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

……..

More beach holidays. Apologies to Northern Hemisphere readers. We’ve had three beach holidays in two weeks with various friends and relatives. January in Australia is tough. ;-)

I love the colors of the Western Australian coast. The sky really is that intense blue, and the water is that clear. We fed stingrays at Hamelin Bay at sunset too. This is a seven year old boy hand-feeding a tame eagle ray which must have weighed twice as much as him. That one had no tail, but others did. Remarkable. Click to enlarge shots.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.9/10 (37 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 8.9 out of 10 based on 37 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n34b47z

86 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #

    Very nice. The other day I saw video of Roger Federer hand-feeding a dolphin at Tangalooma, Qld. He used his right hand – his tennis hand!

    40

  • #
    Annie

    Very nice Jo. I hope you have a great time.

    41

  • #
    RoHa

    Why the apologies to Northern Hemisphere readers? Thanks to Global Warming, they too can have sunny beach holidays in January, especially since this is The Warmest Year Ever.

    170

  • #
    the Griss

    “January in Australia is tough.”

    Yep, all that warming.. makes it real tough !! :-)

    No darn surf though :-(

    51

    • #

      Never any ‘darn surf’ at Hamelin Bay, an island and lobster filled reefs all round.

      20

    • #
      toorightmate

      The lack of good surf is due to global warming (by Humans).
      An really good swell is the result of carbon taxes and other green initiatives (in action).

      Don’t you read the Fairfax press and listen/watch THEIR ABC?

      30

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Great photos. Im originally from Albany and I was lucky enough to have a dad who loves fishing and diving. Very common to be pulled out of school to go to Exmouth or Broome for 6 weeks. I reckon I have dived every other beach between Ningaloo and Cape Leveque. WA is the best!

    50

  • #

    Say, I’d like some feedback here.

    I sent an email with some information to the Senators on the upcoming Senate Select Committee on Wind Turbines, five of them. I got back three form replies, you know, probably from staffers. However, one of them (Senator Leyonhjelm) actually did read the email, and sent me a personal reply, saying that the information was interesting and would I make a Submission to the Committee.

    I laboured over it for a week or so until I thought I had it just about right, and then sent it in, not really expecting all that much. As it transpired, the Committee which reviews the submissions approved it and they have now published the Submission at their site.

    I tried to make it so it could be easily understood by people who have no real understanding of electrical power generation.

    So, now that it’s published there, perhaps some of you might like to read it and see if I have succeeded in getting the point across.

    The Committee meets at the end of February and into March, and has to finalise and submit its report in June.

    Now, you’ll need a reader as it is in pdf format, and it’s six pages long.

    At the link, tick the box alongside my full name (Anton Lang)and then press the blue Download Selected button under that. You can either Save it and then read it after opening your reader or tick the Read button and it will open up in your selected reader, and I would guess most of you already have an Adobe reader.

    Link to Senate Select Committee On Wind Turbines Submissions

    Tony.

    361

    • #
      tom0mason

      Tony
      A fine piece of writting. Just a couple of points though I would have done differently -

      1.It is useful to put all your technical abreviations and definitions at the end of the piece as a seperate reference page. (CF, Nameplate Capacity, etc.)

      2. Also on the reference page and to help with defining MWhrs and GWhrs I would have put these into equivalent number of homes powered (use the same propaganda tool as the windmill merchants.)

      You have however put the point across very effectively, hopefully the committee is up to the task of actually reading it and understanding the finer details.
      Well done, I maybe using this as a template for my uses… OK?

      110

      • #

        tomomason,

        thanks for the feedback. It was only after it was actually published that I read through and noticed some of those acronyms. Where possible I have tried to mention the wording in full at the first instance and then place the acronym in brackets after the full name, and then just use the acronym each following time, but you are right. I see the need for perhaps a list of some of those more commonly used acronyms at the foot of the text. That being said, I hope it doesn’t detract from the overall thrust of the point I was attempting to make.

        I cannot see why the document cannot be used as a reference for anyone wishing to do so, but I would ask that you not actually use it until after the closing date for submissions, and that date is 27Feb2015.

        Tony.

        120

        • #
          tom0mason

          Thanks Tony,

          And no I will not be using it anytime soon as I have a few figures to collate first. Also it would not be a public submission.

          100

    • #
      Bryl

      Hi Tony,
      I read all 3 submissions (was there really only 3? And the number 3 is missing. Goes 1,2,4). Reads well and very easy to understand, though had to read the last 2 paragraphs twice to get what you were saying. Particularly liked your calm cool detached approach. You set out the facts and let them do the talking.
      I felt the emotions of the other 2 showed (who could blame them) and they weren’t as clearly expressed.
      You were not trying to include this but am a bit disappointed that no one actually discussed the studies on their affects on fauna and health. Nor did anyone discuss the amount of energy and materials needed to construct and maintain these monstrosities. Have submissions closed? If not, I hope someone actually does this.
      What is the situation regarding ownership of your submission. Can I copy it and send it on. Or, if possible, do I wait till after the hearing.

