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

Weekend Unthreaded

Photo by Geoff Sherrington | Click to enlarge

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.0/10 (25 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 8.0 out of 10 based on 25 ratings

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

189 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    Andy (old name Andy)

    Ahh … I think I picked it
    Its Stonehenge
    Computer modeled for 2050
    Due to co2 :)

    111

  • #

    What’s round and bites?

    Pointman

    20

  • #
    Bones

    Mr Sherrington,I would consider this an act of gross cruelty to Joanne’s Kiwi supporters.Posting a photo of ‘Landscape with sheep’and keeping the location secret,you are such a tease.At least the sheep are safe.

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Them’s not sheep, them’s be rocks, they be. But they green grass be a bit of a give away, like, ’cause thems don’t get much o’ that in the West Island ’cause there, it be brown like.

      71

      • #
        scaper...

        There is a sheep trail in the image though. If you follow that trail to lower altitude it will lead you to water. Same with any animal trail in the bush.

        Had a silly experience many years ago near Tara in western Qld. Parked my vehicle near a fence and went pig hunting with my dog and crossbow.

        We chased a mob down and I dropped a suckling in dense bush. Lost my bearings, headed west and found the fence. Now, all I needed to do was follow the fence to locate the vehicle.

        Five hours later I eventually came across it. I must have followed the fence the wrong way in a 10,000 acre paddock!

        61

        • #
          Jon

          One needs a herd of animals to keep the grass like that. Sheep, goats, cows etc.. Take away the animals and you will in few years have less grass and more other types of vegetation.

          10

      • #

        The Old Rock.

        ‘This rock I hold
        in my hand,’ the
        geologist said,
        ‘was here before
        Columbus crossed
        the Pacific,
        even before
        Gondwana Land
        broke up, this rock
        was here.’

        beth the serf.

        50

      • #
        Ceetee

        And the sheep are less nervous Rereke.

        10

    • #
      scaper...

      Looks like the NSW highlands but where?

      The rocks are granite and the formation is what I call a “volcanic spray”.

      The trees are interesting, either the tree has grown in a high wind area or the now dead tree did tower over it causing the side growth to catch some rays. The tree also has a high growth of mistletoe, a hemiparasitic infestation.

      My guess is the landscape was photographed from the south west and it is south of Armidale.

      60

  • #
    James McCown

    I had a brief twitter exchange with climate ‘scientist’ Katharine Hayhoe earlier this week. Apparently, she appeared on MSNBC with Olympic snowboarder Alex Diebold to preach the gospel of Branch Carbonianism. I didn’t watch it, but Alex tweeted about it the next day.

    So, I responded to Alex’s tweet with a graph of GISS LOTI annual average temperatures from 1998 to 2013 and asked them, where’s the trend line? Katharine responded “You forgot the trend line” and drew an upward-sloping trend line on the graph.

    So, I ran an OLS regression of the temperature index on time and got a slope coefficient of 0.665 (that’s 0.00665 degrees celsius increase per year) and a standard error of 0.377. The slope coefficient is statistically indifferent from zero at any acceptable level of confidence. I tweeted that to Katharine, but she didn’t respond! I tried following her on twitter only to discover she had blocked me!

    So, I showed that a statistician would consider her trend line to be essentially a flat line. And her response was to immediately clam up. That’s what happens every time I try to question or challenge one of the warmist ‘scientists’. They are afraid to discuss or debate their theories with anyone.

    Its time we expose these frauds and charlatans.

    392

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      James McCown:

      I have been looking at the GISS series lately and I cannot find any sign of ‘warming’ since the late 1930′s once you remove the adjustments.

      e.g. in 1981 Hansen claimed that 1980 was only 0.15℃ COOLER than 1950. 1980 is now 0.44℃ warmer than 1950, obviously “adjusted”.

      As the 2012 temperature is only 0.31℃ warmer than 1944, and 0.43℃ warmer than 1938, I wonder if this is what is meant by Missing Heat?.

      181

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Graeme, I think he said 1940 not 1950.

        See page 961 here:

        http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

        “A remarkable conclusion from Fig. 3 is
        that the global temperature is almost as
        high today as it was in 1940.”

        Perhaps there’s another statement that I missed. Please let me know if that’s the case.

        30

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Sceptical Sam:

          My mistake, I tried to read a rather obscure graph for the figure.

          That would make the adjustment 0.24℃ and the statement should read “As the 2012 temperature is only 0.31℃ warmer than 1944″.

          So we have ‘runaway’ warming of somewhere between 0.07 and 0.31℃, assuming that we can trust the latest figures***. A ‘sensitivity’ between 0.3 and 1.0.

          ***(Have you seen the article and comments May 7th, 2014 on http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/ ? )

          31

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            Re ***: I have now. Thanks. The temp adjustments comments merely confirm what we already know.

            What’s not clear (to me) from Hansen’s 1981 “Science” paper is what data he was using for his Fig.3 graph.

            Any ideas?

            10

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Sceptical Sam:

              I don’t know but reading that page it seems that the group of 7 listed as co-authors may have compiled them from temperature records held by the National Centre for Atmospheric Research ** and from NOAA.

              I presume that at that time Hansen was doing research and hadn’t fully morphed into an hysterical doomsayer.
              He did have claims to being a good scientist, until he took up wearing silly hats and getting arrested.

              ** Boulder Colorado – I think this is Trenberth’s mob.

              20

    • #
      James McCown

      What really amuses me about all this ‘scientific consensus’ crap is the lame argument from authority and the refusal of the warmists to debate at all. If their science were truly as ‘settled’ and as ‘clear and unequivocal’ as they claim, then the facts should speak for themselves.

      I am economist by profession. And I discuss my field all the time with all types of people with varying degrees of education and experience. I often disagree with their conclusions, but I listen to what they have to say. I might dispute them, but when I do, I do so with facts and reason. I never try to say something like: “I have a PhD in economics, therefore I’m right and you’re wrong.” That’s stupid.

      101

    • #
      James McCown

      Another interesting observation about Katharine Hayhoe. She is on the faculty at Texas Tech University in Lubbock. A decent, fairly large research university. I have several friends and relatives who have attended there.

      So, what department do you think a self-described ‘climate scientist’ would be in? Texas Tech has a department of Geosciences in the College of Arts and Sciences that offers degree programs in Atmospheric Science, Geology & Geophysics, and Geography. You’d think such an eminent scientist would be in that one, right?

      Nope. She is in the Department of Political Science. We are all too familiar with the true motivation of many so-called environmentalists and ‘climate scientists’. Green on the outside, red on the inside.

      211

      • #
        Nathan

        And John Cook, – physics, studying at the University of Queensland (with post-grad studies focusing on astrophysics) After graduating, he spent over a decade working in graphic design and web programming! Link

        20

  • #
    James McCown

    Correction: I asked them “Where’s the warming”, not “where’s the trend line”.

    93

  • #

    A recent discussion with a lady behind the counter at a shop in a small local township:

    Me: Talking to my brother’s granddaughters this morning, I posed the question, “What technological advances would have taken place by the time you are as old as me – in about 50 years?”

    Lady: I think we’ve got enough technology – we don’t need any more. Why do they want to go to Mars? We don’t need to go to the moon.

    Me: Man will always aspire to explore. That’s just what he does.

    Lady: The money could be spent on removing poverty from a third of the population.

    Me: Well, money spent on Anthropogenic Global Warming nonsense could have provided clean drinking water for everyone on the planet.

    Lady: Global Warming is a fact.

    Me: I’ve been studying the question for at least the last four years… (My wife tells me the lady wasn’t listening by this time) … and I haven’t seen any evidence….

    Lady: Out! Go on! Go!

    The quintessential alarmist – nasty and close-minded!

    Suffice it to say, no money was spent there!

    241

    • #

      You said “No money was spent there.” I don’t think that matters to said individuals. They have no understanding of commerce. She’s not there to make money—and is so blind that she does not understand failure to make money means no job. This is very typical. These people live in a fantasy that will evaporate when there’s no one left to prop up the nonsense. And they will be furious and still not understand. Obviously, intelligence is not additive and we made too many people for the amount of intelligence that’s available. Population people where wrong to worry about food and water—stupid kills. It just takes time.

      162

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That is very profound, especially on a Sunday morning (where I am).

        80

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Stupid kills. I think that’s the take away message here.

        100

      • #
        James Bradley

        The disciples of the Science of Climatology – same behaviours, reactions and blind dependency as any other cult member.

        80

  • #
    handjive

    “Your initial reaction to this idea may be one of disbelief.
    There’s no way society would accept such a device.
    Why would anyone want to implant this in their body?”

    Scientist Claims Human Microchip Implants Will Become “Not Optional”

    “Chances are you’re carrying a couple of RFID microchips now.
    And if you are, they’re sending out a 15-digit number that identifies you.
    That number can be picked up by what’s called an ISO compliant scanner. And they’re everywhere, too.
    It’s not possible to interact with society in a meaningful way by not having a mobile phone.

    I think human implants are likely to go along a very similar route.
    It would be such a disadvantage to not have the implant that it essentially becomes not optional.”

    52

    • #

      This has been 20 years in the making. It was quite obvious it was coming. People signed on to cell phones and social networking like flies to honey. How could you not see it coming? I’ve said before, I always wondered how in Brave New World and 1984, the government took over. It didn’t. People voted it in and went along with the whole mess. Gradually, then running head first in.

      I was listening to one of the conservative talk shows and a mother was saying her sons were liberals now that they were attending liberal colleges. I had to wonder—did she pay for the college? How many people pay liberal colleges to indoctrinate their children? Public schools? The time to say no was a long ways back. Yes, there will be some dissent, but very, very little. These people can wait—you’ll die and your cell-phone toting, liberally educated child won’t object to the implant. It’s so much easier just to introduce the idea and wait for those who object to just die. Little opposition thereafter. Ask yourself, how many of your grandchildren would even understand why this is a problem for you?

      140

    • #
      the Griss

      “It’s not possible to interact with society in a meaningful way by not having a mobile phone.” lol

      And of course society never existed before the mobile phone. :-)

      If anything, society was more interactive before the mobile phone, because.. shudder.. people used to talk face to face.

      101

    • #
      handjive

      The alternative nowadays is the pre-smart phone, the flip phone.

      But, that’s nowadays.

      10

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    El Nino on its way! Higher temperatures, more storms, etc………!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJcm7NypMpA

    And you couldn’t be more happy eh BA? – Jo. PS Good to see you get the basics of ENSO.

    324

    • #
      Mark

      PDO in cold phase and warm water of the Kimberley indicating a negative IOD and that pesky SOI not playing the game but yes, there COULD be a very weak El Nino.

      74

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        A negative IOD is supposed to bring “normal” rainfall and storms to Australia, however the relationship is not totally reliable as seen in UNSW’s charts: http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/indian-ocean-causes-big-dry-drought-mystery-solved
        Sometimes it can be negative during a drought (1942), sometimes it can be positive during a bucketing (1890).

        40

      • #

        The coming El Nino will mean higher temperatures and extreme weather as a result of natural factors. So BA4 and the “climate community” celebrate, as it might keep the human-caused climate change show on the road for a couple more years.

        100

        • #
          the Griss

          If you look at even the 1998 ElNino, it was up down then back up to stabilise.

          The 1998 Elnino temperature stabilised about 0.25 above where it started.

          The much smaller 2010 ElNino stabilised at just a tiny amount LOWER than where it started.

          Elnino only give s short natural peak then a short natural trough. It can work both ways. :-)

          42

    • #
      the Griss

      You do realise that once it had run its course, the 2010 Elnino (unlike the !998 Super ElNino) did not add any temperature to the atmosphere at all.

      If fact, once it settled the RSS temp was slightly LOWER than when it started.

      83

    • #
      Ceetee

      BA4, I just don’t get it, what exactly is the point of you?

