. As the top erodes the mountain pushes back up like an iceberg to exposes more rock to erosion
      The root that you see at the surface may have been 30KM underground originally and is made of very hard (think melted) rock.
      How long does it take to erode 40Km of rock?

      30

      • #
        PeterS

        How long does it take to erode 40Km of rock?

        Very quickly if it’s ruptured first due to earthquake and/or volcanic activity. You make the false assumption of nniformitarianism only exists. I find it very hard to believe any part of the world would not suffer massive and catastrophic changes for millions or billions of years.

        11

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I can’t understand all the excitement about some old rocks.

      Why can’t somebody invent some new rocks, with lots of cool features and stuff?

      Rocks are boring. They don’t do anything. They just sit there.

      There is no way that rocks, Rock!

      30

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        It does make one wonder, how would an environmentalist make a rock.

        20

        • #
          Yonniestone

          “how would an environmentalist make a rock.” They could tilt their head to one side and let some fall out of their ear.

          40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Rereke,

        I could use some things that just sit there and do nothing. Too many of the things that do something do something injurious to me these days.

        Bring on a lot more rocks and a lot less government.

        10

  • #
    pat

    spruiking:

    22 March: CNBC: Javier E. David: Smart homes aim for consumers’ wallets as energy costs soar
    A brutal winter has left many feeling the pain of soaring utility bills. Yet a new University of Michigan study suggests households have been slow to adopt cost-saving measures, even as most fret about paying more for home energy than gasoline…
    The survey, from the university’s Energy Institute, showed that respondents expected their utility bills would rise by 30 percent in the next five years, a far steeper rate than the 15 percent jump they expect to see for gas. But the increase would have to hit about 50 percent for them to make major changes, the survey found…

    ***People with lower incomes were the most likely to adjust their habits, he added.

    The findings underscore why there’s growing buzz surrounding smart homes, the space where top shelf technology converges with energy efficiency. The industry is considered a major growth area in the wake of Google’s $3.2 billion deal for Nest Labs…
    “It’s part of a greater awareness of climate change and using less energy for that reason,” said Roy Johnson, CEO of EcoFactor, a smart technology company that provides software to utilities and companies such as Comcast – the parent company of CNBC…
    Honeywell, which manufactures thermostats that automatically adjust temperatures, and Siemens, which manufactures a “smart grid” that utilizes solar panels to generate electricity, and feeding unused energy back into the utility grid, are just two of the names at the forefront of the smart home push…
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101514623

    00

  • #
    pat

    LOL:

    22 March:The Ecologist: Sam Fankhauser: Financial markets should get serious on climate policy
    The number of climate change laws on the statue books of the world’s leading economies grew from less than 40 in 1997 to almost 500 at the end of 2013.
    Most leading countries now have legal provisions on renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon pricing, land use change, transport emissions, adaptation to climate risks and low-carbon research and development.
    These efforts do not yet add up to a credible global response that will limit the rise in global temperatures to less than two degrees Celsius – the objective of international climate negotiations…
    In other words, unless we find a cheap way to capture and store carbon, two-thirds of the fossil fuel reserves of coal, oil and gas majors will have to remain under ground…
    Climate laws are driven by … other climate laws
    A tentative finding from the analysis of the 500 climate laws so far is that one of the most powerful drivers of climate legislation is the number of climate laws passed elsewhere.
    There appears to be a strong element of peer pressure and intergovernmental knowledge exchange. If this is confirmed, it would point towards a self-reinforcing cycle.
    The more climate change laws are passed – and the current pace is one new law per country every 18-20 months – the more ready policymakers become to take further action. The financial sector would do well to take note.
    http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2326237/financial_markets_should_get_serious_on_climate_policy.html
    (Sam Fankhauser is Co-Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change at the London School of Economics. He is a Director at Vivid Economics and a member of the UK Committee on Climate Change. His research is funded the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment and the UK Economic and Social Research Council, ESRC).