      80

      • #

        Bryl,

        Here is part of the text of the email from the Secretariat to me after my submission was accepted. (My bolds here)

        All submissions to Senate inquiries become Committee documents and are made public only after a decision by the Committee. In accordance with Committee procedures, and as you have not asked for confidentiality, your submission has been authorised for publication by the Committee. This provides your submission with the protection of parliamentary privilege. Publication of your submission includes it being loaded onto the internet (with your signature and contact details removed) and being available to other interested parties including the media.

        The first bolded section means that after it has been accepted by the Committee and posted at their site, it then becomes available to the public to read etc.

        The second bolded part means that I suppose anyone may refer to the material for their use.

        Tony.

        70

    • #

      Tony, one thing you may have missed is that coal fired power plant can be turned down and up. A wind farm can be turned down by feathering individual units but if the wind is low there is no possibility of turning it up. A boiler and generator can be turned down to about 30% capacity ie they do not have to run at full capacity but as you say they are most efficient at the rated capacity but there is little difference to efficiency in the range 90% to 105%. Most boiler generator combinations can run at 110% capacity for a short time to accommodate load surges. On small power plants I have seen a load increase of 25% of capacity from about 80% over a minute or so when a large grinding mill was turned on. Lights dim and there is a lowering of voltage. Getting back to the point wind farms can not be turned on precisely when needed. In fact there is a great problem with wind farms providing peak as has been found in Denmark and Germany. It only possible to guarantee power for a half hour block if some of the turbines are feathered so they can be brought back if the wind fades but in Germany some of the wind farms have to buy in power to fulfill contracts.
      Solar farms are worse as they can supply no power at night and produce little power when it is overcast.

      70

    • #

      Hi Tony,

      Your work is always very informative and interesting, and this is no exception.

      In line with my belief that you should always looking at the person rather than the issue, before reading your submission I took at quick look at the membership of the committee. Very interesting. Fully half are cross-bench senators. No Greens at all and only one from Labor.

      Before seeing this I assumed that it would be the usual fare – namely, a Labor and Greens dominated committee whose outcome was already decided right from the start, with the process of looking into the matter being carefully orchestrated to produce the desired political outcome. The Labor government’s ‘gold plating by utilities is the main reason for high electricity costs’ inquiry was an example of how these things are done. So, given the committee membership, you are likely to receive a fair hearing.

      Could I make one small suggestion. From my experience (many years writing documentation for computer applications) people will not read lengthy documentation. The best way to get a message across and hold the audience’s attention is with graphics – charts, images, etc. This also helps if you are trying to explain something to the committee. It is very difficult to explain something with words alone. For example, as I recall there was a heat wave over the Christmas/New Year 2013-14 caused by a huge high pressure system sitting right over Victoria and southern New South Wales for several days. I recall that there was hardly any wind at all during during this period, possibly because of a temperature inversion blocking thermic activity. There was a story in the media about the woeful performance of Victoria’s wind turbines during this period. I’ve had a quick look through my archive, but couldn’t find the story. Anyway, my point being that a graphic of demand versus wind turbine output during this period would have a great impact.

      Also, could I remind you of this story from the US: Duke Energy will pay $1 million for killing 14 golden eagles at Wyoming wind farms. I have a vague recollection that there is more to this story, such as the EPA or DOE mandating that wind turbine operators had to actively take measures to protect birds, but I have been unable to find anything on this.

      Finally, this sort of thing offers the opportunity to be a little bit mischievous. You could, for example, mention that if subsidies were withdrawn from renewables the facilities would become ‘stranded assets’, and we know how concerned the ANU, for example, is about so-called stranded assets.

      40

    • #
      Bob Malloy

      Excellent Tony.

      While I lack your knowledge on power generation, one addition I would have considered would be to point out that it is all well and good to claim wind power as a clean energy alternative to coal, Chinese manufacturing practices of many of these units leaves a lot to be desired. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

      Also it is worth mentioning the mammoth amount of concrete each tower requires, concrete manufacturing being one of the worlds largest producers of co2.

      I feel it is hypocritical to sell wind power to the Australian public as a clean energy source, while the manufacture of all its components is any thing but. Or is it a case of as long as it’s not in my back yard it doesn’t matter.

      P.S. opinions welcome, as there is still time to submit. With a small rewording of this comment do you Jo’s readers feel my meager effort here is worth putting forward.

      90

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        Bob, it is worth comparing the concrete, brick, steel, Aluminum and associated materials used in creating wind power with that used in making coal fired.

        The infrastructure cost per kWh for wind is enormous compared to conventional coal fired systems and would be roughly in proportion to CO2 expenditure in producing those materials.

        Even from a CO2 point of view wind could never make up the CO2 gap because of high maintenance and short life expectancy’

        “Free” wind power has always been an illusion with current technology and systems.

        KK

        91

    • #
      diogenese2

      “I hope what I have said makes thing a little clearer.”
      Tony – no sentient human being on this planet could read this and not KNOW and understand the physical limits of wind generated power to provide the needs of modern civilisation.
      This piece alone is enough to negate the entire argument for investment in wind power at any level, and deserves status as a core assessment. I hope it gets thrust upon every legislator in the western world and is used by the developing world as an argument against the move to direct foreign aid into futile and wasteful pursuit of “renewable” energy.
      Best of all is your simple nailing of “supplies the needs of (x) homes” for the lie and deceit that it is. In future the use of the phrase should produce howls of derision.

