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

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.7/10 (35 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 7.7 out of 10 based on 35 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/nwm7vff

222 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Is the number of volcanic eruptions worldwide increasing? Yes. During the 20th century, there were a total of 3,542 volcanic eruptions globally. That works out to approximately 35 eruptions per year. That may sound like a lot, but according to Volcano Discovery there are 36 volcanoes erupting around the world right now. In other words, the number of volcanoes erupting as you read this article is greater than the 20th century’s yearly average.

    ‘And all of this is part of a larger trend. In 2013, we witnessed the most volcanic eruptions worldwide that we had ever seen in a single year, and 2015 is already threatening to be another one for the record books. All over the planet, volcanoes that have long been dormant are beginning to wake up, and this is greatly puzzling many scientists.’

    Michael Snyder

    202

    • #
      iainnahearadh

      Woo! Hoo!
       
      More Carbon Dioxide!
       
      Hmmm, historically, more volcanic activity on this scale also tends towards colder and more unstable climates, given the Earths previous history.
       
      As for those who think Man Made Global Warming is real, or that population control is sorely needed, or some mad form of mongrel socialism is needed, ‘to save the planet’; ‘May you live in an interesting age’, with the rest of us.
       
      Pity we spent our spare resource so frivolously with so little to show for it.

      422

      • #
        el gordo

        The Warmists are saying the extra volcanic eruptions have caused the hiatus,

        122

        • #
          Oswald Thake

          In the unforgettable words of that great and good woman, the late Mandy Rice-Davies, “Well, they would, wouldn’t they?”

          190

          • #
            What?

            Would you be able to describe ‘great and good’ for us?

            20

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            Almost. But she actually said, in response to James Burge the defence counsel, pointing out that Lord Astor denied having an affair with her or having even met her: “Well (giggle) he would, wouldn’t he?”

            That statement of hers, like so many other things in history, has been re-written.

            20

        • #
          • #
            Andrew McRae

            The climate-volcano connection doesn’t apply to Earth’s current warming trend, of course, because we’re not in the middle of an ice age

            Technically we are still in an ice age, but what they meant to say is that we aren’t in a glaciation, it’s the glacial termination that caused a surge volcanic eruption.

            Strange that the referenced paper shows the eruption rate as both high and low at present depending on which graph you look at in Fig 8, b) or c). I’m not sure what those quantities represent but they can’t be the same.

            50

          • #
            TdeF

            The warmists will blame more volcanic explosions on Global Warming. That’s how tipping points work, catastrophic collapse of an equilibrium system with volcanoes held in check by low CO2. Now they only have to find someone with credibility to say so.

            70

            • #
              ianl8888


              … with credibility …

              Not needed, the MSM love the headline irrespective

              90

              • #
                ROM

                Amongst vulcanologists it was well known that the whole of the 20th century was unusually quiet in respect to global volcanic activity.

                It was also anticipated and this from my memory of reading of a couple of decades ago, that sooner or later Volcanic activity would pick up again.

                Prior to and in fact until the mid 20th century and after WW2 there were large volcanic eruptions which went unreported and to all intents and purposes unknown until identified later in the century.
                So any claims made today about the amount of volcanic activity prior to the early to mid 20th century is likely to be considerably underestimated let alone identifying eruptions that took place in remote areas prior to the 20th century.

                A classic case here is the explosion of Alaska’s Novarupta volcano [ also mis-named and mis-identified until the 1950's as the Katmai eruption ] the most powerful eruption of the 20th century on June 6th 1912.

                The explosion was heard in Juneau, Alaska.

                People in Juneau, Alaska, about 750 miles from the volcano, heard the sound of the blast – over one hour after it occurred.

                For the next 60 hours the eruption sent tall dark columns of tephra and gas high into the atmosphere. By the time the eruption ended the surrounding land was devastated and about 30 cubic kilometers of ejecta blanketed the entire region. This is more ejecta than all of the other historic Alaska eruptions combined. It was also thirty times more than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens and three times more than the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, the second largest in the 20th Century.

                Forty years after the eruption, investigators finally realized that Novarupta – and not Katmai – was the source of the tremendous blast.

                Could Novarupta Erupt Again?