    00

  • #
    vic g gallus

    This is for Philip. I have plotted rates of warming over the past century and a bit using the hadcrut4 global mean from wood for trees. The rate of warming is a linear regression over 12 months (6 months prior to 6 months after the date) calculated for each month, and smoothed using a moving average over 15 years.

    http://s5.postimg.org/w4nywhnjb/image003.png

    40

  • #
    pat

    20 March: LA Times: Jerry Hirsch: Electric cars can go only half as far in freezing weather, AAA finds
    Frigid temperatures can reduce that distance by 57%.
    The research is important to the Automobile Club of Southern California because it maintains mobile recharging trucks for people who misjudge how far they can go in their electric car…
    The average EV battery range in AAA’s test was 105 miles at 75 degrees but dropped 57% to just 43 miles at 20 degrees. Heat also sliced the cars’ ranges but by not as much: The cars averaged 69 miles per full charge at 95 degrees, 33% less than in 75-degree weather…
    http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-aaa-electric-vehicle-range-20140320,0,3522803.story#ixzz2wWphMXOq

    30

    • #
      Kit Blanke

      Ambient teperature affects a batteries capacity… wow what will they think next /sarc off

      20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Well, well, well! Lower temperature affects the rate of chemical reactions which reduces battery output. How long has the human race known this? 50 years? 75 years? 100 years? More than 100 years?

      Anyone who tried to start a car that sat out overnight in freezing temperatures has seen first hand that the starter doesn’t turn over as fast as it would on a nice summer morning. It happens even if you have a crankcase heater to keep the oil from solidifying.

      And my AAA membership is now paying for a fleet of rescue trucks for electric vehicle drivers who overestimate their endurance. Nuts! :-(

      40

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Does it look a little Sedimentary?

    There appear to be bedding planes running vertical?

    Nice shape at water level.

    KK :)

    20

    • #
      scaper...

      It looks igneous.

      Sedimentary rock displays horizontal bands.

      I know of a granite quarry in Brisbane that has a large vein of blue basalt running through it. Very interesting specimens where the two have fused.

      What you might be seeing is the decomposition process (discolouring) due to the forces of nature.

      30

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Scaper.

        True, sedimentary stuff has horizontal layers but the beds can, and often were folded, leaving the tops to erode and then

        exposing parts lower down to make it seem that the bedding planes are vertical. They were originally.

        Sedimentary rocks can also be “baked” if a molten intrusion gets near the rock and it may be very hard and glassy.

        I love rocks, they got history.

        KK

        10

    • #

      Keith, definitely igneous. Granite. We have lots of it in WA.

      See this close up of a nearby rock. There are layers there, but only river deposits. I don’t know what the vertical lines are that we can see in the shot above?

      10

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Hi Jo,

        Thanks for the photo.

        The most important thing is that it is a very beautiful rock pool.

        Cool!

        KK :)

        10

      • #
        scaper...

        The vertical lines are fractures that appear during the course of decomposition.

        Eventually the shards will break away. Fault lines I suppose.

        10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      KK,

      That was my thought too. It looks soft on the surface and more like sedimentary. but looks can be deceiving.

      30

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Agree Roy, it looks like tilted sedimentary and there could be evidence of the origin of metamorphosis from later heating

        in the upper right section where there is possibly a vertical reddish intrusion.

        If it is an intrusion that may be granite and may explain why the overall appearance could look to be igneous.

        Can surface weathering make granite look like the picture.

        A good smack with a hammer would tell what’s underneath!

        There are also some wear patterns that leave a nice rounded break that looks like it needs a band aid.

        Most of our local rock here is sedimentary with the occasional basalt intrusion but about forty miles up north there is quite a lot of red granite, but I cant remember what it looks like when weathered.

        Rocks are too hard, I prefer to work on Global Warming problems. :)

        KK

        10

        • #

          OK, so I need to go back with a hammer and take a close up?