      91

    • #
      Annie

      Interesting Tony, although I’m not qualified to offer feedback.

      40

      • #

        Thanks Annie,

        it’s not feedback on the actual electrical theory umm stuff, I was after.

        It was feedback on whether or not it was easily understandable for those with no electrical background.

        THAT is my target.

        Tony.

        60

        • #
          Annie

          OK Tony. The answer is yes…I did understand what you wrote…thank you.

          40

        • #
          Robert

          Tony because of how capable you are at explaining this so even those without an electrical background, though some of them often claim to have one, I quite often refer advocates of wind and solar who are ranting away with their claims to come here to Jo’s if they want to discuss it. They all claim they want a discussion or debate, yet I never see them show up here.

          Perhaps I should stop telling them their are people who frequent the site who have been involved in the electrical fields or industries for longer than these advocates claim they have been. Apparently they don’t want to have a “discussion” anywhere that people who really do understand electrical generation and power transmission frequent.

          Personally I’m thankful for the work you do on this, after I get done with work I don’t want to discuss line losses, grid synchronization, transient recovery, the time required to go from off to closing with the bus, etc. etc. Add to that the fact that these topics, things I work with on a daily basis, are things I understand on a practical application level of doing it and knowing what should take place but once away from the equipment it becomes difficult for me to explain it. I need my visual aids I suppose.

          It is always impressive to see someone be able to take things that are not exactly trivial to understand and explain them in a manner where even the untrained can “get it.”

          90

          • #
            Robert

            Meh… Getting tired again. First sentence should have read: …can understand it I quite often… etc. etc.

            00

    • #
      RoHa

      If you know enough about the subject to say something worthwhile, then by all means tell the [coarse expression]s in Canberra. Those [very rude]s know [totally unacceptable phrasing] all about [vulgar adjective] anything, so the more you can do to reduce their [expurgated ] ignorance the better.

      70

    • #

      Tony
      I DO have an electrical/electronics background and think you have done a splendid job explaining those parts of the many problems. It would be very very hard to simplify it down much more. Well done and thankyou. It is good to have people like you awake and defending us from the stupidity.
      Imagine a repeat of the 1896 heatwave with no wind and high night time temperatures when there is no sun either.

      80

    • #

      That second paragraph needs simplication. While bureaucrats love that sort of contorted text, it is easier to interpret in simpler, short sentences. Each sentence dealing with no more than one subject. We all write swill like that if we’re not careful. We have to keep in mind that the point of writing is to inform the reader.

      It’s also got the potential to be perceived as “antagonistic” or “arrogant” to those not au fait with the technology.

      I trust that you accept these remarks in the spirit that they are given; to help each other get a clear message to the general public about the folly of wind power.

      A folly with which people were long ago familiar when they still had to depend largely upon it. Richard Wagner’s opera, The Flying Dutchman that premiered in 1843, has one of the characters exclaiming:

      to rely on the wind is to rely on Satan’s mercy!”

      50

    • #
      Roger

      Tony

      Like the submission – very well put together.

      The only thing I thought might be worth looking at is your diagram showing the loads. If it were possible to break up the yellow shaded area (wind power) into 7 segments representing 7 hours average generation out of the 24 it would strongly highlight the fact that wind is intermittent and therefore incapable of being relied upon for continuous power generation.

      I can see some mistakenly (or deliberately) assuming that this solid yellow band is a stable level of generation (as opposed to intermittent) and the way to overcome the low level (30%) generation is simply to increase the number of turbines. Some people look at diagrams without bothering to read much in the way of the detail or the legend.

      I don’t know about Oz and the distribution of wind turbines but here in the UK we often have days when across the whole country they generate no electricity. That is something that is wilfully overlooked by wind power exponents.

      BTW there have been reports in the UK recently of split-second power surges from wind turbines knocking out part of the distribution grid and causing power loss to tens of thousands of homes – any such events in your neck of the woods ?

      50

    • #
      mike restin

      Tony, I got confused, maybe?

      From fifth page:
      “Well, not in this manner. It is however shown there, but because of the general populace’s lack of understanding of electrical power generation, then all but a few understand just what is being said.”

      The statement sounds like everybody understands electrical power generation except a few people.
      I recommend striking
      , then all but a

      Did I just fail to comprehend?
      mr

      10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Good for you, Tony! :-)

      20

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Do you know who will be reading it? Will there be power generation engineers, for instance? Or is it just the committee members?

        10

    • #
      Willy

      Great work Tony.
      I’d echo Bryl, Bob and KK, in that the massive amount of fossil fuel required to construct the wind farms, is never explained to the general public. Let alone what will happen at the end of each farm. Will more energy be required to deconstruct, or will the companies snatch the last subsidy, liquidate and leave the towers to rust away. They surely will be of no use to retrofit. Leaving huge pads, miles of limestone tracks, towers, miles of cable, poles, transfer stations etc.

      The car analogy is ok. Perhaps be more personal if suggesting the committee try to live on 7 hours and 10 minutes of electricity per day, for say 1 week.