                Other large eruptions on the Alaska peninsula are certain to happen in the future. Within the last 4000 years there have been at least seven Novarupta-scale eruptions within 500 miles of where Anchorage is located today. Future activity is expected because the Alaska peninsula is on an active convergent boundary.

                **************
                Also; Africa and the Red Sea volcanoes;

                ************************
                And the one you NEVER hear about;

                From; The Smithsonian August 2012.

                Italian Supervolcano Could End Eurozone Crisis the Easy Way

                Deep underground in southern Italy, just outside the city of Naples, the Campi Flegrei supervolcano has been resting for the past 500 years.

                But it seems that quiet phase may soon come to an end. As Reuters reports, even a small eruption from a volcano nestled within such a highly populated area could threaten hundreds of thousands of people.

                Starting in 1968, the Earth’s surface around the volcano began to bulge, lifting by a net total of three meters (nearly 10 feet). “Magmatic intrusion,” say scientists Judith Woo and Christopher Kilburn in a 2010 study, is the most likely source for the unrest.
                &

                Worse than the threat of a localized volcanic eruption is the possibile damage the Campi Flegrei could do if it really got going. Recent research found that one of the supervolcano’s eruptions, called the Campanian Ignimbrite super-eruption, which took place 39,000 years ago, decimated vast stretches of the Mediterranean. That eruption was, until recently, implicated in the extinction of the Neanderthals.

                The researchers discovered the super-eruption behind the Campanian Ignimbrite would have spewed 60 to 72 cubic miles (250 to 300 cubic kilometers) of ash across 1.4 million square miles (3.7 million square km)

                The super-eruption would have spread up to 990 million pounds (450 million kilograms) of poisonous sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. This air pollution would have cooled the Northern Hemisphere, driving down temperatures by 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 2 degrees Celsius) for two to three years, enough to have severe effects on the environment.

                70

        • #
          Bushkid

          And yet other warmistshave said that “global warming” will increase volcanic activity, supposedly as all the ice melts and makes the earth’s crust lighter and lets magma rise, or something like that anyway. It’s all guesswork on their part, or grant-encouraged “research” or wishful thinking or something……..

          60

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        It will very likely be painful, but at some time in the future the population will control itself. Pandemic, pestilence, climate change following an event much bigger than any anthropogenic cause, or war, all of these are possibilities.

        Naturally the worst losses are experienced in the densest populations. That wouldn’t however stop the densest populations from coming through on top.

        130

        • #
          Yonniestone

          So the Greens could still come out on top?……bugger.

          170

          • #
            Bushkid

            LOL Yonnie, but I think that means density of population, not density of the green population, although they are certainly dense. :)

            50

        • #
          gai

          Glaciation has done a right good job of it and has cause hominid brain capacity to increase in leaps and bounds.

          William McClenney again at his sarcastic best:

          Zooming back to 2 million years ago, we see with the clarity of archaeological conviction that climate change has been very good to us. Spend some time reading tons of information on hominid evolution, and you will soon come to know that scientists in that field have long speculated that climate change over the past few millions of years, yes, those same two million or so years has been a very effective agent provocateur in our evolution. Our brain case size has experienced dramatic increases, in fits and starts, of course, to go from about 500 cubic centimeters (cc) to about 2,500cc in the last 2-3 million years…

          Given that the human brain size is actually shrinking (No I am not kidding)

          the question really begs to be asked. Will it take another (let’s call it the next, since its actually time for the next one now) ice age to “smarten us up” some more? And the answer to that really depends upon whether or not you have glommed on to what the real problem is yet.

          The real problem?

          Scientists at the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics, University of Oxford, have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain – with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage…

          This study confirms other findings which shows that overall human brain sizes have reduced by an average 11 percent since we adopted an agricultural diet based on cereal grains rather than the meat-based diet of our Palaeolithic ancestors

          And Maurice Strong, the US government, and the Warmists strongly recommend we go on an all veggie diet to ‘save the planet.’

          More on diet and the brain

          110

          • #
            el gordo

            The Neanderthals had bigger brains than Homo Sapiens, but size does not matter. As it stands we have unused capacity.

            80

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              And some use a lot less than others.