      72

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      fAO JO

      ‘And you couldn’t be more happy eh BA?’. just goes to prove I’m on the right track and you have taken a seriously wrong turn somewhere!

      213

      • #

        Nnnno. It means you’re happy that higher temperatures and more storms are on the way.

        Think about that.

        182

      • #
        James Bradley

        BA4,

        You sure are on the right track, but you should try a different vein – that one collapsed.

        El Nino also seems to bring with it record Antarctic Sea Ice expansion for April increasing by more than 110,000sq km a day last month to nine million square kilometres.

        The National Snow and Ice Data Centre said …. “This exceeds the past record for the satellite era by about 320,000sq km, which was set in April 2008,…”

        60

      • #
        Heywood

        The collective schadenfreude of the warmist collective never ceases to amaze me. These people, BA4th included, pray every day for another hurricane, flood, El Nino or other catastrophe that they can shove it in the face of skeptics to somehow justify their ideology.

        They truly want CAGW to happen because being proven right is vastly more important than the world not warming catastrophically.

        People like BA4th would rather see people die than have their dogma proven as incorrect.

        Sad really when you think about it.

        101

        • #
          James Bradley

          Great point Heywood, you’d think that when presented with evidence that the planet was not doomed they would be dancing in the streets instead of coming up with other ways to gleefully convince us that we will all suffer die in increasingly horrible ways if we don’t do what they say.

          Hmmmmmm…. maybe it’s a control thing, I’d suggest a psychological assessment, but I hear they’ve done there own – well that’s what happens when the patients take over the asylum.

          70

          • #
            Jon

            The reason is that it’s not really about climate , but more about using climate as an excuse for political agendas?

            90

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          @Heywood
          May 12, 2014 at 8:59 am

          ‘They truly want CAGW to happen because being proven right’. it looks like its going to happen regardless of what I say! I’m just reporting the scientific truths that you ostriches would rather, did no exist!

          02

          • #

            You will be celebrating exactly like carnival psychics do when through a “happy coincidence” someone’s elderly mother or father dies just as predicted. Anyone who falls for the carnval psychic trick is woefully lacking in understanding of science and statistics. They are, however, great people to get involved in shady investment deals and real estate ripoffs. Looking to buy any land? I can “wow” you with a prediction or two, show how truly psychic I am so you’ll kinow I possess the knowledge to steer you in the right direction. Bring cash.

            10

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘“happy coincidence” ‘, in your dreams!

              ‘Nothing can stop retreat’ of West Antarctic glaciers!

              Key glaciers in West Antarctica are in an irreversible retreat, a study team led by the US space agency (Nasa) says.

              It analysed 40 years of observations of six big ice streams draining into the Amundsen Bay and concluded that nothing now can stop them melting away.

              Although these are abrupt changes, the timescales involved are likely measured in centuries, the researchers add.

              If the glaciers really do disappear, they would add roughly 1.2m to global sea level rise.

              The new study has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, but Nasa held a teleconference on Monday to brief reporters on the findings.

              http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27381010

              01

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                And yet this week we also had vapourous reports from a distinguished professor at UNSW, saying that the growth in the Antarctic ice sheets was caused by “stealing” Australia’s rainfall.

                So the Antarctic is getting hotter, and diminishing; and colder, and expanding; all at the same time. Hmm, how does that work?

                00

              • #

                Actually, “happy coincidence” is the correct term. It doesn’t apply to the event, but rather something happening to help prop up preditictions that otherwise were destined to fail.

                It’s actually a happy thing anyway—there’s NOTHING we can do. No tax, no cutting emissions, nothing. We’re doomed. In 200 to 500 years (or 1000 as some sources say), the glaciers will have melted. So 1.3 m of global rise over 200 years—let’s see, that’s .65 cm per year. If it takes 500 years, that’s .26 cm per year. We can live with that, especially since there’s nothing we can do so no more ridiculous taxes and wailing about stopping things.

                (You do know glaciers have melted in 200 to 500 throughout the history of the earth, right? On a pretty regular basis.)

                00

    • #
      Yonniestone

      BA4th, If a certain ilk of lawyer is called an “Ambulance Chaser” then maybe CAGW pseudo scientists could be called “Disaster Chasers”?

      Outside of a War, wishing hardship or death on another human is not healthy but neither has the debate been from your camp either.

      60

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘wishing hardship or death on another human is not healthy’, who is doing the wishing like? Methinks you’re doing too much projecting of your own biases. All I’m doing is warning you doubters of what to expect, perhaps even sooner than what has been projected, if you would just listen to the ‘noise’ coming from the valid scientific world.

        02

    • #
      tom0mason

      Stop being so happy.
      It’s just the weather!

      20

  • #
    The Master of the King’s Doggerel

    Nobody knows
    where the CO2 goes,
    when the lights go out at night.

    But it oft has the notion
    to bathe nude in the ocean;
    a truly magnificent sight!

    There’s lots of commotion,
    all over the ocean.
    And the “climate scientists” over-hype.

    The fools try us to scare,
    claiming it’s acid in there;
    as they talk down from a great height.

    They say the corals aren’t well,
    the clams are losing their shell,
    and the sharks are losing their bite.

    But their “Science” is as crappy
    as a nine month old’s nappy,
    so they never turn out to be right.

    So confident they’re wrong,
    we can let ourselves be strong,
    and let our dogfish paddle at night.

    181

  • #
    scaper...

    America is a powder keg and it will require only one spark to blow.

    I followed the Bundy affair closely. Bundy had his cattle confiscated by the Feds for allegedly not paying his grazing rates.

    He and the people stood up against the Feds, militia from far and wide were ready to rise. The Feds backed down.

    Only in America…sigh.

    70

    • #

      Maybe, but I had really hoped an idiot conservative with a bromance with Bundy would not start the mess. Especially considering Bundy was nothing but theif and cheat (There was NO allegedly. Bundy clearly admitted he did not pay the fees for 20 years because he didn’t like the government). Guess conservatives are not going to be our salvation either.

      51

      • #
        scaper...

        Bundy also made it quite clear he never received a bill for twenty years. In Australia one does not pay anything without an invoice/bill, doubt it would be different in America.

        Also in Australia, gas drillers can walk onto someone’s land, drill for gas and create saline ponds without the owner’s permission. They do get a pittance in the form of royalties though.

        Don’t think that could happen in America.

        62

        • #

          He never received a bill from anyone he would recognize as being in charge—he was in court over and over and over and ordered to remove the cattle. Are you saying he’s so stupid he can’t comprehend what a court order is? Some here there—below room temperature IQ with a weapon. I suppose next you’ll claim the Americans with Disabilities act should have backed him since he’s so stupid.

          in America, companies can do the same if they own the mineral rights. If you’re too stupid to check that out when you buy the land in America, well, you know what I say about stupid.

          Yes, I am really sorry the world is full of stupid, irresponsible people who jump on bandwagons everywhere. Really, really sorry.

          31

          • #
            scaper...

            below room temperature IQ with a weapon

            Yeah, like the same people who fought the English for the independence of America? Stupid, stupid people.

            Or the same people who signed up to fight the Japanese and Germans in WWII.

            I suppose you are one of those people that want the Second Amendment dropped also.

            Yes, I am really sorry the world is full of stupid, irresponsible people who jump on bandwagons everywhere.

            Bandwagons? Like the sceptical movement???

            62

            • #

              Comparing a lying, thieving jerk to people who were true patriots is flat out disgusting. No, I don’t want the 2nd amendment dropped but if flaming morons like Bundy keep this up, it will happen and the NRA and the conservatives have no one to blame but themselves for backing thieves. Bundy is NOT a patriot, just a self-centered con artist wrapped in the flag of a government he claims not to recognize. Ask yourself if Bundy doesn’t believe in or obay the US government, then why was the idiot carrying an American flag and not the state of Nevada? Virtually everything he said and did was a lie yet his followers still adore him.

              The bandwagon would be the warmist movement and yes, sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference. Skeptics are skeptical only when it’s to their advantage—they are totally blind when it’s not. Your allegiance to Bundy is no different than a warmist to his “god”. You lack facts on the incident and you quite probably would do exactly like a warmest—dismiss all facts that you don’t like to keep Bundy, the theif, your hero. This is not skeptical behaviour—this is blind hero worship just like warmists.

              24

              • #
                scaper...

                I put it to you Sheri, that calling your fellow human beings fools is elitist. You disgust me!

                Don’t worship anything or anyone.

                My point is America is a powder keg and it will take one incident to blow up.

                The reason people have backed Bundy is because they believe an injustice has been perpetrated.

                How is that different to everyone here that believes an injustice has been done to science?

                I see, you only believe in your bandwagon and all others should not be in the race. Yep!

                40

              • #

                So you think warmists are bright, intelligent human beings who just happen to disagree with you? Got it. I’ll watch for your compassion in the future. My disgusting you is a good thing since you are such a lover of all things good and evil. I wear the tag proudly.

                Yes, I know America is a poweder keg and that’s why I don’t like thieves like Bundy acting like patriots to hide thier criminal natures. Starting a war to make a common criminal happy seems, well, foolish. Of course, you see it as caring about America and standing up for what you believe, even if it’s standing up for the right use your neighbor’s backyard because yours isn’t big enough. Neighbor’s not using anyway. You wouldn’t mind. Starting a war to defend someone’s right to use his neighbor’s property for free seems a bit much, but I know, you are compassionate soul. You’d never complain about someone using your yard. No, that would be mean. So a war to stop the greedy land owners from not sharing is a-okay with you.

                People back global warming because they BELIEVE an injustice has been done to the earth. That’s my point. It’s supposedly about facts and data, but even in the skeptic realm, it’s really about what you want to BELIEVE, not what’s real. With global warming, skeptics shout for data and facts. With Bundy, they could care less about facts. They BELIEVE an injustice was done. So we are at a position where nothing is right and everything is right. Skeptics are no more right than warmints because they BELIEVE. And belief is all that counts. Dead end.

                I believe in anyone having a bandwagon—as long as they call it that and fully admit they have no interest in truth, evidence or anything else—they just WANT TO BELIEVE. Otherwise, situational ethics and everyone is right is the logical outcome. I will note that the bandwagon is pretty much all most people have—as noted by the fact that you know virtually nothing about what went on with Bundy yet you think his bandwagon is the one to jump on. How does that make you different in the slightest from the typical warmist who has little understanding of science believing in global warming? It makes you the exactly the same. Not skeptical at all when you have a cause to believe in.

                (Note; My arguments against Bundy are exactly the same kind skeptics use against warmists—I have data that shows what he was doing was illegal, that he was one of half a dozen who did not pay, he has refused to comply with court orders, he lied about ranching there, etc, and I know the rules for grazing permits, etc. Yet, even though I possess far more data than you, my argument is rejected because it is not liked by you. All this tells me is that your dislike of warmists may not be based on evidence and that evidence and data do not count when you don’t want it to. The warmists are certainly right on that one—skeptics do not consider evidence where they do not want to know the truth any more than warmists do consider evidence when they don’t want to know.)

                02

              • #

                Sheri if laws have been broken by other parties involved should they be ignored so only Bundy looks bad?
                Take a look at this list of Bundy’s Neighbours.
                http://www.monacointelligenceservice.com/2014/04/land-grab-harryland.html

                30

              • #

                I don’t understand what the point is. Harry Reid owns land in Nevada. So do millions of other people. Harry’s land had nothing to do with Bundy. Bundy was grazing on Federal land without paying grazing fees—thta’s called ILLEGAL. The link does not mention Harry grazing cattle illegally on the lands, so please explain. It doesn’t say he didn’t buy the land through regular channels. As far as I can see, Harry Reid bought land and so did Clive Bundy’s parents. Again, no big deal. Only the ILLEGAL cattle grazing problem exists with Cliven. That’s the law breaking part.

                00

              • #

                Sheri apart from your name the question began with “if”.