      20

  • #
    tom0mason

    Jo it’s not just the NH that is suffering the cold -

    Turkey headed for coldest winter in 20 years
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 17, 2015

    Snow in Saudi Arabia – Videos
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 16, 2015

    Heavy snowfall expected in Japan
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 16, 2015

    Record snowfall in western Norway – 2 to 3 meters (6 to 10 feet)
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 16, 2015

    Tropical snowfall causes congestion in Sa Pa (Vietnam)
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 12, 2015

    This sums up the snow in Saudi Arabia
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 12, 2015

    Iraq – Sulaymaniyah province in a white dress of snow
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 10, 2015

    Record snow in Florida
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 10, 2015

    Greek islands buried under 6½ ft (2 m) of snow – Video
    by ROBERT on JANUARY 9, 2015

    Just some of the reports on http://iceagenow.info
    Must be global warming…

    91

    • #
      tom0mason

      Correction -
      “…not just the NH that is suffering the cold”

      should be

      …not just the very North of NH that is suffering the cold…

      How far north is Vietnam?

      61

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        How far north is Vietnam?

        Vietnam is a country not a point. It ranges between 8.5 degrees North and 23.3 degrees north. That event occurred around 22°N. Still, snow isn’t what you normally associate with the jungles of Vietnam.

        As for the snow in Saudi Arabia, one of those video says it happened in an area 28 degrees north, quite near the Suez canal and so roughly near Cairo. Wasn’t it December 2013 that there was snow in Cairo? That was an event which certainly made headlines. Similarly, there was a very unusual severe hail storm in Brisbane in December 2014, which is 27.5 degrees from the equator.

        So it’s not normal for any of these events to happen on those places, they are freak occurrences. You have to wonder what changes the circulation patterns enough to cause snow and hail less than 30 degrees from the equator.

        That fellow Stephen Wilde was saying something about more meridional jets being predicted by his climate model.
        Maybe in all these cases some cold air jets went far enough towards the equator to hit some warm rising moist air and the water lost the battle. Or maybe some cold air sliced in underneath some moist air and made it rise even higher and faster than it normally would.

        30

    • #
      handjive

      Tasmania also has snow:

      Tasmania Accumulation for Next 3 Days (snow-forecast.com)

      (issued 17 Jan 5pm est)

      51

  • #

    Hamelin Bay and Cosy Corner, my old stamping ground for fishing and diving 30-40 years ago. Hard to beat. Enjoy yourselves.

    40

  • #
    tom0mason

    Jo,

    In contrast Tallbloke back blighty has this -
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/01/17/photography-corner-walking-in-the-white/

    As Dr David Viner said back in 2000, … “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. And David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes – or eventually “feel” virtual cold.

    61

    • #

      In fact, since snow has been renamed “Lake Effect”, “Polar Vortex”, “Extreme Winter Precipiation”, “Autumn Flood Risk” “Spring Melt Potential” and so on, children may indeed not know what snow is. After all, Christian Turney is already having trouble knowing what sea ice is.

      100

    • #
      tom0mason

      Funny that comments where snow, or cold weather, appears a red thumb is there.

      Someone getting worried over the public noticing the cold weather?

      00

  • #
    handjive

    Unthreaded fun …

    Shades of the Twilight Zone

    132-year-old rifle found propped up against tree in Nevada desert

    In the episode ‘A Hundred Yards Over the Rim’ Cliff Robertson is leading a wagon train to California when I climbs a sand-dune to see what’s on the other side – searching for water.
    After passing over the rim he finds a modern (1950s era) highway, telephone poles and is threatened by a large menacing beast (18 wheeler truck) which he shoots at with his flintlock rifle.
    Eventually the road leads him to a diner where he FINALLY finds water – ice water in a glass.
    Everyone thinks he’s nuts as he talks about his son suffering with an infection and the waitress shows him a bottle of the antibiotic penicillin.
    The Sheriff arrives in his car to investigate and, fearing capture by these clearly deranged people, Robertson escapes – running back to the sand-dune he first crossed.
    The Sheriff and someone else drive up behind him leaving the car they clamber up the dune after Robertson who vanishes over the rim – dropping his weapon as he stumbles.
    After he vanishes from sight of the Sheriff he finds his family in the wagon train with his wife exclaiming “Did you forget something?” as he’d only just left a second ago.
    He reaches into his pocket and finds the bottle of penicillin – opens it and hands a pill to his wife to give to his sick boy.
    Meanwhile the Sheriff and posse reach the place where Robertson stumbled in the sand – finding an old flintlock rifle – its stock dried, crumbling and the steel rusted through.

    Now THIS story appears, about a Winchester rifle found in the Nevada desert seemingly casually propped up against a Juniper tree.

    40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Perhaps the Twilight Zone series was created by people from the future so when these ‘strange coincidences’ occur we freak out while they’re laughing their heads off having set it all up?

      The closest Twilight Zone experience I’ve had was flying back from working interstate at night when one of my workmates decided to do an impersonation of Jim Carry from Ace Ventura when nature calls, Carry himself is impersonating William Shatner in the 1963 Twilight Zone episode ‘Nightmare at 20,000 feet’ however Shatner never said the line “There’s someone on the wing, some thing!’ that was created by Carry for obvious comic effect.