          As far as weathering goes these rocks are submerged in winter with very fast flowing whitewater rapids most years. Perhaps 45 million years of winters would do it?

          20

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Hi Jo

            It would be a shame to disturb that great looking rock pool with a hammer.

            Maybe some things are best left as unsolved mysteries.

            KK :)

            00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Jo,

            Instead of the hammer, maybe I should never have asked the question in the first place. Idle curiosity can cause more activity — or trouble depending on how you look at it — than I ever imagined. ;-)

            10

  • #
    Grant Burfield

    Anyone following the Lewandowsky Recursive Fury retraction debacle?
    No doubt there will be a hilarious article about it in The Conversation this week.

    10

    • #

      I have been not only following the debate, I posted the following comment 57 at 20:37. As I aim to state the obvious truths that Lewandowsky is doing his best to ignore, it will no doubt get taken down. So here it is in full.

      Stephan Lewandowsky,
      As a professor, you should be my intellectual superior. As a scientist you should be able to provide novel explanations about your subject area that go beyond what the non-specialist would find out for themselves, but at the same time accommodate the basic understanding that the non-specialist.
      Your “Hoax” paper ignored the obvious conclusion of the data. The vast majority of respondents did not believe in the cranky conspiracy theories, regardless of their views on “climate science”. Any “conspiracist ideation” revolves around differences in the small proportions that do. That means that the vast majority of “skeptics” who do not understand will feel insulted. Morally you should have clearly stated that any conclusions only apply to a small minority. The first part of the paper’s title inferred the opposite.
      “NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax”
      Out of 1145 respondents, just 2 strongly rejected “climate science” and strongly supported that faxed moon landing theory. The question was not asked of those two people if they followed that path of reasoning. Unsurprisingly, when you smear people with ideas that they find insulting they express outrage. There is nothing “confected” about this.
      There are three things that make this beyond the pale of academic freedom
      First, you do not advance knowledge, but to repress the obvious empirical statement (the vast majority do not believe in cranky conspiracy theories) with the opposite.
      Second is that the smears is to deny a group of people who you disagree with a voice.
      Third, is that you use false allegations of intellectual inferiority to evaluate climate “science”, to prevent a voice in matters of public policy. Yet the voices that you seek to repress often have far greater understanding and knowledge of economics and policy implementation than you and your fellow-travelling academics.
      Academic freedom must be protected so that ideas and knowledge that challenge society’s established beliefs can be nurtured. But that must be accompanied by a deliberate policy of pluralism, for there are none so defensive of their protecting their beliefs or ideas as those who spent their lives developing them. Professor Lewandowsky, your work in the last three years should become a textbook example of the attempts and consequences to suppress that freedom.

      20

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    O/T on the U/T.
    Having crossed swords with someone this morning who who believed renewable energy was cheap (and that the ABC shows right wing bias) I am letting off some steam.

    We are annoyed to be called Deniers but haven’t been able to come up with something in return.

    Taking an occasion from the past when 97% of scientists believed a certain doctrine, even though it sounds silly now. 2 eminent scientists (Priestley & Scheele) were intimidated by The Consensus into toeing the line, even though their experiments proved the official line was nonsense. I am referring to the eighteen century doctrine of phlogiston, back before the Industrial Age started.

    Since the ‘believers in the consensus” want to turn back the clock to before the Industrial Age, how about calling them phlogiston floggers or phloggers in short?
    It’s short,
    It will annoy them
    It is obscure, forcing them to do some reading about the subject.

    50

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      How about “phrenologists”?

      I think a lot of them look like someone stomped on their head, vis a vis Nick McKimm and Adam Bandit.
      Perhaps a phrenology study would reveal that to be truly green one must have a flattened head.

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If the study of phlogiston was known as phlogistonetics, they should be called phlogistoneticsts, except on a Friday night after a few beers.

      Then there is the example of phrenology — the study of skull shape as an indicator of mental potential, or something. That theory was accepted by a consensus of physicians. So, another alternative is to simply liken them phrenologists.