                10

              • #

                Oh, we’re into the hypothetical. Okay, yes, IF any other laws were broken, the persons involved should be prosecuted and not made into folk heroes. (The If did not really go with the link, so it threw me off my game.)

                00

              • #
                Plain Jane

                There is a question whether under the American constitution the Feds have a right to claim that land, or to charge lease money over it. The Feds have generally given up any pretence at abiding by the American Constitution. The bigger question is not whether Bundy is a criminal, but whether the Feds are. Any Federal court orders against him my not be legal either if the issue could be raised in the right place at the right time and perhaps not in front of Judges owned and placed by the Feds.

                If you say the answer to that is that the American Federal government has more guns than the people who support the rights of the home state and can enforce their version of “legality” and that therefore makes the Fed “right” and anyone who defies them “stupid” and “irresponsible” for provoking the Feds to use their brutality (and millions of rounds of Ammo the Feds have stashed recently including the BLM) then my point is made.

                40

              • #

                Maybe there’s a question, and but it’s a good excuse to break the law with impunity. Unless you think we should remove all courts and just shoot the people that get in our way? As for your statement that it’s a bigger question whether the US government is behaving criminally, you just gave the green light to bank robberies if you think the Feds are messing with the system, blowing up buildings on Wall Street if you hate hte stock market, take-overs of any building you think the government should not have—you just endorsed anarchy as a way of life to get even with the government. Yes, Americans are really scary people right now, willing to allow killing and anarchy because it MIGHT be illegal what the government does. Way to enhance everyday life in America—turn it into a war zone like Somalia or the Ukraine. Patriotic to the core.

                The US government is no different than any other government and no different than it was at any time in history. The US government has always had more arms than its citizens—and better ones. You comment is nonsense. I’m not the one who said “Might makes right”—that’s Bundy’s followers who decided to take up arms and “show the government”, which left, so your point is doubly rediculous. If the government has all those guns and power and are so mean and mighty, Bundy would be dead. So, again, you’re point is pointless.

                Again, you have just ENDORSED warmist philosophy—It MIGHT fry the earth if we keep using fossil fuels, so we must stop people at any cost. Please do not criticize warmists for this in the future.

                02

              • #

                Try again: it’s NOT a good excuse

                hte is actually “the” if you have the special type correcting glasses to see it

                00

              • #

                Try again: it’s NOT a good excuse.

                Ok Sheri now that you and i have agreed that Bundy could be given notice of his pending arrest and a chance to turn himself in without a shoot out. Also now that we have agreed that “IF any other laws were broken, the persons involved should be prosecuted and not made into folk heroes”. Do you think that time should also be given to look at the whole picture? Instead of the warmist style “ACT NOW Urgent urgent urgent approach.

                This link IS related and relevant(mitigation area).

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58u03_EM5A4

                Also correct me if I am wrong but the Desert tortoise while being timid and slow would hear a buffalo coming and have time to run to cover. Ooops did I type buffalo? They may have been replaced by a symbyotic surrogate.

                So far we do not agree on the need to lay charges of animal cruelty on the BLM.
                What if Bundy did remove and sell his cattle right now but at the same time replace them head for head with Bison and do it all again?

                30

              • #

                Bundy was notified his cattle would be impounded. He is the one who chose not to allow that happen peacefully.

                Have you ever seen a desert tortoise? Do you have any experience in herpetology? Tortoises do not “run”. They do walk—at .2 mph. I don’t know if that’s fast enough to move out of the way of a buffalo that can run at 40 mph. I guess you can do the math on that. My guess is you have no idea what the tortoise looks like, what habitat it has, etc.

                Bundy cannot replace the cattle with bison—also illegal. The land is NOT his—he does not own it. What part of “DOES NOT OWN” do you not understand? You seem fine with people stealing property for their own use—BLM is PUBLIC land and it belongs to everyone. There are rules and regulations, yes. There are in Central Park, too. So if I decide to raise goats in Central Park and New York objects, you’re all for an armed standoff, it seems. But my relatives might have had claim to that land centuries back and NYC had no right to it. I want it back and you’ll stand with armed to back my right to graze goats in Central Park, right? Get rid of all public land, every last piece and then no one except rich ranchers (like Bundy) will own land. Then see how much access Americans lose to the land owners. (Check out Europe as a template.)

                I will ask again—if someone moved into your back yard and refused to leave, you’d just leave them there, right? No confrontation—heck, they probably had relatives that owned that land before you did. Before I answer any more questions, answer this one or I’ll just keep asking.

                What you and others are saying is we don’t have to obey any laws we don’t like and we can use a gun to stop the enforcement of those laws. Want money out of a bank—take it at gun point. It’s not robbery—the banks should not have all the money. Don’t like the speed limit? Ignore it—pull a gun and gather your friends if someone tries to stop you. Laws can just be ignored if you don’t like them and arming youself is how you make sure that happens. Oh, and carry a flag of the country whose government you don’t recognize. Don’t want to miss that photo op.

                01

              • #

                Sheri
                I have suggested that Bundy is given notice of his pending arrest. How do you twist this into accusing me of letting him get away with it? Do you think corrupt government should be allowed to just get away with it?

                I have suggested this instead of a shoot out. How do you twist that into me supporting the use of guns to solve this problem when the opposite is what i am suggesting?

                I have given you a link to a person with a Kelvin room temperature IQ who has joined the dots yet you still cannot see the bigger picture…Why?
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58u03_EM5A4

                Here is how fast the tortoise can run.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhaNXlmMyTo
                I have grown up amongst cattle farms as neighbours and had a pet tortoise or two. Also noticed they eat things that grow because of the cattle poop.
                Cattle make a big noise on the ground that gives the tortoise plenty of warning especially when they move in fast single file groups along tracks as they do.
                The cattle help the tortoise in another way.

                “The survival of annuals from year to year depends on producing seed. The plant must shoot up as quickly a possible, flower and mature seed before the soil moisture is depleted, a period of about 40 days. The usefull part of the plant to tortoises grows out of reach very quickly. But if a cow comes along and happens to graze a plant of the few species used by the desert tortoise,it will put food on the table for the tortoise.”

                http://www.gardnerfiles.com/Desert%20Tortoise.pdf

                “I will ask again—if someone moved into your back yard and refused to leave, you’d just leave them there, right? No confrontation”
                As an Australian I have little fear that the BLM would move onto my rented property. What would you do if the BLM moved onto yours assuming a river moves to allow this?

                “Bundy cannot replace the cattle with bison—also illegal.”
                Even with a paid up permit for an animal that did cohabit there with the tortoise?

                Surely if either side in that mess are allowed to get away with it the situation will get worse. Both the little and the big criminal need to be taken down and it must be seen by all to have happened to both in proportion the seriousness of the crimes and with a retrospective look at the intent of the grazing fees and federal land ownership.
                Was it Bundy’s intent to break the law or the laws intent to break Bundy?

                10

              • #

                Siliggy:
                Bundy was NOT being arrested. His cattle were being impounded. The only one arrested was his son. His son was warned to stop filming and chose not to.

                I think we have laws for a reason and we should use them. Again, if I think the government is corrupt, can I just arm myself and break all the laws I want because I consider the government corrupt? If the government is corrupt, then fix it through legal channels and elections. Otherwise, what you are advocating is violent action against the government. There are legal terms for that and none have really good outcomes.

                Supporting Bundy is supporting armed resistance. How else can you interpret it? They had guns and were stated to be prepared to shoot. Is there another interpretation. What is your suggestion? Remember, he was NOT being arrested, his cattle were being impounded and he refused to yield to the BLM while armed and threatening. He knew full well why they were coming and he had had 20 years to remove them himself. He chose armed resistance and you’re saying you agree with him, so far as I can see. Explain more clearly if you’re not agreeing.

                I do see the bigger picture. People are cheering a lawless theif who used public land for free for 20 years.

                Compared to a buffalo, the tortoise looks a bit slow. We can argue all day about the benefits or lack thereof for cattle and tortoises. We can argue whether the rancher coming out on ATVs or horseback to check the cattle causes problems. However, it doesn’t matter because this is the law. If people don’t like the ESA, then they would do well to elect those who share the same feelings and get the law changed. My representative is currently working toward this goal.

                I have no fear of the BLM because they don’t take land.

                The BLM is not doing anything criminal here. All of this was put into place by Abraham Lincoln (public land in Nevada) and Richard Nixon (Endangered Species Act). So, no crime on the part of the BLM.
                From the BLM Nevada site:
                “The BLM does not offer much land for sale because of a congressional mandate in 1976 to generally retain these lands in public ownership.” (bolding mine) 1976 Congressional MANDATE–as in the law.

                All evidence is it was Bundy’s intent to use public land for free–just like any other common thief. It’s NOT his land and NEVER was. It was always federal land since Nevada statehood. (Right after the war of northern aggression, of course.)

                I don’t know if he could run buffalo there with a paid up permit or not. Buffalo generally require special electric fencing to keep them in. One ranch wanted to do that here in Wyoming, but hunters objected to the fencing. I imagine the need for the fencing would probably negate the idea. If you could get a group of New Yorkers to demand buffalo reintroduction in parts of Nevada like they did for wolves in Yellowstone, maybe so.

                You are NOT answering my question, you’re evading, so until you do, I’m done. I did not ask about the BLM–I asked if anyone showed up and took up residence on your land. Since you rent, suppose tomorrow your landlord arrived, cancelled your contract and ordered you out immediately. Then you lose all court cases and the sheriff shows up? You just move out, right? Because it’s a private owner, not the government?

                01

            • #
              JohnRMcD

              Yeah, like the same people who fought the English for the independence of America? Stupid, stupid people.

              Another person who studies history teleologically. The American colonists WERE English/British; they just happened to be pissed off that they had no voting rights when they were being taxed by those Houses of Assembly in London. But there needed to be some revenue to pay for the costs of any developed (or developing) society. The problem seemed to be that the arrogant people in those Houses of Assembly could not see any reason why those peons in the colonies should have any rights.
              The colonists had many supporters in Great Britain through all of this.
              Also, some historians report that the colonists/Americans were not best pleased when, after they gained independence, they had to find tax money for “administration” of the colonies.
              On their own dime.
              When ever you write on history, it pays to try to put yourself into the minds of the people at that time; not look backwards with all of your modern mindsets/prejudices.

              120

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Good point.

                At the time of the Boston Tea Party, those involved were actually rebels, and will have seen themselves as such.

                But today, you are not allowed to refer to them as “rebels”, because that epithet is reserved for a later period of history.

                60

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                And of course not ALL of these folks in the colonies were rebels. Those that pledged allegiance to the Empire were called United Empire Loyalists, and vacated their properties to emigrate to Lower Canada.
                My first wife’s family has a leather-bound family history that extends back to the year 1685 when the Duke of Monmouth failed to overthrow James II. One of the participants on the losing side escaped the “Bloody Assizes” and fled to Connecticut. Once there, Henry fathered seven children, and a century later there dozens of descendants.
                Some of them were revolutionaries, but about a third of them sold out lock, stock and barrel, loaded up the wagons, and moved to Prince Edward County in what is now Southern Ontario.
                About twenty years ago I transposed the entire family tree into a Gedcom file and posted it on the net. There were many responses from descendants in both the USA and Canada. I remember one lady in Sheri’s part of the world that was very eager to make contact with us but only until she realised that we were the part of the clan that was UEL. At that stage she posted a seething, snarly letter calling us traitors and cowards.
                So even two hundred years after the revolution, the emotions run unrestrained.

                50

    • #
      Tim

      Nothing at all to do with the Wildlands Project, I guess.

      http://resist21.com/agenda-21/15-2/

      50

  • #
    Manfred

    Granted, one can simply disconnect from “the grid” by throwing away their cell phone. But, the direction these new monitoring technologies are moving coupled with continued government expansion of surveillance suggests that microchip RFID technology will eventually be non-voluntary.