      So after my workmate does the line ‘There’s someone on the wing, some thing!’ (and very well mind you) we get a visit from a flight attendant explaining that while she knows the joke and understands the humor the foreign tourists near us who know little English were quite concerned and upset to the point of desperately looking out the window to see this ‘Thing’, this was backed up by the talking to my colleague received from the Australian Federal Police shortly after landing.

      40

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Tony has made a massive effort over the past year to detail the capabilities of various methods of power generation and it is encouraging to see that the submission has been accepted and will receive wider public viewing.

    121

  • #
    handjive

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

    Guest post by Anton Lang, joannenova, May 20th, 2012
    . . .
    This post from TonyfromOz is indispensable.

    Most recently in response to a friend’s link for wave farms, claiming 10,000 homes in Scotland being supplied as we speak.
    atlantisresourcesltd.com/about
    Mouse over ‘projects’ on home page and find none are working (which I highlighted)

    Consequently, all is silent in email department for last month.

    70

  • #

    The SOURCE Total Solar Irradiance at Earth distance has only ever made it up to 1408.2 W/M^2 five times according to the data below. All five of them are the most recent five days of the data.
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

    Jupiter is at opposition and at perigee in early February 6th (7th Aussie time.)
    https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=20150206_13_100

    This means the hot side of the sun will be facing right at us.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7753

    The good news is that this 13 month cycle has now drifted well away from assisting the Arctic melt. The bad news is that we have a full moon on Feb 3 so the litle bit extra light from the moon will be at its max then. However it is at apogee on the 5th so has the least effect.

    41

  • #

    On this sea surface temperature animation you can see the heat go out of the Pacific equator at the recent end. Also a big blue patch drifting up the West side of South America. Is this the beginning of La Nina?
    http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/anim.html

    00

  • #
    James McCown

    Stingrays are scary-looking. After what happened to Steve Irwin, I’d be tempted to give them a wide berth.

    20

    • #
      James McCown

      Now I remember watching the Crocodile Hunter shows. Approaching that stingray was one of the less dangerous things Steve Irwin did. Here you can see him handling a coastal taipan. Steve knew how to handle poisonous snakes but this one is like holding a stick of dynamite with a lit fuse in his hand.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUgTwHh1Zvc

      00

      • #

        Unfortunately, it’s often the animal that one perceives as “safe” that ends up being the most dangerous. I used to work with reptiles and the most venomous snakes were the ones you paid absolute attention to. You knew never to let your guard down. That being said, Irwin did have a habit of pushing the envelope with danger. Not a good thing if you want to live a long life.

        20

  • #
    Michael Whittemore

    Joanne Nova continues to say that CO2 lagged temperature in the past and that this is proof Anthropogenic Climate Change is basically all made up. But like me, hasn’t anyone actually looked into what the science says about this? Hasn’t Joanne? You only have to Google 800 year lag to find the answers.

    To be safe, I think it would be best if I quickly and extremely easily explained this CO2 lag.

    So science noticed like Joanne did that CO2 lagged temperature in the Antarctic. Science explains that during specific times the Earth tilts more than normal and this causes extra warming from the sun to heat the southern ocean. This ocean warming comes first which then causes CO2 to be released from the ocean. So you get a CO2 lag. This extra warming that is happening in the southern hemisphere from the Earths extra tilt causes a cooling in the Northern Hemisphere.

    Even though the warming from the Earth’s extra tilt was only heating the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere was cooling, all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere should cause the Earth as a whole to get warmer. So they researched the CO2 lag and found that as would be expected 90% of all the warming during the end of the last ice age happened after! CO2 rose, which can be seen in this graph (http://postimg.org/image/psl861s31/).

    So now you know.

    Here is the paper in Nature that explains it all.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

    08

    • #

      Wait, I found a post on Climate Crocks where Shakun said “We said, we’ve got 80 records from around the world, let’s just slap them together, average them into a reconstruction of global temperature.” Now when this was done with missing pH records, there was a huge outcry about not gridding and other such things. The proxies were ice cores, ocean floor cores, lake cores on land, etc. How does that work? Do lake, ocean and ice proxies record the same temperatures? I can’t see that as likely. The proxies show very poor coverage in the Russian areas, especially the cold northern parts. In fact, most are in coastal areas where it is now warm. Could that be a problem? And if just averaging various proxies does work, then why can’t one just average pH data and get a number, thus showing the pH of the ocean had not changed? If so, then the ocean may not be more basic as has been reported. (pH article was addressed on this blog)

      There are a number of problems with the study. I can’t see jumping on the bandwagon yet, until we get some replication and further study. If that does not come, then the article has little use. I would agree that it may be a novel approach, but novel does not mean valid.

      30

      • #
        Michael Whittemore

        Sheri I really dont want to hold your hand through your quick stab of questionings, the paper is referenced and you can read. The proxies are all taken from proxy papers that have been published, they are designed to give an accurate temperature record of the past. Going that far back has its limitations on the amount of proxies available around the globe. But its classic how you claim you want replication papers published and numerous more studies before you accept this conclusion. Of cause you only have to look to find them Sheri..