      10

  • #
  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    This picture of a rock formation has generated a spectrum of comment: From the scientific to the inane and flippant.

    11

  • #
  • #
    Eliza Doodle

    It must be a rock pool weekend.

    Fairfax press preempt s IPCC’s 5th assessment report on impacts, with a picture of WWF Board Member and IPCC Lead Author Lesley Hughes, by a pool with rocks and a bit of Green thrown in.

    It’s still going to be worse than we thought .

    00

  • #
    Bones

    AFDI calls for the U.S. and other non-Muslim governments to recognize officially that Islam is a political movement and so not solely religious in the strict sense of the U.S. Constitution.

    This is 12 months old from AFDI (freedomdefense.typepad.com).Seems as if climate change is not the only thing to have a little light shone on it.We can only hope more people get the message.

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      AFDI calls for the U.S. and other non-Muslim governments to recognize officially that Islam is a political movement and so not solely religious in the strict sense of the U.S. Constitution.

      And Islam knows what it can do with that idea. They have more than their share of brass nerve already and now they want to be recognized politically?

      Unfortunately Obama is just stupid enough to do it. And I sit here wondering why anyone, recognizes the Vatican as a political entity. I guess we would then need to have an ambassador to…to…exactly where? Mecca? Medina? No, can’t be there. Non Muslims aren’t permitted in those cities. Perhaps we can give them some desert island for their political headquarters and send the ambassadors there. Or maybe we should be wise enough to say NO and mean it.

      Has the world really gone that mad?

      Bones, do you have a link for this?

      10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I hope I don’t need to point out that the end result of granting Islam official political status would be a demand for a seat in the UN, along with ever increasing demands for influence within the other member states and the eventual subversion of those states if this could be carried to its obvious conclusion.

        10

  • #
     D J  C o t t o n 

    PROOF of EXISTENCE of the GRAVITO-THERMAL EFFECT

    (1) The second law of thermodynamics states that “the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium— a state depending on the maximum entropy.”

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

    (3) When, in the absence of phase change, chemical reaction or inter-molecular radiation, a gas has reached thermodynamic equilibrium, then there will be no net change in the distribution of energy on a macro scale.

    (4) In such circumstances described in (3) for every molecular movement between collisions, any change in gravitational potential energy must be countered by an opposite change in kinetic energy.

    (5) If (2) applies and noting (4) it follows that when any given molecule is about to collide with another, its own kinetic energy must be equal to that of the target molecule so that no net change occurs in the collision.

    (6) Hence, for any pair of molecules at different heights (or altitudes) the difference in gravitational potential energy (PE) must be offset by an equal and opposite difference in kinetic energy (KE) – thus maintaining a homogeneous sum (KE+PE) for all molecules.

    (7) Thus, because temperature is a function only of the mean KE per molecule, and because PE varies so must KE vary, causing a thermal gradient throughout the whole system,

    11

  • #
    Liberator

    Heres a very interesting read – it may be worthwhile posting as a main article for discussion

    http://sultanknish.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/the-end-of-science.html

    00

  • #
    Gregg

    Jo, I feel I need to take you to task regarding your use of the word ‘pause’ to describe the lack of statistically significant warming since approximately 1998 (depending on dataset/s used). As with your objection to ‘denier’, it’s inaccurate, both scientifically and in english.

    My desktop Collins dictionary definition of ‘pause’ includes such phrases as “to stop doing (something) for a short time” and “a temporary stop or rest…”

    My view is that if temperatures once again begin to rise in a statistically significant fashion, then of course “pause” will become an accurate description. Until then, global warming has stopped.

    The (admittedly widespread) acceptance of the use of the word ‘pause’ pre-supposes that temperatures will once again rise, a belief for which there can be no emperical data as yet. It’s not stringently scientific thinking.

    This is all said with great respect, particularly for your dogged determination to keep this debate both civil and scientific, as it should be.

    00