    The Law of Unintended Consequences dictates the development of an ‘industry’ that could:
    1. Provide you with a phone minus the ‘digital bondage’.
    2. ‘Fix’ your phone for you.
    3. Provide you with another alternate phone you use in select circumstances with another ‘digital bondage’ number.

    etcetera.

    And speaking of ‘digital bondage’ there’s a magnificent read to be had from a book entitled, “Let There Be Lite,” written by a genius, Richard Morgan.

    Here, at first hand and written in a most prescient manner, one may see how ‘successful’ the Rectag was.

    “That’s it?” he whispered.
    “This is it, Mr Abrams. I imagine it would be very humiliating for a man like you to be defeated by such a little thing, wouldn’t it? Especially since you would be literally taking it up the butt…”
    His eyes snapped up her way.
    “Told you you wouldnt accept, Mr Abrams,” she laughed. “The state surgically implanted this device in your anal tract? You’d never , ever recover your self-esteem after a defeat like that, would you now?”

    Best of luck to those in the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best-For-Your-Own-Good who reckon they’ve finally nailed The Law of Unintended Consequences.

    80

  • #

    There is a fitting website zunzun that people can use to calculate things like a linear function (which has to be user defined!) to calculate slope and 95% confidence intervals.

    For the UAH data since 2001, the slope comes out to be (0.03±0.06)°C/decade. For the HadCRUT4 data this comes out to (-0.01±0.04)°C/decade.

    For the HadCRUT4 data between 1927 and 1942 it is (0.2±0.05)°C/decade

    There is a pause. or hiatus, cessation, halt, or evidence of an oscillating rather than warming climate.

    122

    • #
      the Griss

      They really ought to progress the name ” Climate Change” (or whatever they are up to now) to “Climate Do-Nothing:-)

      94

      • #
        the Griss

        Or maybe “Climate Stagnation” that sounds a bit scarier. :-)

        113

        • #
          Manfred

          Yep, sure ‘the Griss’, in keeping with the current age of stagnation in which we live, where one central and dominant preoccupation is the weather…..as if there wasn’t anything else more interesting, more challenging, more demanding, more adventurous, more downright sexy, about which we can not only talk about, but actually DO something that takes us out of our skin, our head and the statist orchestrated unsustainable self-absorption with our exhalation by which we are currently and most uselessly preoccupied.

          50

        • #
          tom0mason

          I think you’re right, Climate Stagnation leading to Climate Atrophy, on to Climate Mortification, finally Climate Putrefaction and the end as we know it.

          :)

          50

          • #
            Ceetee

            I believe the absolute correct scientific term is climate change. It’s actually not an emotive term or something that lends ammunition to any political imperative. It’s a statement of fact thats undeniable. We as skeptics should adopt it to underline our objectivism. In other words we reframe the debate and make it ours which is a tactic straight out of their operations manual. At the moment there’s too much of us trying to hit moving targets and not settling on a principled bottom line. Let them carry on trying to put makeup on this pig. The pig will just look ridiculous to more and more people.
            Just as an aside and in ref to previous comments, any reference to New Zealand sheep being sexual beings
            is grossly insulting to our NZ women. I know this because one told me once….

            20

            • #
              the Griss

              The correct scientific term may be “climate change”, but for this century at least, it just hasn’t happened.

              This century so far has been highlighted by CLIMATE NON-CHANGE!

              The thing we have to overcome is the implied “anthropogenic” causation.

              Everybody knows that the climate changes, always has, always will.

              Its the moronic demonization of CO2 as the scapegoat for totally natural changes in climate, which are proving to be minimal at most, that really gets up my nose.

              IMO it is this that we have to fight.

              It is causing hardship for third world countries because they are being denied decent solid reliable power supplies.

              Its is pushing up energy prices and causing pain and suffering for those most vulnerable to those cost rises.

              Its is causing avian devastation and environmental degradation as well as wastes such as biofuels that could help feed the world.

              People need to somehow be woken up to the FACT that at any atmospheric concentration that could ever possibly occur due to release from fossil fuels….

              ….CO2 is ABSOLUTELY BENEFICIAL !!!

              72

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I use the term Climate Variation.

                It is great. When you get somebody in a meeting, says “we need to consider the impacts of climate change”, shifting the wording to climate variation: a) makes it non-anthropogenic; b) avoids any argument over causation; and c) leads to a discussion about adaptation to each new variation.

                This technique comes from risk management. If you have a risk, people will spend hours discussing “treatment strategies”, in the abstract. If you call them potential problems, a person has to be given the responsibility to manage the problem, should it occur. Big difference.

                50

              • #
                Ceetee

                Yes I get all of that and absolutely agree with you but you are kind of missing my point. There is no point us fighting this issue as if our adversaries were reasonable and objective. It amazes me that people quibble about records in a time span that is a fractional blip in the life of this planet. What we see now has happened before which sort of makes a nonsense of their anthropomorphic quasi religious crusade. All I’m saying is that we call it what it is and debate it in a considered rational way. The more we do that the more hysterical they come across. At the moment we are chasing every new preposterous claim they make (see things that cause AGW or things caused by AGW) and it seems to me people are throwing scientific papers at each other like snowballs. We need to settle on our message and stick to it.
                I guess what I’m saying in my usual long winded way is we are too reactionary and not proactive enough. (Jo et al aside)

                40

              • #
                Ceetee

                Damn it Rereke, I posted that before I saw your post which kind of makes it seem as if I were replying to you.
                Like your sentiments about risk management, the alter ego of all public servants maybe?

                20

              • #

                Rereke: I like your method. I’ll have to try that! Currently, I call it “global warming”. If anyone objects, I point out that the bottom line in the science is the idea that the earth is getting warmer due to greenhouse gases. If you take out the GHG and the warming, you have nothing left. Therefore, bottom line, it”s global warming. To say otherwise is to negate the science.

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Sheri,

                Yes, please do try it. Let us know how you get on.

                I started using it with Politicians and senior Public Servants, on the basis that people are familiar with Stock Market Variation, Currency Variation, variation in Public Sentiment, et al. Everybody acknowledges that these things cannot be managed, and can only be manipulated in the short term and at great expense, and therefore must ultimately be responded to.

                But I avoid getting into a debate about the science, because a) Most decision makers are more aligned with Political Science, than they are with Atmospheric Physics, or any other “science”; and b) most decision makers tend to be outcome orientated, and less concerned about causation.

                Decision makers, and especially Politicians, also need to be seen as doing something positive about the current problem, in terms that are acceptable to all sides of the equation. Hand-wringing over tenths of a degree, is not positive.

                40

  • #
    Neville

    Just put this on Jennifer’s site.

    Here is the 2012 Hannah et al SLR study showing four NZ ports. It shows that SLR is 1.7mm a year and thats 17cm by 2114 or 6.8 inches. That’s 14.6 cm by 2100 or 5.8 inches.
    Port Denison (Sydney) has been rising at 1.1mm year from 1940 to 2000. And that’s 11cm by 2114 or 4.4 inches. That’s 9.5cm by 2100 or 3.8 inches.

    Biggggg difference to Gore and Hansen’s 6 metres ( Pearman as well???) or Flannerys 8 metres or ABC Science Guru William’s 100 metres.
    Gore and H estimate is 60 mm a year or about 35 times the current rate. Flannery is about 59 times and ABC’s Robyn Williams is about 588 times the current rate. That’s using the 1.7mm year from NZ study not the 1.1mm year from Sydney.
    But boy have they got some catching up to do. I think the Bolter should ask Robyn back for another interview and find out if he’s changed his mind? Probably not, but that 1000mm a year estimate is a record. Certainly the type of science advisor that’s well suited to advise their ABC.

    Here’s the NZ 2012 study. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JC007591/pdf

    80

    • #
      the Griss

      That is assuming a linear trend.

      Ancient Chinese records seem to show an oscillation which, if real, would mean the SL tops out around mid century or a bit after then starts to drop very slowly (ie like its rising very slowly now.)

      This makes sense with the current slight deceleration as we head up to a turning point.

      44

      • #

        The link would be good. I haven’t got around to looking at it thoroughly yet but the the individual sites on PSMSL seem to also show a jump in sea level between 1945-1965 is common to many sites.

        20

  • #
  • #
    Peter C

    Roy Spencer recently wrote on his blog, “Ten Skeptical Arguments that Don ‘t Hold Water.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/skeptical-arguments-that-dont-hold-water/

    Argument 1.THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Despite the fact that downwelling IR from the sky can be measured, and amounts to a level (~300 W/m2) that can be scarcely be ignored; the neglect of which would totally screw up weather forecast model runs if it was not included; and would lead to VERY cold nights if it didn’t exist; and can be easily measured directly with a handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky (because an IR thermometer measures the IR-induced temperature change of the surface of a thermopile, QED)… Please stop the “no greenhouse effect” stuff. It’s making us skeptics look bad. I’ve blogged on this numerous times…maybe start here.

    Now I am very skeptical about the Greenhouse Effect. So I would like to know the basis of Roy’s contention that down welling amounts to 300W/m2?
    I have an IR thermometer. I pointed it at the clear blue sky and it reads about -15c during the day and -80C after sunset. There is a lot of scattering of sunlight during the day, so that probably accounts for the higher reading during the day. But how does that add up to 300w/m2? How does Roy Spencer measure the down welling infra-red radiation?

    60

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I’ve often wondered the same thing. If it were true, I would be able to capture the energy from a low quality (from a low temperature waste heat source) (CCGT exhaust) and inject it into the combustor.

      I think the answer to your question must be “in his dreams”.

      41

    • #
      tom0mason

      Take a look here http://blog.all-spec.com/2011/12/how-do-ir-thermometers-work-5/ for some basic info on IR thermometers, in particlar note -

      Some IR thermometers are set to always have an emissivity of 0.95. This is a common setting because it covers most non-metallic objects and materials. When using an IR thermometer with set emissivity care must be taken not to use it on shiny surfaces. Polished and shiny surfaces have emissivities closer to 0.1, so using a fixed emissivity IR thermometer will give you a bad measurement. To compensate for this you can put non-shiny tape or paint over the surface and measure that instead. Just wait for the paint or tape to become the same temperature as the object you are measuring.

      So what is the emissivity of the sky? And does it change when cloudy? Also be aware that these devices do not measure the temperature but calculate it.
      They are actually measuring the intensity of the (filtered) IR entering the device through it’s aperture.
      Think of it more like a special light meter than a thermometer.

      40

      • #
        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks tomomason,

          From your reference above:

          Emissivity. All objects reflect, transmit and emit energy. Only the emitted energy indicates the temperature of the object. When IR thermometers measure the surface temperature they sense all three kinds of energy; therefore, all thermometers have to be adjusted to read emitted energy only. Measuring errors are often caused by IR energy being reflected by light sources.

          That confirms my assumption that the higher reading of -15C from a clear blue sky during the day is likely due to reflected or scattered light from the sun. The real emmissions from greenhouse gases are likely very much less ie -80C or less.

          10

          • #
            tom0mason

            The key feature to keep in mind is that IR is nothing more than an arbitrary named band on the EM spectrum. It is an electro-magnetic wave, like radio, visible light, x-rays, etc., and must conform to the same laws.
            And also note that IR is not heat. Heat is the effect of the IR radiation on matter!

            10

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Wikipedia tells us 16.6% of sunlight is scattered into the ground, which would represent 226W/m^2 in the 4um to 25um range at ground level if you just apply that same percentage across the board to TOA irradiance. However that makes the mistake of applying the 16% figure across all wavelengths, whereas most scattering is of visible light and the longer IR wavelengths experience almost no scattering.