        Global climate evolution during the last deglaciation (http://ic.ucsc.edu/~acr/ocea285/articles/Clarketal2012.pdf)

        Climate Sensitivity Estimates From Paleoclimate
        (LGM) Data (http://cicar.ei.columbia.edu/sitefiles/file/Schmittner-sensitivity.pdf)

        Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change
        (http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110118_MilankovicPaper.pdf)

        03

        • #

          I don’t think I’d want to hold your hand, so that’s fine. You ignored my questions, but since I am a scientific type and not blind follower, I will check out your papers. Too bad AGW advocates find answering questions such a task. It might actually make the whole thing look more scientific. However, at least you provided links, which is more than many have done.

          50

          • #
            Michael Whittemore

            Its hard to want to answer questions from someone that can disregard something so easily. I link a well documented paper from the journal Nature and you get some miss quoted comment from the author, start making up random assumptions about proxy data and then completely jump to the conclusion that “There are a number of problems with the study”.

            Here is a link to the actual published paper for my second link (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1385.abstract). You are right in saying the paper does not foresee extreme climate sensitivity. The paper says climate sensitivity is very low at 1.7-2.6.

            03

            • #

              You’re very fortunate you don’t have to have discussions with yourself, considering how much you easily dismiss.

              A link to an actual paper is generally considered the correct way to go. I know the guys at several global warming sites really get uptight if one is foolish enough to link to a blog or a presentation for evidence. So my complaints are identical to those on the warming sites—I want real data and real papers, not presentations that are slapped together. Abstracts are okay as I can find additional information on the paper on my own.

              I no where said there was somthing wrong with the study, since there was no study in question. I have not yet had time to read the two other papers. Maybe they have problems, maybe they don’t. Perhaps you have me confused with another commenter?

              Dismissing a tactic such as underlining the highest value in red is very unscientific, but very good if you’re trying to sell an idea. If you’re trying to sell climate change, I can understand why you are not happy with my statement. However, I do not believe global warming is a product to be sold. So my objection remains valid unless you’re selling a product. You are the one who linked to the presentation. (Even skipping the red underlining problem, the presentation was not good—I’m sure you want me to read the best about this subject, right?)

              30

            • #
              tom0mason

              Real science does not require belief for it to be true. Science is not about how many people believe a hypothesis but what is the truth.

              Your links provide papers that offer a theoretical notion and not proven truth. Yet more hypothesis that anyone can choose to believe or disagree with — just like the hypothesis that CO2 warms the planet, or not.

              20

        • #
          Yonniestone

          So it used to take up to 800 years for the earth to complete a tilting cycle?

          That’s a long year and probably explains your ilk’s obsession with Neo-Malthusianism, got a link for that that one Whitty?

          Don’t even dream about holding a lady’s hand as your grasp on Physics is shaky enough without throwing Biology into the equation.

          80

        • #

          I am unclear as to why you included the second link. It’s a poorly done presentation and it really does not address the science. I notice that in one place it says there’s no evidence of extreme climate sensitivity, yet they underline the possible 6 degree increase in red. They just said that’s not credible. Plus, parts of the dialogue seem to be missing. Not a science paper, that’s for sure.

          80

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Michael,

          Whenever I see the word proxy I’m tempted to ask, how did you calibrate the proxy?

          The whole ice core thing has been looking shaky enough for that reason alone. So I wonder what we really do know about the past. And I don’t think you’e adding anything to what we know.

          Sheri’s comments are right on the money.

          90

        • #
          the Griss

          And in the third paper, Jimmy doesn’t seem to know that H2O is a greenhouse gas.. ignores it completely !!

          DOH !!!

          60

        • #
          the Griss

          Gotta luv those saw-tooth graphs of CO2 and temperature.

          They show that when CO2 reaches a peak forcing (lol)…… the temperature starts to fall. ! ;-)

          30

        • #

          Speaking of using misquotes Michael.

          I’ve never said this:
          “Joanne Nova continues to say that CO2 lagged temperature in the past and that this is proof Anthropogenic Climate Change is basically all made up.”

          This whole subthread is based on nothing.

          30

          • #
            Michael Whittemore

            I just watched your 50 to 1 youtube video which you talked about the CO2 lag and how it was key to you became a skeptic, which of cause you claim that you researched to make sure…. must have been a different science opinion on the lag in late 2013..

            03

            • #

              So quote me in full. You’re wrong in #16.

              20

              • #
                Michael Whittemore

                When I look at your skeptics hand book, videos and blog I continue to see the CO2 lag point been made. In my comment #16 I was in no way quoting you. I can understand it could be easily seen that I was quoting you, for which I apologies and will be sure to quote your with a link next time.

                01

    • #
      tom0mason

      Michael Whittemore

      Yep, there’s always plenty of extra warming during the onset of an iceage.,,NOT

      And unless you were there it is just another hypothesis, from the vast store of scientific guesses.

      10

    • #

      I hope that nobody is just looking at this troll’s words and the reference to a pay-walled Nature article and taking it seriously. Look at the diagram. The red (Antarctic) data and blue (rest of world) are clearly not on comparable time scales. The kink in both at around 14Ky is displaced by >1500y. If you use this as a time reference and shift the red back, or vv, the yellow CO2 dots lag temp as they do for the comparable red Antarctic temps.