              110

            • #
              David Maddison

              I don’t believe that is true. It is a myth that “we only use ten percent of our brains”. Evolution is not wasteful, especially with the body’s most resource-hungry organ, the brain. If a resource-using part was not needed it would have been deleted long ago.

              20

              • #
                gai

                The Koola is an excellent example.

                ….behind those innocent-looking eyes: an over-sized cranium housing an undersized brain. Furthermore, unlike the brains of other animals that have a corpus callosum, the bridge which allows for communication between the left and the right brain hemispheres, the two hemispheres of the koala have no direct contact with one another. Like two shriveled prunes sitting atop the brain stem, they bob about in a sea of unintelligent cerebrospinal fluid, leaving the koala with the smallest relative brain size of all such furry creatures and the relative intelligence of a snow globe….

                …the ancestral koala, whose brain filled the whole of their cranium, … adapt[ed] its way overtime into an evolutionary cul-de-sac….
                http://austinhillshaw.com/creativity-and-evolution-learning-from-the-koala-bear/

                21

          • #

            From what I understand, pure vegetarians and those at the furthest end, also suffer all manner of other physiological issues, which are apparently due to lack of red meat. I always thought that humans had incisors for cutting through meat, not peeling rinds of oranges.

            91

            • #
              TdeF

              Personally, I am a second degree vegetarian. I only eat animals which do not eat other animals, apart from fish which eat almost nothing but other fish. I only eat secondary products like cheese which comes from animals which only eat grasses.

              20

            • #

              I don’t know if this is typical, reflective of anything or what, but every vegetarian that I’ve known (a fair few) seem to have anxiety issues of one form or another. So do they have anxiety issues because they are vegetarians, or are they vegetarians because they have anxiety issues?

              81

              • #
                gai

                My mom due to health issues was put on a no fat diet. She had the fatty sheathes around the nerves start to disintegrate and became very very nervous and anxious until fat (butter) was placed back into her diet. (she did not lose weight but gained BTW.) I would therefore hazard a guess, that with the current no fat fad on top of no meat you have some similar problems at the sub-clinical stage.

                50

        • #
          Peter C

          It will very likely be painful, but at some time in the future the population will control itself. Pandemic, pestilence, climate change following an event much bigger than any anthropogenic cause, or war, all of these are possibilities.

          That is the original hypothesis of the Rev Thomas Malthus, then taken up by Paul Erhlich. Both have been wrong for more than 150 years, even though the world population has increased enormously in the meantime.

          The plague did reduce the population of Europe in the 14th century but it was only temporary.

          The most effective means of population control has been proven to be increased wealth.

          I doubt that the populations of Japan, Italy etc would die out completely due to higher living standards but the runs are on the board.

          It is immigration from poor countries which is the cause of the population increase in these countries. Even in Australia is below zero population growth if not for immigration.

          People would not move from their homelands if the “grass was not greener” across the fence. So our response should be to improve living standards in all parts of the world as quickly as possible.

          Most important project, more electricity by the cheapest possible means.

          110

          • #
            Slywolfe

            Wars are sometimes very effective at population control.

            20

            • #
              • #
                OriginalSteve

                One of our local MPs ( Labor ) sent out a flyer about a hysterical “need” to discuss the “urgency” of climate change.

                I sent them an email via their web site that chastised them for wasting much money on a non-existent issue and that it was truly a courageous politcal path they had chosen.

                I was aksed to talk by phone but declined, suggesting email instead. I pointed out the gaping lack of scientific evidence of CAGW and how flimsy the argument was. I doubt they will respond in writing…..I suggested they were on a fools errand….I am so over all the nonsense.

                30

      • #
        tom0mason

        Not if the nutters have their way — yep burn trees and try and hide all the CO2.

        http://www.electronicproducts.com/Sustainable/Research/UK_constructing_the_world_s_first_negative_emission_power_plant.aspx

        Madness, very expensive madness.

        100

        • #

          For the life of me, I could never figure this out.

          Chop down the trees in the U.S. Transport the trees to the processing unit. Process them. Transport the material to the Port. Load it onto the ships. Drive the ships across the Ocean. Unload the material. Transport it to Drax. Unload it. Then burn it in the units.

          They burn the material faster than the new growing tress can suck it back out of the Atmosphere, and they’ve only taken into account the actual trees being harvested and then burnt, and not all the middlemen.