            When you say “scattering” you’re talking about Rayleigh scattering (perhaps without knowing it).
            This comment on “The Amazing Case of ‘Back Radiation’ – Part Two” (and the 2nd half of the article above it) explains why the spectral observations show us that the spectrometers are not measuring Rayleigh-scattered sunlight as though they were thermal DLR from the atmosphere. The spectrometer has a small disc to cast a shadow and block out the sun. Rayleigh scattering should bounce shorter wavelengths around the blocking disc a lot more often than it scatters long wavelengths.

            If the “DLR” measurements were really measuring mostly Rayleigh-scattered solar IR, the radiance measured at different wavelengths would be a manifestation of the sharp increase of scattering with shorter wavelength. But instead the measurements show peak emission around 15μm (clustered around CO2/H2O emission lines) and much lower radiance at shorter wavelengths like 7μm, exactly the opposite of the relation which should hold if they were from Rayleigh scattering.

            00

            • #
              Peter C

              Thanks Andrew,

              Science of Doom has not enlightened me a lot. He says measurements of Downwelling Long wave Radiation(DLR) are limited due to the expense of the equipment. He talks about Satellites and Radiosondes, which are apparently a lot more affordable, but not relevant.

              What is needed is a spectrograph, which is capable of measuring LR, on the ground pointing up.

              Then the DLR is estimated or calculated from radiation transfer equations.

              Finally three reference measurements:
              1. DLR is 5% or 10W/m2
              2. DLR at Alice Springs is 250-400W/m2
              3. Waldren in Antarctica measured DLR in mW/m2 using a UD Interferometer (whatever that is).

              So which is a real measurement and how is it measured?

              00

    • #

      The problem that I have with that is the sky bit. It is coming from the atmosphere just above more than from the tropopause. The latter has to be important because it is very dry up there and that makes CO2 punch above its weight.

      10

    • #

      This is from the class I am taking: “So this is a remarkable fact that we’ve emphasized before in this course that on average the surface gets more radiation from the atmosphere, that is from greenhouse gases, and from clouds,
      than it gets directly from the sun. By almost a factor of 2.”

      I still cannot wrap my head around the idea that greenhouse gases would generate/create more radiation than the sun, resulting in the earth getting twice the radiation (back radiation) from the atmosphere than from the sun. I do understand that most of the time this is talking about energy flux, and not net energy and that as such, is more a mathematical creation than reality. I am thinking that’s why all the numbers seem inflated—the energy moves from one object to the other, but there is no net energy change. It’s just an accounting trick to balance the books. At least that’s what it looks like.

      30

      • #
        Peter C

        Astounding Sheri!
        Who is giving this course?

        00

      • #

        It was/is an online course from MIT. The last class was last Wednesday. If I were taking it for a certificate, the final exam is due this Wednesday. It was very math heavy and I had hoped that would help explain things. Not so far. I’m behind in the modules, so maybe later on I’ll get answers. I have all the modules downloaded, plus the .pdf’s of the transcripts so I can reference this in the future.

        00

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Peter,

      Anthony Watts reposted Dr. Spencer’s “Skeptical Arguments That Don’t Hold Water” thread on his (Anthony’s) WUWT blog. In a comment on WUWT, Roy Spencer defined the “greenhouse effect” as:

      “greenhouse effect” specifically refers to the net temperature-increasing effect on the lower atmosphere of IR absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere. If there is a pop culture definition of the term, I’m not referring to that.

      As I see it, Dr. Spencer, and many others, are using “apples” to make arguments about “oranges.” The “apples” part of the argument is “the existence of IR radiation from say clouds in the atmosphere in a downward direction.” The “oranges” part of the argument is “an increase in lower atmosphere temperature.” Note: Although Dr. Spencer did not explicitly so state, I believe in his definition of the “Greenhouse effect” you could substitute “Earth Surface Temperature” for “lower atmosphere” and still represent his position. One must take care when interpreting the words of someone else, but I believe Dr. Spencer’s definition of the “Greenhouse Effect” could be written as:

      “greenhouse effect” specifically refers to the net temperature-increasing effect on the Earth’s surface of IR absorbing/emitting gases in the atmosphere. If there is a pop culture definition of the term, I’m not referring to that.

      The existences of downwelling radiation (“apples”) and temperature rise (“oranges”) do not always go hand-in-hand. In particular, I very strongly believe that situations can be constructed where downwelling radiation and cooler temperatures can exist simultaneously. I know this sounds like an incredulous statement. After all, if the rate of internal energy generation is unchanged, how can the temperature of an object with an internal source of thermal energy (i.e., an active object) not increase if in addition to its own internal source of thermal energy, the active object receives radiation from a nearby inert object (an object without an internal source of thermal energy)?

      The answer is: If the inactive object removes thermal energy (heat) from the active object via heat transfer mechanisms other than radiation (conduction, evaporation/convection) at a rate greater than the inactive object supplies heat to the active object via radiation, then then net effect of the added inert material will be to lower the temperature of the active object. I believe it is possible to create just such a real-world situation. Specifically, consider three situations in the vacuum of cold space: (a) an active isolated sphere, (b) the same active sphere surrounded by an inert (no internal source of thermal energy) concentric larger spherical shell, and (c) the same active sphere/concentric larger spherical shell connected to the active sphere via inert, highly thermally conducting rods. In case (a) there is no downwelling radiation (or radiation of any kind) incident on the active isolated sphere. In case (b) the spherical shell will radiate energy some of which will be directed towards and absorbed by the active solid sphere. Thus, in case (b) downwelling radiation is present. I note that the active object’s (the sphere) surface temperature will be higher for case (b) than for case (c). In case (c) although some of the downwelling radiation is blocked by the connecting rods, if the rods are small enough only a small fraction of the downwelling radiation will be blocked. Thus, in case (c) downwelling radiation to the active sphere exists. I believe it can be shown that with proper (and realistic) parameter choices for the active sphere, the concentric spherical shell, and the thermally conducting rods, the temperature of the active sphere in case (c) will be less than the temperature of the active sphere in case (a). Case (c) represents a situation where downwelling radiation exists simultaneously with cooler sphere surface temperature.

      Bottom line, the existence of downwelling radiation is by itself insufficient to argue for increased temperature.

      Now it’s true that there are no “highly thermally conducting rods” joining the lower Earth atmosphere to the higher Earth atmosphere. Furthermore, as I understand it, atmospheric thermal conduction cannot transfer energy from the lower atmosphere to the atmosphere at a rate sufficient to produce a cooler Earth surface temperature. However, the water cycle (surface evaporation, convection to higher altitudes, condensation, and return to the Earth’s surface via precipitation) is present for the Earth/Earth-atmosphere system. This cycle is the basis on which evaporative air conditioners cool objects in the vicinity of the process of evaporation. I don’t have an opinion (one way or the other) as to whether such a process will remove heat from the Earth’s surface at a rate greater than the Earth’s surface receives downwelling radiation. However, I will come to accept the “No greenhouse effect” argument, only when and if it can be shown that the net effect of all heat transfer mechanisms is positive in the sense that the temperature of the Earth’s surface will be increased. This may very well be the case. But Dr. Spencer’s argument as presented in his thread that the existence of downwelling radiation implies warmer temperatures does not convince me.

      FYI. About a week ago I sent Dr. Spencer an email voicing the above concerns. In addition, I sent him a paper numerically characterizing the sphere/shell/rod situation. If I did the calculations correctly, using real-world values I showed the temperature of the active sphere would be lowered in the presence of a spherical shell (which cause downwelling radiation) and thermally conducting rods. As of today, Dr. Spencer has not responded to my email.

      20

      • #
        Reed Coray

        I noticed a typo in my reply. Specifically, I wrote:

        Thus, in case (b) downwelling radiation is present. I note that the active object’s (the sphere) surface temperature will be higher for case (b) than for case (c).

        That sentence should read: Thus, in case (b) downwelling radiation is present. I note that the active object’s (the sphere) surface temperature will be higher for case (b) than for case (a).

        00

      • #

        There is no doubt that the presence of IR absorbing gases in the atmosphere have some insulating effect. All else being equal, a humid place will have lower maximum temperatures and higher minimum temperatures than a dryer place. You can’t find to places that are exactly the same except for humidity but Alice Springs and Rockhampton are a good pair for comparison. Their winter averages are similar because while AS minima are lower, it warms up more during the day.

        Quantifying the insulating effect is where things get dodgy, especially when its the extra heat that comes from the atmosphere being twice as much as from the Sun.

        00

        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks Vic,

          Not only does the humid place have a lower maximum and a higher minimum temperature than the drier place, but the average temperature is lower in the humid place.

          Both Carl Brehmer and Doug Cotton have done comparative studies of wet and dry sites. In every case the wet environment has a lower average temperature. Of course that includes the whole hydrological cycle, not just water vapour.

          Carl has also done studies at one site comparing humid with dry days and once again the humid days are cooler on average, not just lower maximum.

          Does the presence of IR absorbing gases in the atmosphere have some insulating effect? I am not sure, but I suspect not. It does seem to be an axiom of climate science that IR absorbing gases in the atmosphere have an insulating effect, even though the evidence seems to point the other way.
          Try Googling: “The greenhouse effect explored – Carl Brehmer”

          10

          • #

            It is supposed to insulate heat coming from the Sun as well as leaving the surface.

            Just as an example, if some wavelengths of IR from a surface are absorbed within 2 m rather than 10 m of the surface because of higher humidity, than it should be warmer near the surface. There is a lot more happening so its not that simple but just highlights GH gasses must do something. What it does to the mean global temperature, whatever that is, is a different kettle of fish.

            00

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks Reed,

        Your sphere analogy sounds a lot like Wills Eschenbach’s Steel Greenhouse. I believe that Willis has conceded that the steel shell will only impede heat flow from the inner sphere to cold space if it is thermally isolated.

        Maybe the atmosphere does have connecting rods in the form of vertical air currents eg thermals, Hadley cells etc. Also the evaporation of water at the surface and the condensation into clouds at altitude acts as a heat pump. Jo had a beautiful picture of a Queensland Cumulonimbus cloud on the weekend unthreaded recently, which shows the pump working in a very dramatic form.

        Your mentioned some calculations, which I would be interested to read if you could put them up somehow.

        Email coming your way Peter – Jo

        20

        • #
          Reed Coray

          My analogy is a lot like Willis Eschenbach’s Steel Greenhouse. I would very much like to send you a copy of the paper I wrote that attempts to demonstrate the simultaneous existence of backradiation to an active object and cooler active object surface temperatures. I suggest the following. Below I make a statement giving Jo and/or Jo’s moderator permission to send you my email address.

          Jo Nova and/or Jo Nova’s blog moderator. I hereby give you permission and request that you send to Peter C. my email address.

          [Reed, your email has been sent to Peter C, so you both can get in touch. I'm happy for you to discuss it in comments too - Jo]

          30

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Boy, talk about the change of meaning by adding an extra word. In my lengthy comment I wrote:

        However, I will come to accept the “No greenhouse effect” argument, only when and if it can be shown that the net effect of all heat transfer mechanisms is positive in the sense that the temperature of the Earth’s surface will be increased.

        The word “No” should have been deleted. Dr. Spencer says the “No Greenhouse Effect” is wrong. I believe his arguments for the “Greenhouse Effect” do not make a valid case that the “No Greenhouse Effect” argument is wrong. What I meant to write is:

        However, I will come to accept the existence of a “greenhouse effect” only when and if it can be shown that the net effect of all heat transfer mechanisms is positive in the sense that the temperature of the Earth’s surface will be increased.

        20

      • #
        tom0mason

        Just one small detail

        Specifically, consider three situations in the vacuum of cold space

        A vacuum, and tus space, has no temperature as there is no matter to interact with the IR radiation. The background that space has been given, as left-over from the big bang, is the level of radiative engergy and not the ‘temperature’.

        If this were not true your thermos, or vacuum flask could not work.