      Must do better,

      d

      10

      • #

        I would hope that most readers here look at the abstract (I’m guessing few have a subscription—though some have said they cancelled in the past), supplemental material and maybe check out other blogs and commentary on the article, just as a good skeptic would, and as you are doing. The abstract and graphs do seem quite poorly written, which is sad since Nature at one time was decent journal. Anyway, best to check out these links because you know they are going to come up later with someone else posting them, so I consider this learning more about the limits and errrors of AGW theory. I also consider it possible that someone might one day post a link with actual evidence that theory is right, though I’m certainly not holding my breath on that one. We can’t know unless we read the material presented and read it from a scientific, thoughtful position.

        00

    • #
      Robert

      So science noticed like Joanne did that CO2 lagged temperature in the Antarctic.

      No, “science” didn’t notice anything, “scientists” noticed something.

      Science isn’t capable of reasoning for itself or noticing things, science is a method by which people utilizing that method are able to understand things. When the method is not followed then whatever understanding is achieved is certainly not a scientific understanding.

      I am so tired of people who refer to “the science” it isn’t “the science” it is “the data”, “the observations”, “the evidence” all of which continue to show a much different picture than those supporting “the science” would like us to believe. Because “the science” is a hypothetical construct that continues to fail validation based on the data, the observations, and the evidence.

      Word games, seems to be the only things modern “scientists” and their followers are capable of.

      00

    • #
      RB

      “hasn’t anyone actually looked into what the science says about this?”.

      You cited 9 authors of one paper in a journal, not the Pope.

      That paper is a bit like the heat hiding in the oceans and when the laws of physics reverse, it will come back to fry us. Back then, the CO2 levels at Vostok lagged temperature increase there by 800 years for 10 000 years while temperatures rose 10°. But ‘The Science’ says that Antarctica was always 1-2° warmer than the rest of the world only when CO2 levels accelerated and 1-2° cooler when CO2 levels thought about dropping.

      The difference between average NH and SH sea surface temperatures(dubious as they are) is pretty small and they follow each other well over 150 years. CO2 levels only vary by 10ppm globally, about the same as seasonal changes. At around current levels, that corresponds to about 0.1°C of warming, the uncertainty of averages from thermometer readings.

      10

  • #
    ARW

    Nice read Tony

    Just one question / observation. Shouldn’t the total daily load curve start and end a the same level on the graph in your submission? Sought of suggests an instantaneous drop of required load at midnight or am I (probably) missing something here

    10

  • #
    Carbon500

    Looking at the blogs and responses to newspaper articles, it’s apparent that the believers in dangerous man-made global warming put immense trust in what scientists say, and in what academic organisations reportedly say.
    There is also a prevalent abrasive attitude (‘denier’ etc.) to any counter arguments to the doomsday scenario that may be put forward, even when citing good quality data such as satellite temperature readings.
    My feeling is that a lot of the more fervent believers have probably got an arts or other background, and in most cases haven’t been involved with science since schooldays. I say this because it’s rarely I see them actually discussing figures on the blogs, and their faith in ‘the science’ is remarkable – worryingly so.
    I thought I’d set the record straight here.
    Let’s be very clear about this – it’s perfectly reasonable for someone from a given scientific discipline to use their experience when questioning findings from another. Steve McIntyre became suspicious of Dr. Michael E. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ because of his own knowledge in the field of statistics.
    For my part, I’m a now-retired jack of all trades. I trained as a nurse for 3 years, took a degree in Human Biology, and then went into medical science laboratory and technology having had my interest in biochemistry aroused during my degree studies. Whilst working in vaccine research for my Ph.D., I had to learn about aspects of allied fields such as microbiology, virology, DNA technology and develop my own laboratory assays. This doesn’t of mean that I became an expert in all of these – but I learned what questions to ask and where to find the answers. I also learned how be critical about my own work in a way I’d never had to previously, and to plan my next experiment.
    This brings me to ‘climate change’. I became suspicious of the rigid thinking behind fractional temperature increases because my encounters with the natural world showed a range of values. Human antibodies are found within a range of measurements, as are blood cell counts, haemoglobin and so forth.
    So – we’re into asking the question about an operating temperature range for Earth. A reasonable question from my experience, yet tiny temperature increases mean doomsday according to some.
    Then there’s the ‘hockey stick’. From my experience with enzymes which bring about a huge variety of biochemical reactions, I became suspicious. Here were measurements of tree rings which purported to measure temperatures of a thousand years ago to within a fraction a degree. I’m not a botanist, but some sort of enzymatic processes must be involved in the laying down of tree rings. Although enzymes have an optimal working temperature, they’ll still work a degree or two on either side of that optimum in my laboratory experience.
    This alone would cast doubt on the findings of the Mann paper.
    Scientists like to poke around, ask questions, experiment and discuss.
    A cat may look at a king, and a biologist may look at a climate scientist!