          Has anyone thought to plant trees for the coal being mined. Same principle.

          Drax has its own coal supply as it is.

          CO2 is CO2.

          And their wonderful CO2 capture and storage Less than 10% of the wood fired plants emissions, and hey, I’d like to see them making this actually work.

          For the life of me, I can’t figure out the surgeons who removed the thinking portion of journalist’s brains.

          Tony.

          270

          • #
            gai

            SHHHHHhhhhh Tony,

            I have 90 acres of trash trees in North Carolina I want to sell to Drax.

            Anyone have their number?

            100

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            And release six molecules of CO2 per molecule of cellulose compared with one CO2 molecule per molecule of coal.

            Madness indeed.

            101

          • #
            Just Thinkin'

            I think the Poms have been out
            in the mid-day sun toooooo long.

            70

          • #
            Stupendus

            Its the subsidies.
            The Gov has stopped some of the subsidies and now Drax is closing down (or not expanding the project) because surprrise surprise the economics dont add up without the government money.

            50

        • #
          tom0mason

          More Dullard doggeral
          ¯

          The politicos like children play,
          with whirly things on a dreary day.
          And so to toy with many futures.
          Generations lost to green looters,
          and unseen “batteries not included”
          Still advocates paid those so deluded.

          20

      • #
        edwina

        There has to have been periods both in recent and long term geological history whn CO2 must have been higher. Common sense dictates that. Also, new volcanic activity in the deep ocean is being discovered at a fast rate. It was only in the 70s continental plate drift was proven. This led to the discovery of the undersea fault lines where CO2 is expelled. Again, this new evidence of natural incursion of CO2 is also a result of new reliable deep submersible craft. Of course this had happened for eons. The huge areas of limestone (white cliffs of Dover) needed large quantities of CO2 in the seas in order to form. Far more than is present in today’s oceans. Yet life in oceans never died from acidity.

        60

    • #
      James Murphy

      Well, perhaps, as the ‘science is settled’ on climate change, then money could be directed towards loads of geological and geophysical research!!

      I recall reading this paper in Precambrian Research which suggested that average tectonic plate movement might be faster now than it has been in the past.

      100

      • #
        toorightmate

        You just never know who you might bump into tomorrow – if the plate movement increases.

        60

        • #
          James Murphy

          The Greens seem to think the earth was static until humans turned up to ruin everything, so I am curious to know what sort of action they would take to stop continental drift.

          I’d imagine it could cost quite a large amount of money to work out how to stop Australia moving North at about 4-6cm/year. How could you tax (and therefore stop) continental drift, I wonder!?

          90

          • #
            King Geo

            Can Humans stop plate tectonics and the Australian Plate moving north? Answer: no.

            Can Humans change the Earth’s Climate? Answer: no.

            Next question please.

            100

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              But Your Highness, that’s not the purpose of the Carbon Dioxide tax.

              And, to slow the northwards drift of the Australian continent all you need to do is increase the deadweight drag of Tasmania. Fill it up with the greens. That should do the job.

              90

            • #
              King Geo

              Australia moving North at about 4-6cm/year.

              Well that is ~ 1m every 20 years and ~ 100km every 2 million years. At this rate those living in Darwin will be subducted down into the Timor Trench in 10 million years time. Poor sods. And the carbon tax won’t be able to stop it. Just an idea Sceptical Sam – should the Greens be re-located from Tassie to Darwin?

              40

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      No research, just an impression, but I recall a substantial increase in the number of magnitude 7+ earthquakes in the western Pacific region in the last 10 or 15 years, including the two major disasters in Sumatra and Japan. Perhaps related.

      If so, what next?

      51

    • #
      gai

      I consider this a “read at your own risk” author. Interesting that it is posted at a Korean site.

      http://cafe368.daum.net/_c21_/bbs_search_read?grpid=1FBty&fldid=N0WJ&datanum=1898&contentval=&docid=1FBtyN0WJ189820100616141523

      60

    • #
      TdeF

      We also know that one good explosion, like Krakatoa in 1883, can put so much dust in the air that the world’s climate changes for year and a less stable system would not recover. It was the year without a summer in Europe and crops failed, especially at Northern latitudes where you only get a few growing weeks.