        10

  • #
    pat

    isn’t it possible the following is a false narrative? not a mention of Climategate, which could also account for Rudd’s erratic behaviour & voters turning away from Labor. the true import of Climategate has never been acknowledged by the MSM:

    9 May: Age: Philip Chubb: The day the Rudd government lost its way on climate change
    After the disaster of the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December 2009, Kevin Rudd suddenly shifted his focus to hospital reform – but his failure to deal with the fall-out for his signature climate policy was to prove fatal to his leadership…
    The parliamentary secretary for climate change in the Gillard government, Mark Dreyfus, spoke for many members of the ALP when he said, “I thought, where the hell is this government going? We’re a Labor government, we’re meant to be here doing progressive things. I’m impatient. It’s a short time in power and there’s a lot to get done. So when you’ve nearly got there, not to press on with things is, to me, unforgivable, and we didn’t press on.”
    While the public did not see the behind-the-scenes dismay, the reaction among voters who had trusted Rudd to deliver on his promise to act on climate change was similar. The overwhelming response was profound shock. It seemed as though an entire country had fallen silent in disbelief.
    The polls told part of the story. A Newspoll on 4 May concluded the government had lost a million supporters in a fortnight…
    http://www.theage.com.au/insight/the-day-the-rudd-government-lost-its-way-on-climate-change-20140509-zr7fm.html

    20

    • #
      the Griss

      “we’re meant to be here doing progressive things. ”

      Then why the **** is everything they and the Greens touch so darn REGRESSIVE and anti-progress.!

      They say that they aim one way, yet always end up shooting in the other direction…. DOH !!

      No wonder their policies never could hit a barn door !

      41

      • #
        Andrew

        The 13th century called – they want their energy policy cleaned before the “progressives” return it.

        30

      • #
        Eddie

        Don’t people who feel the need to talk progressive tend to think the most retarded ?

        20

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Greens are not progressive. Societal progression is the opposite of what they aspire to. Less industry, less jobs and less people are their core values which makes their alignment with Labour that much more bizarre. The fact that unions have also completely forgotten and or abandoned their purpose to get in bed with the Greens is just another indictment of the way modern left groups have utterly lost their purpose and their way. Rudd didn’t start it, but he sure threw plenty of the fuel on the fire in his efforts to work out what was popular rather than what he stood for.

        21

    • #
      Tim

      “It’s a short time in power and there’s a lot to get done.”

      And a lot of our money to spend before the next guys try to save the country from going down the gurgler with American-style deficit-Armageddon. Haven’t they learnt anything from the Whitlam years? Same agenda; same madness.

      30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I am convinced that there is something noxious in the Canberra water supply, that makes people think strange thoughts, and see strange visions.

        20

        • #
          ROM

          I have said it before elsewhere;

          Australia’s biggest mistake was to establish Canberra as the permanent site for the Federal government.

          If the founding fathers in 1901 had left that critical paragraph out of the Constitution Act or even before the site had been selected

          “1902 1908
          The search for a site for the national capital took place. Forty districts were proposed, 23 of these inspected and the choice narrowed to seven. Albury, Bombala, Lake George, Lyndhurst, Tumut, Dalgety and Yass-Canberra were all examined with regard to adequate water supply, climate and landform suitable for the building of a ‘garden city’ Finally in 1908 the Yass – Canberra area was selected as it best filled these requirements, and 2368 km2 were set aside as the Australian Capital Territory, with access to the sea at Jervis Bay.”

          And decided on;

          “Charles Scrivener, Surveyor-General selected the most suitable area of the territory for construction of the city. He chose the broad flood-plain of the Molonglo River, 550 metres above sea-level with additional land to the north and south including two lines of hills on the north side rising 300 metres above the plain and low undulations adding attractive variety to the southern area.”

          A policy of shifting the Federal Parliament to a different State’s Capital city say each generation or 25 years then we would have seen  a whole different Australia and quite possibly a better one economically , socially and Federal Government policy wise as well as bureacratic policy implementation to the one we have today.

          The bureaucracy now running into it’s third or fourth generation of Canberra based bureaucrats whose families and personal experiences know little of the world outside of Canberra or how that world operates in real life and the impact that naive and stupid policies emanating from those same Canberra bureaucrats have on business, commerce and personal lives.
          With fresh and new blood and ideas in the bureaucracy not following policy prescriptions from another era but policies emanating from a new perspective arising from a completely different state perspective would have been regularly overturned and renewed as fresh ideas and fresh thinking seen from a totally different perspective remote from any long term Canberra centralised bureacratically inspired policies would have become a part of the new relocated Federal Parliament.

          Plus the big lift in infrastructure spending in both the host State and Capital of the host State.
          And the feeling of both importance to the nation and the access to power and feeling of belonging to the nation of Australia for many of the hosts citizens. And quite possibly a deeper respect for Parliament and the politicals as they would be forced to take a much closer account of the local politics.

          As is said “All politics are local”

          If Australia had followed the Federal Parliamentary shift pattern say at once a generation ; ie 25 years , each of these shifts actually seem to fit in with the importance of the role each state has so far played in Australia’s national economy at that period

          Melbourne in 1901
          Say to;
          Sydney in 1925
          to
          Brisbane in 1950
          to
          Adelaide in 1975
          to
          Perth in 2000.

          Then to Darwin or maybe even Alice Springs in 2025

          And finally down to Hobart in 2050 before resuming the rotation again in Melbourne in 2075.

          The spreading of the development to those states of lesser economic and political impact would have had a very beneficial effects on the whole of Australia’s political psyche, it’s economic development and it’s infrastructure needs as well as rejuvenating both politics and policy creation and possibly breaking up some of the now apparently rigid political party structure where like most modern democracies the party political structures have become quite fixed and rigid with little room for new parties and policies to emerge.

          We may even have seen the emergence of a couple of new states in say Kimberely, Carpentaria and Centralia .
          Who knows because it didn’t happen!

          Sometimes it’s nice to dream of what might have been

          And sometimes when one speaks of those dreams it will make others also think and look at new alternatives and who knows what may come of that?

          10

          • #
            Tim

            I’m no town-planner, but it seems strange that anyone would build a city chock full of eucalypts in a bushfire-prone area. Or design confusing ring-roads to fool visitors. Or waste water in a man-made lake where droughts are prevalent.

            00

            • #
              ROM

              The idealism of a raw new nation Tim, and the appointment of a very prominent and famous even then American Landscape town planner Walter Burley Griffin who probably didn’t have a clue about Bushfires of droughts being from Chicago in 1910.

              And who out of the local country bumpkins from this new and swparsely settled nation in the famous Walter Burley Griffin’s view would or could have argued with his designs for Canberra.

              Not much has changed in politics or politicians and the laws laid down since the time of Ur of the Chaldeans followed by The Codes Of Hammarubi all of some 4000 years ago.

              Hammurabi was not the first ruler in the Middle East to write down laws. Dominique Charpin, a professor at École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris, writes in his book “Writing, Law and Kingship in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia” (University of Chicago Press, 2010) that scholars know of the existence of three law codes, set down by kings, that preceded Hammurabi.

              The oldest was written by Ur-Nammu, a king of Ur, who reigned 2111-2094 B.C., about three centuries before Hammurabi. “These older codes obviously inspired that of Hammurabi,” Charpin writes.

              00

  • #
    pat

    an obviously insecure Ward feeles “secure”:

    11 May: UK Independent: Ian Johnston: Nigel Lawson’s climate-change denial charity ‘intimidated’ environmental expert
    Academic claims that the former chancellor’s foundation complained to his employer.
    A think-tank that has become the UK’s most prominent source of climate-change denial is embroiled in a row about its charitable status. There are also claims that one of its trustees tried to exact “retribution” on the person who complained about it to the charities watchdog…
    In his submission to the commissioners, Bob Ward, policy director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the “continual activity has damaged the public interest” and was a breach of the rules governing charities…
    Mr Ward, well known for his attempts to hold climate-change deniers to account, said he had submitted the complaint in a private capacity. But he revealed that a trustee of GWPF had written to his employer, the London School of Economics, earlier this year accusing him of making “unacceptable”, “ill-informed” and “ranting” comments in the media about global warming and energy policies despite not being an academic.
    In one letter, the trustee said the LSE should be aware that a “distinguished Oxford scientist” had told him: “It’s appalling that the LSE employs people like Bob Ward.” The trustee, whose identity Mr Ward requested be kept anonymous, did not mention his own link to the GWPF…
    “This is the way in which the foundation goes about its business, trying to intimidate its opponents into silence,” he told The Independent on Sunday. “For someone in a less secure position than [me], this could be extremely damaging.”…
    The Charity Commission said that Mr Ward’s complaint was still an active case.
    “The commission has been engaging with the trustees of the charity [GWPF] since we received a complaint relating to some of its statements and published material,” it said.
    “We advised the trustees that we did not consider that all the contents of the website advanced education, as required of a charity. In addition, we had raised a question with the trustees about whether all the content of the website was in line with our guidance on campaigning and political activity by charities.”…
    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/nigel-lawsons-climatechange-denial-charity-intimidated-environmental-expert-9350069.html

    comment by Leslie Graham:
    At what point does deliberately spreading lies about climate change to protect the short term profits of the carbon corporations become a criminal offence?
    Freedom of speech does not extend to shouting “There is NO FIRE!” in a theatre that is rapidly filling with smoke.
    I hope I live long enough to see such repellant individuals stand trial.

    20

  • #
    pat

    10 May: NYT: Coral Davenport: Brothers Battle Climate Change on Two Fronts
    Today the work of Robert and William Nordhaus is profoundly shaping how the United States and other nations take on global warming…
    Bill Nordhaus, 72, a Yale economist who is seen as a leading contender for a Nobel Prize, came up with the idea of a carbon tax and effectively invented the economics of climate change. Bob, 77, a prominent Washington energy lawyer, wrote an obscure provision in the Clean Air Act of 1970 that is now the legal basis for a landmark climate change regulation, to be unveiled by the White House next month, that could close hundreds of coal-fired power plants and define President Obama’s environmental legacy.
    Called the Manning brothers of climate change, the mild-mannered, dry-witted Nordhauses are scions of a New Mexico family long rooted in the land, which powerfully shaped who the brothers became…
    “I tend to have lots of crazy ideas, and I run them by Bob first,” Bill said by phone from the Acela train between Boston and New Haven, Conn. He described himself as “an academic economist” who has stayed out of policy debates, although his ideas have not.
    Bob agreed. “Bill’s work is about what needs to be done and how soon, using the tools of economic analysis,” he said over a recent lunch in Washington. “My work is: How do you convert that into a legal and regulatory policy?”
    The two have a friendly rivalry, but both believe that cutting carbon pollution is crucial to protecting the environment and the economy from the risks posed by climate change. They also agree on the best way to do it: A Bill-style carbon tax, they say, would be far more effective and efficient than a Bob-style regulation…
    In the ensuing decades at Yale, Bill developed an economic model that put a price tag on the effects of climate change, like more droughts, flooding and crop failures and stronger hurricanes. He called it the Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy model, or DICE…
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/us/brothers-work-different-angles-in-taking-on-climate-change.html?_r=0

    20

  • #
    tom0mason

    Tallbloke Talkshop has a good piece about the battle that go on to make the IPCC Summary for Policymakers document. Yes, it’s all horse trading and one-up-manship all the way.

    John Broome of Oxford University, had a little more luck with a discussion about the ethics of climate change. “Late one evening,” he writes, “the delegates formed a huddle in the corner, trying to agree text between themselves…Eventually, we [authors] were presented with a few sentences that, we were told, the developed countries would reject, and an alternative few sentences that, we were told, the developing countries would reject. We were also told that, if we simply left out the text, the developing countries would delete the whole paragraph and the previous one which would in turn cause the developed countries to delete the whole section…We counter-threatened…Eventually some brief paragraphs [survived], badly mauled and their content much diminished but not entirely empty.” He describes himself as “angry at the deletions and astonished by the process”.