    80

  • #
    pat

    lovely pics,

    jo. u say -

    “I love the colors of the Western Australian coast”

    it takes an Indian who only arrived in Australia 6 years ago, and a UK newspaper, to highlight our natural beauty. don’t expect such a celebration of our natural wonders from the ABC or Fairfax:

    17 Jan: Daily Mail: Stunning images of Australian landscape captured by amateur photographer who travels the country ‘chasing the light’
    Bipphy Kath, 40, is an anaesthetist by day, but in the hours before sunrise and sunset, the doctor says he takes his mind of daily stresses by returning to nature…
    Mr Kath, who moved to Australia from India six years ago and was inspired to take-up photography because of the ‘beautiful locations all around’ him, also said that one of his favourite places to shoot was at Victoria’s Twelve Apostles site…
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2914338/I-try-reach-natural-divine-Amateur-photographer-chases-light-capture-stunning-photographs-Australia-s-beautiful-waters.html

    meanwhile, following on from Rob Oakeshott & Bob Brown, abc’s Margaret Throsby repeats an hour of -

    19 Jan: ABC Margaret Throsby Interview: Julia Gillard
    First broadcast September 2014.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/throsby/julia-gillard/5978674

    fortunately, only heard the finale. Throsby asks what was the sweetest moment – there were many, says Ms. Gillard, give us 3 or 4, says Throsby:

    Gillard includes: carbon pricing…because it will be back…our nation will price carbon…it is inevitable.

    the Throsby programs get airings on abc Classic-FM before they appear on RN. so fascinating what abc considers worthy of repeats during the staff’s Endless Summer taxpayer-funded holidays.

    20

  • #
    Tony

    They reckon they know the Earth’s temperature accurate to 0.1 degrees C. Hadcrut3/4 is recorded to 0.001 deg C. How do I go about measuring the temperature of just my house to this accuracy, including the oven and the refrigerator? The oven and the fridge are the Death Valley and Antarctic equivalents. Such claimed accuracies seems utterly ridiculous, especially when recording accuracy was =/-0.5 deg C until recently. If all I need is more data like Phil Jones claims, I suppose I could get +/-0.001 degrees simply by taking enough guesses.

    50

  • #
    Planetary Physics

     
    SLAYING THE ‘SLAYERS’

    In the article “KIEHL AND TRENBERTH DEBUNK CLIMATE ALARM” (January 19) on the website for Principia Scientific International, Joseph Postma writes “And why do Kiehl and Trenberth, and climate alarm, get into such a mess? Of course, it’s because they don’t get the incoming energy from the Sun correct in the first place. Their “168 absorbed by surface” means that Sunlight could only ever make a surface it strikes to heat up to -40 degrees Celsius.”

    But the 168W/m^2 of mean solar energy absorbed by the surface is indeed roughly correct and also appears in NASA diagrams. The Solar Constant (about 1360W/m^2) is reduced by about half because of reflection and absorption by clouds and the rest of the atmosphere. Then we need to understand that the effective mean radiation is one-fourth of that half because the incident radiation is that which passes through a circle which is perpendicular to the radiation and which has the same radius as the Earth. It is the area of this circle which gives us the number of square meters used in the flux measurement that has units of watts per square meter. However, over the course of 24 hours the solar radiation is spread over the whole surface, and the area of the surface of a sphere is exactly four times the area of a circle with the same radius. Hence we divide the 1360 by about 8 and thus we see that the 168W/m^2 figure is about right.
     

    01

  • #
    P l a n e t a r y   P h y s i c s

     

    These vast water vapour plumes across Antarctica (mentioned in a WUWT article today) accompanied by record ice levels, are further evidence that water vapour cools rather than warms.

    I agree with Roy Spencer’s post today about the fact that this CO2 hoax is costing lives and enforcing poverty even upon many families in developed countries. I’ve said that many times. Australia has just diverted $200 million from humanitarian aid to carbon dioxide aid – just as I predicted would happen years ago.

    So why is it that some people don’t seem prepared to study the real thermodynamics which clearly shows why water vapor and carbon dioxide cool rather than warm? Our group (now with four men all having physics degrees) all agree with the fact that there is downward convective heat transfer that is carrying out the process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (The “hot to cold” corollary of the Second Law only applies if potential energy does not change and thus alter entropy.)

    Now that it is explained in English and German on our new group’s website (being visited by over 1,000 a week) you don’t even have to buy the book. My old domain name climate-change-theory dot com is also redirected to the new site.

    The Sun’s direct solar radiation cannot raise the mean temperature of Earth’s surface to existing levels. The surface receives a mean of only about 168W/m^2 as per NASA energy diagrams. That could only heat a black body to -40C.

    There are rocks exposed at the top of Mount Everest where, in mid summer at noon the surface probably receives over 1100W/m^2, but how hot does it get there? The surface is not a black body because it loses energy by non-radiative processes.

    Hence all the garbage about Earth’s surface receiving 390W/m^2 (mostly back radiation) to get to 288K is a travesty of physics. Why do people support such a travesty that claims back radiation can help the Sun to raise temperatures?

    You have to understand the thermodynamics that operate in all planetary tropospheres.

    I have explained the major breakthrough in physics which does give the right temperatures and explains the required energy flows throughout the Solar System and no doubt beyond. You only have to study two pages on our website.

    00