    Science be damned you gotta pay!

    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/ipcc-summary-for-policymakers-is-re-written-by-policymakers/comment-page-1/#comment-77927

    30

  • #
    David Wood

    I continue to be amazed that otherwise sensible people continue to ‘believe’, and I think that is really the operative word, in the “radiative greenhouse effect”. The model on which it is based is totally unrealistic, involving a static earth surrounded on all sides by a cold sun. Cold heats hot!! sounds like a perpetual motion machine or the alchemist’s dream of turning lead into gold.

    22

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Hi, I’m the Geoff who took the photo & I’m happy to answer questions.

    Taken about 1998 on film using a Nikon F4-S camera, Fuji Velvia ISO 100 and a 135 mm Nikkor f 2.8 Macro lens at normal sunlight settings. Trannie image scanned on a dedicated Polaroid Sprint Scan 35 at 2,700 dpi.

    Location roughly 80 km NNW of Melbourne, East of Kyneton IIRC. There had been good rain and the grass was lush green.
    I used a Corel Draw filter that simulates a coarse oil paint method, not very well. Yes, I believe the boulders are granite, they sure look like it from a distance. It is sheep country.

    I had not realised that people were commenting on the image. I sent some to Jo that had been cropped down to simulate a panorama view. The original TIF files would have been about 3-5 MB each, I think. JPG is an unfortunate necessity for the email age.

    50

    • #
      Annie

      I like your photo Geoff. I’ve been enjoying similar countryside around Yea and Seymour in Victoria. There are some huge granite boulders in that area.

      10

  • #
    Ceetee

    tom0mason, your post neatly puts Jo’s previous article into perspective. I don’t like this brave new world of the lowest common denominator, where ethics are muzzled and good people sell their ideals to the highest bidder. The world is crying out for honest people in positions of power and authority who will stand and fall on their promises. If the IPCC is just a series of back room deals then every citizen of every self respecting country should be outraged. I often wonder if some time in the future there is a class action in all of this.

    20

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    I want to know if our Avatars were random, or hand picked by Joe. They really suit some people.

    10

  • #
    James McCown

    And yet another example of warmists refusing to debate/discuss the issue of AGW. The Brookings Institution, a well-known Washington-based think tank, now has a blog called Planet Policy: The Intersection of Energy and Climate Policy. They recently published this article by Claire Langley, one of their research associates, entitled Five Key Takeaways from the United States National Climate Assessment.

    In the article, Claire claims “Human activities are the primary cause of warming over the past 50 years. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40 percent since the industrial revolution, through the burning of fossil fuels and continued deforestation.”

    So, I tried posting a comment on that blog post, something to the effect of: “There has been no increase in global average temperatures for the past 16 years, in spite of a steady increase in the concentration of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, how can you claim that CO2 is responsible for warming?” Whoever is moderating that site refused to approve my comment!

    Are Claire or the moderator(s) afraid to discuss the issue?

    20

    • #
      tom0mason

      And do not forget that the warmist rely on CO2 staying in the atmosphere for some considerable time (centuries?). This is of course just speculation on their part and has no verified data behind it.

      20

      • #

        Most places say 100 years. I still have no idea where they got the number from, however.

        http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html would indicate it can last as long is politically expedient. Actually, no one really knows. Plus, if it goes into the ocean, that changes everything. It’s just all so complicated. :(

        10

        • #
          tom0mason

          I’ve questioned this on and of for years and no one has a logical or scientific reason that will stand inspection. It is just an assumption and one I’m sure is very, very wide of the mark.

          The other little nark I have is that as CO2 levels have risen, global humidity has declined slightly. I wonder if nature is asserting itself in correcting the energy balance.

          10

          • #

            It is very suspicious that the one gas, CO2, that is put into the air by the evil fossil fuels happens to be the one with the purported longest life (or unknown life span) in the atmosphere, far longer than any other GHG. The range of answers runs from 20 years to whatever number is needed. Coincidentally, it’s also, at .04%, the most influential GHG. Of course, H2O is the strongest and most powerful, but CO2 is the David of David and Goliath. And coincidentally, the one that comes from evil fossil fuels.

            I think I would call it nature handling the CO2. Correcting the energy balance seems mostly a mathematical or accounting term. Nature tends toward the center on most things, but ice ages and hot houses seem to indicate that nature does not consider 15C as the only acceptable temperature on earth. It’s also true that humans are quite adaptable so the 15C loses out there, too.

            Most interesting to me is that many sources say we can NEVER decrease the CO2 unless we stop ALL fossil fuel burning due to the life span of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then SkS and other places say, no, no, we can just cut it back. If this is all so well-understood, why is one “doctor” recommending complete amputation of limbs and others only taking a hand or a foot. We probably need to check that one out.

            10

    • #
      James McCown

      OOOPS! Turns out my comment was approved. Probably just a delay over the weekend. I apologize to Claire Langley and Brookings for the rush to judgement.

      00

  • #
    MikeInToronto

    It is well known that the Warmist crowd have challenges when sorting out “correlation is not causation” and see warming patterns correlated with human activity everywhere.

    To help them out and in the name of science, readers may enjoy this site that has a number of charts showing spurious correlations. My favourite is “the total US crude oil imports” correlates with “the per capita consumption of chicken”. (I know there is a cause and effect in there somewhere.)

    http://www.businessinsider.com/spurious-correlations-by-tyler-vigen-2014-5

    10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Jo,
    remember that report that says that increased CO2 will cause wheat protien to fall by a massive 2% well…

    New study finds elevated CO2 can increase grain protein yields ~16%
    Recent alarmist headlines from the IPCC and about a new study published in Nature have suggested that elevated CO2 concentrations will decrease crop protein yields [by a whopping 2%] in the future. However, a recent study notes that far from a dire situation, elevated CO2 did increase both grain yields and grain protein by 16% if the crops are grown with high-nitrogen fertilizer instead of low-nitrogen fertilizer. The authors also suggest plant breeding could eliminate the need for additional nitrogen in elevated CO2 environments.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-study-finds-elevated-co2-can.html

    00

    • #
      the Griss

      Yep, If a plant is growing twice as fast, it needs more trace nutrients. Basic common sense.

      And nitrogen is a major constituent of protein molecules in the form of amino groups.

      21

  • #
    tom0mason

    Remember the drought. Oh, the drought of Flannery…
    Well Paul Homewood has been doing a little digging -

    Remember the claims a few years ago about “record droughts” in Australia? And claims by Tim Flannery that “climate change will impact on Australia to the point where Sydney can expect to receive 60 per cent less rainfall than it does at present.”

    According to Wiki:

    The 2000s drought in Australia, also known as the Millennium drought, is said by some to be the worst recorded since settlement.

    As we know, since then Australia has had more than its fair share of rain, and I don’t want to dwell on this. Instead, though, I want to concentrate on the longer term rainfall trends there.

    More at -

    http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/05/11/australias-droughts-decreasing-contrary-to-warmists-claims/

    10

  • #
    James McCown

    Some of you outside the USA may be unfamiliar with Senator Marco Rubio, Republican from Florida. He may run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

    Listen to his thoughts concerning AGW from an interview by the American news network ABC:

    Video

    The AGW question starts at about 5:30.

    10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    In my Sunday paper there’s a column called, Ask Marilyn. Today’s question is, “Do wind farms affect weather, at least locally?”

    I’d never given this a thought before. The column is copyrighted so I’ll just quote the relevent part of the answer (no sources are cited):

    She says, “Yes, and the more wide spread they become the more these changes will go beyond the immediate area.”

    She lists ground warming (global warming???) and drying as something already known and leaves it implied that the future will reveal other affects on the area around the wind farm. She ends with the statement that improved engineering can’t change, “…the fact that the machines remove energy from the wind, and this will have an impact on the weather and ultimately the climate.

    I’m wondering where Marilyn gets her information. But it struck me as ironic that maybe these machines that are supposed to protect us from climate change might change the climate themselves.

    I wonder who will have the last laugh. ;-)

    50

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Roy,

      The principle is simple. Energy can only be in the one place at one point in time. If you are getting energy from the wind, you are must be removing energy from the wind itself. This must affect local weather patterns.

      Wind Power does effect climate change, but only in a bad way.

      30

    • #

      Ground warming is not the same as global warming, though proper placement of themometers could certainly benefit the “world is warming” crowd. This has been known for at least 2 or 3 years. There were articles in science magazines. The wind people just say it’s a “local” effect, so it doesn’t matter. They first started detecting this in Iowa if I remember right. In spite of the reality that wind plants increase ground temperature, proponents either do not care or claim it’s less hazardous than CO2 (which is very powerful, long lasting and totally evil—or something like that).

      Here’s one source: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-farms-temperature-region.html and another http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/tx-wind-farm.html

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Our results show a significant warming trend of up to 0.72 degree per decade…

        Sounds worse than CO2 ever did. It seems we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. So let’s don’t! :-)

        20

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Sheri,

          I went back and read the two articles you provided again. It strikes me as almost comical that with so much of the viable area where wind is constant enough and strong enough to make wind turbans work, it’s still only a paltry 2.9% of U.S. energy consumption and they still insist that,

          “Wind power is going to be a part of the solution to the climate change, air pollution and energy security problems…

          The only thing this looks like securing at the moment is energy scarcity, a landscape full of eyesores and a legacy of pollution from manufacturing the magnets that will make our Superfund sites look tame by comparison.

          I was certainly aware that these things take energy out of the wind. But I hadn’t considered the possibility of temperature change, just local reduction in velocity. But if heating is going on then the air near the takeoff end of the runways at busy airports should show the same effects but probably less pronounced. Airplane wings are airfoils like the blades of a wind turban and create the same identical turbulence and for the same reason. And it’s the turbulence that can produce heat, along with any friction against the surface of the airfoil. Straight kinetic energy taken from the wind and transferred to the turban isn’t going to create any heat.

          They need to put winglets — you see them on most modern airliners at the wingtips — on the turban blade tips to reduce the downstream turbulence, which comes from the same action of air rushing around the end of the wing or blade from the higher pressure side to the lower pressure side. The aircraft in the picture looks like a crop duster and flies low enough to let a red smoke flare put in the right place make the wake of it’s right wing easily visible. If such a flare were placed in the right place upwind of the wind turban it would show off the identical “wake” of the blades. It would need to generate a lot more smoke I suspect. But the show would be as spectacular.

          00

  • #
    pat

    madness…

    12 May: SMH: Lisa Cox/Tom Arup: Landfills set to pocket millions from carbon tax repeal
    There’s money in rubbish, big money – $200 million that won’t have to be paid because of the repeal of the carbon tax.
    A backroom negotiation is playing out between industry and the federal government over the windfalls that private landfill companies and some councils are set to reap if the carbon tax is axed…
    The key industry association for tip operators has put a proposal to the government to spend a fraction of the windfall – $10 million to $20 million – on international carbon credits and pocket most of the remainder.
    Environment Minister Greg Hunt, who intends to replace the carbon tax with his Direct Action climate policy, would rather the money was spent on domestic climate action or returned to consumers – in this case ratepayers, and customers of major supermarkets such as Woolworths and Coles…
    If it is agreed to it would mean a retreat from the government’s policy not to allow the purchase of foreign carbon credits to contribute towards Australia’s promised 5 per cent cut to emissions on 2000 levels by 2020.
    The Australian Landfill Owners Association says Mr Hunt is urging it to offer a higher price of five times the amount of international credits it has put forward. That would gift the government about a quarter of its 5 per cent emissions reduction target…
    The landfill owners association is offering to buy 20 million tonnes in carbon emission reductions on the international market to cover its carbon tax liability for 2012-13 and 2013-14.
    The Australian Local Government Association, which represents about 40 affected councils, wants to keep the money to buy technologies to reduce local emissions….
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/landfills-set-to-pocket-millions-from-carbon-tax-repeal-20140511-zr8bx.html

    10

  • #
    warcroft

    Oops. Fine print in Obama’s climate report breaks from warmist narrative — Admits no trends in droughts, storms, tornadoes and hail!

    Share the facts from Marc Morano at Climate Depot: http://www.climatedepot.com/

    After cranking up the fear of increasing droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes, the report offers some little disclaimers admitting to unsettled science: But the fine print that few will ever read acknowledges the real uncertainties of something as complex as the planet’s atmosphere.

    “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900,” the authors observe. We also learn that “trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively.”

    Climate Depot response: ‘Despite all the hype, the fine print of the report contradicts the meme of climate change is happening here and now. In reality, even the fine print is spinning the data, as on 50-100 year time scales, extreme weather trends show no trend or even declining trends. The fawning global warming enamored media will ignore this.’

    30

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Once again the Emperor has no clothes on. And no body call him on it, even though his own report on climate change says there’s nothing wrong.

      I’ve always said it’s political. Science hasn’t a thing to do with it. It never has.

      30

  • #
    pat

    12 May: Australian: Staff Reporter: Aussies prefer carbon price over deficit levy: poll
    A new poll shows the majority of Australians would prefer to keep the existing carbon price rather than introduce a deficit tax.
    When asked ‘Which of the following revenue raising policies do you support most – The proposed deficit levy on high income earners or a price on carbon for companies with high emissions?’, 52.5% said the price on carbon, 34% said the deficit levy, and 13.5% were undecided.
    The ReachTEL poll (attached) surveyed 3,241 residents across Australia on the night of the 8 May 2014.
    “The carbon price has long-term benefits for our nation and Australians can see that,” said WWF-Australia Climate Change National Manager Kellie Caught.
    “Not only does the carbon price raise revenue for the budget, it tackles climate change by making polluters pay, drives investment in renewable energy, and helps save the Great Barrier Reef.”
    “Both measures raise revenue but a deficit levy causes pain without the environmental gain…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/latest/aussies-prefer-carbon-price-over-deficit-levy-poll/story-e6frg90f-1226914166691

    00

  • #
    pat

    12 May: The Conversation: David Holmes: Australia does have a budget emergency – it is all about carbon
    (David Holmes: Senior Lecturer, Communications and Media Studies at Monash University)
    A new book released today, Power Failure: The Inside story of climate politics under Rudd and Gillard, documents the failings of the Labor government between 2007 and 2013 in tackling climate change.
    Written by my colleague Philip Chubb, Head of Journalism at the School of Media, Film and Journalism at Monash University, Power Failure puts in perspective the politically “wicked” problem of climate change and the missed opportunities that Australia has had to implement policies that measure up to its global share of responsibility…
    Failing to achieve these cuts will make Australia, one of the wealthiest per capita countries in the world, a pariah state over climate in the eyes of future generations.
    Instead, the current government is obsessing over a financial budget, and declaring a budget emergency in a week where it was up to Clive Palmer to cut through the ideological games…
    In an economy where the only budget that we should be worrying about is the carbon budget, it is truly terrifying to see that the only political actor making any sense is a coal miner.
    (Power Failure: The inside story of climate politics under Rudd and Gillard will be launched this Wednesday by Professor Ross Garnaut in Melbourne)
    http://theconversation.com/australia-does-have-a-budget-emergency-it-is-all-about-carbon-26559

    12 May: The Monthly: Philip Chubb: Power Failure
    (Philip Chubb: Head of Journalism at Monash University.)
    http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/philip-chubb/2014/05/12/1399860108/power-failure

    10

    • #
      handjive

      The irony is disturbingly amusing.

      The last dark deed of the Howard Government was the passage of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act in October 2007.
      That act is the auditing basis of the carbon tax.

      Mr Howard’s plan was to get the auditing system bedded down, then start taxing.
      Labor’s carbon tax would be a couple of years behind schedule if Mr Howard had not laid the bureaucratic foundations for it.
      ~ ~ ~
      Rudd’s early decision to abolish cabinet’s climate change subcommittee and make climate his own personal crusade proved disastrous as he became disengaged from it.”

      “. . . the book maps out the great fall of Labor from the “greatest moral challenge of our time” moment to abandoning any meaningful leadership over the problem.”
      . . .
      The ‘deniers’ created the opportunity, and the ‘believers’ walked away.

      10

  • #
    pat

    the CAGW circus comes to Jakarta…with trillions in sight:

    12 May: Reuters: Bruno Vander Velde: Funds plentiful, but will is weak to fuel low-carbon economy: experts
    Source: CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research)
    The world’s top climate scientist told an international conference today that tackling climate change is an opportunity, not a burden, and a leading financier said there is plenty of money to fund sustainable development.
    “The path we need to follow is very clear if the world wants to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius,” Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told delegates on the final day of the Forests Asia Summit in Jakarta…
    Ministers, civil society, academia, the private sector and youth took advantage of the two-day Summit to seek ways to better manage forests and landscapes in the shift toward a ‘green economy’…

    ***Referring to the resources needed to finance this shift, Mark Burrows of Credit Suisse said, “this capital already exists at an enormous scale. An estimated US$225 trillion of private capital is currently allocated through the world’s financial markets.” The mood among the big investors is changing, he added. But “we need political investment to unlock financial investment.”…

    “It should be clear that we are not going to repeat Kyoto … we are building momentum towards a new international climate agreement,” he (Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, Environment Minister, Peru) said.
    Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, he said, “this agreement will be reached from the bottom up” and be inclusive of indigenous people, the private sector, scientists and policymakers.
    “And it will bring hope to millions because it will be a core component in the international development debate,” Pulgar-Vidal said.
    Dozens of commitments were made at the Summit to increase green investment, expand research and foster dialogue among different stakeholders…
    http://www.trust.org/item/20140512024619-8wu2d/

    10

  • #
    pat

    11 May: Sun News Canada: Ezra Levant: A tax by any other name
    Is Justin Trudeau going to bring in a carbon tax?
    Geoff Regan, Trudeau’s natural resources critic, is adamant that he won’t…
    Trudeau: “Every single party in the House of Commons has committed to putting a price on carbon pollution,” Trudeau said. “The Liberal Party is in a process where we will make sure that polluting costs more, but we haven’t landed on exactly how to do it.”…
    Trudeau says he has been consulting about a carbon tax for at least six months. Who has he consulted? What have they said? Why would he consult foreigners – but not his own natural resources critic?
    Did Trudeau consult the anti-oil Tides Foundation from San Francisco, or the anti-oil Rockefeller Brothers Fund in New York? Gerald Butts, Trudeau’s chief strategist, speechwriter and handler, worked for an environmental lobby group until last year, that accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from those U.S. foundations to lobby against oil and gas.
    Are those the foreign experts Trudeau has consulted?
    Why would the leader of a Canadian political party allow himself to be lobbied by foreign interests about a tax on Canada? The U.S. doesn’t have a carbon tax, or a “price on carbon.” Why would we accept U.S. pressure to put our economy at a disadvantage? It’s a bizarre position, but it’s precisely the same position that Butts chose when he was a lobbyist: taking foreign money to hobble Canada’s energy economy…
    Oh, there’s carbon tax policy being worked on by the Liberals, all right. Regan is out of the loop. And so is Trudeau. For real answers, we should ask Butts, or maybe his friends in San Francisco and New York.
    http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/05/20140511-163732.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    11 May: Forbes: Tim Worstall: The Oil Industry Is Not Risking $1.1 Trillion Of Investor’s Cash
    Or at least the oil industry is not risking $1.1 trillion of investor’s investor’s cash any more than any other capitalistic enterprise is clearly and obviously taking a risk with investments. The argument is being made by the Carbon Tracker Initiative, that climate change restrictions mean that there’s only a certain amount of oil that can be pumped up and used. Given that oil companies are planning to extract more than this amount then the oil companies must be wasting the investments they’re going to user to do this.
    There are, as you might imagine, a number of problems with this argument. Among them being that they’ve not got the climate science right here, they’ve not got the economics of climate change right and they’ve not even managed to work out why the oil companies are willing to risk this capital.
    Here’s the argument in a nutshell: READ ON…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/05/11/the-oil-industry-is-not-risking-1-1-trillion-of-investors-cash/

    00

  • #
    pat

    pure comedy:

    12 May: Business Green: Will Nichols: China’s green drive could squeeze out coal before 2020
    Research paper by Lord Stern suggests China may start to reduce coal consumption from 2016 – a huge fillip for a global climate deal…
    And today research by Lord Nicholas Stern, former World Bank chief economist and author of the landmark 2006 report on the economics of climate change, and Fergus Green, of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, suggests that China’s consumption of coal could reach a peak by 2020, or perhaps even earlier.
    The research says that China’s stated intention to pursue more sustainable economic growth has prompted discussions on setting a target to curtail the rise in the country’s annual consumption of coal before the end of its 13th Five-Year Plan, which will run from 2016 to 2020.
    “China could intensify its efforts to reduce its reliance on coal, in the form of a plan to peak its coal consumption by 2020 (or earlier), as has been suggested as a possibility in some discussions occurring in China, and phase it out thereafter,***” the report says…
    http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/analysis/2343987/chinas-green-drive-could-squeeze-out-coal-before-2020

    ***love that “thereafter”…

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***Krugman – the left/right meme, which takes no account of untold millions of exceptions, is a lazy MSM trick, which is fast losing its power to influence.

    11 May: NYT: Paul Krugman: Crazy Climate Economics
    In the right’s eyes, sinister motives lurk everywhere — for example, George Will says the only reason progressives favor trains is their goal of “diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.”
    So it goes without saying that Obamacare, based on ideas originally developed at the Heritage Foundation, is a Marxist scheme — why, requiring that people purchase insurance is practically the same as sending them to gulags.
    And just wait until the Environmental Protection Agency announces rules intended to slow the pace of climate change.
    Until now, the right’s climate craziness has mainly been focused on attacking the science. And it has been quite a spectacle: At this point almost all card-carrying conservatives endorse the view that climate change is a gigantic hoax, that thousands of research papers showing a warming planet — 97 percent of the literature — are the product of a vast international conspiracy. But as the Obama administration moves toward actually doing something based on that science, crazy climate economics will come into its own…
    What do I mean by crazy climate economics?
    First, we’ll see any effort to limit pollution denounced as a tyrannical act. Pollution wasn’t always a deeply partisan issue: Economists in the George W. Bush administration wrote paeans to “market based” pollution controls, and in 2008 John McCain made proposals for cap-and-trade limits on greenhouse gases part of his presidential campaign. But when House Democrats actually passed a cap-and-trade bill in 2009, it was attacked as, you guessed it, Marxist. And these days Republicans come out in force to oppose even the most obviously needed regulations, like the plan to reduce the pollution that’s killing Chesapeake Bay…
    Furthermore, it turns out that focusing climate policy on coal-fired power plants isn’t bad as a first step. Such plants aren’t the only source of greenhouse gas emissions, but they’re a large part of the problem — and the best estimates we have of the path forward suggest that reducing power-plant emissions will be a large part of any solution.
    What about the argument that unilateral U.S. action won’t work, because China is the real problem? It’s true that we’re no longer No. 1 in greenhouse gases — but we’re still a strong No. 2…
    So the coming firestorm over new power-plant regulations won’t be a genuine debate — just as there isn’t a genuine debate about climate science. Instead, the airwaves will be filled with conspiracy theories and wild claims about costs, all of which should be ignored. Climate policy may finally be getting somewhere; let’s not let crazy climate economics get in the way.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/opinion/krugman-crazy-climate-economics.html?hpw&rref=opinion&_r=0

    10

  • #
  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    I’ve just discovered a man named Mr Wragge, who lived in the late 1800′s Australia. He was a meteorologist of some renoun. Mostly renoun for getting it right. He was also a cyclone hunter, chasing them and researching thme all over the world.

    A fanscinating read.

    00