      So taxes need to be levied by the UN and carbon credits for the IPPV, the Inter governmental Panel for the Prevention of Volcanoes. All caused by carbon dioxide and foolish Western democracies.

      40

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    This week’s email to about 150 Australian politicians ..

    Dear Prime Minister Abbott and Politicians in all Parties

    How can I explain the complicated physics of climate change to Politicians?

    I’ve been thinking about that question and hopefully have come up with something you will all understand, because this is perhaps one of the most vital issues facing the world today.

    I respect the fact that few, if any of you, have qualifications in physics. My background, I assure you, is more than adequate, but more important is the time that I’ve put into studying the physics of climate change and discussing it with thousands of others, and writing papers, articles and a book on the subject “Why It’s Not Carbon Dioxide After All” available through Amazon.

    The infant science of climatology has been strongly influenced by James Hansen who thought he could explain the surface temperature of Earth with radiation calculations. A body in space will be warmed to a certain equilibrium temperature by uniform radiation from the Sun. That is indeed the case for the whole Earth-plus-atmosphere system, and the mean (average) temperature is about -18°C because that is about the (weighted) mean temperature in the atmosphere and it is about the temperature to which the same solar radiation would heat even a small non-reflecting rock in space at the same distance from the Sun.

    In the case of Earth the above temperature is calculated after deducting about 30% of the solar radiation, because that percentage is reflected mostly by clouds and has no warming effect, just as a mirror is not warmed when it reflects radiation from a heater.

    Now there can be natural variations in the distance of the Earth from the Sun, and also in the percentage of cloud cover. We can understand that the distance has something to do with planetary orbits and we know that’s all well predicted these days. You can probably accept also that cloud cover may vary in the long term, and that may have something to do with cosmic ray levels and/or solar activity, because even the intensity of the Sun’s radiation can vary. So these three natural factors (the Sun’s distance and intensity, and the cloud cover) can well explain all the natural variations which we know about and which seem to follow superimposed cycles, which in turn seem to relate to planetary orbits which somehow do the regulating. We don’t fully understand, but we know there have been climate cycles in the past and warming, such as we experienced late last century, has also occurred in the past – as in the lead up to the medieval Warming Period nearly a thousand years ago. There has been nothing unusual about last century’s warming, and it has stopped anyway in the period since 1998 as shown here.

    Getting back to that solar radiation, you will probably be surprised to learn that it is quite insufficient, by the time some gets absorbed in the atmosphere, to raise the mean surface temperature to what is observed. In fact it could only manage about -40°C over the whole globe – yes that is a minus sign before 40. James Hansen realised this and thought the “answer” must be that radiation from the cold atmosphere is somehow helping the Sun to raise the surface temperature. Well, that should grate on you if you remember school-boy physics that says heat is not transferred from cold to hot. In any event, the figures still don’t add to enough to explain mean temperatures above about 4°C and the “back radiation” from the atmosphere should not have been counted anyway.

    So what does explain the observed mean surface temperatures of at least 14°C? Basically it is energy from the Sun which is absorbed often high up in the troposphere (the lowest region of the whole atmosphere – being about 8 to 17Km high) and which then makes its way to the surface, not by radiation, but by non-radiative processes. The atmosphere actually “supports” the surface temperature in the same way that hot water in a bath tub keeps the section of the wall that is under the water at about the same temperature.

    But, you ask, how does the heat get down from the colder atmosphere and into the warmer surface? The answer lies in the fact that a force field like gravity has an influence on temperatures. This is proven in experiments with centrifugal force such as on my website and the reason has to do with the fact that gravity accelerates individual molecules. As those molecules gain speed in any downward motion between collisions, that extra speed is extra kinetic energy, and extra kinetic energy leads to higher temperatures. There is indeed a “sloping thermal plane” in a planet’s troposphere or, in other words a temperature gradient, aka “lapse rate” as climatologists call it. But it is set up by gravity, not by air heated by the surface and then just cooling as it rises. There does not need to be rising air for the temperature gradient to be established, and it happens even in the nominal troposphere of the planet Uranus where there is no solar radiation at the base, no surface there either, and yet it’s nearly 50°C. Further down it gets up around 5,000°C by the process I have called “heat creep” in my paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures.”

    So carbon dioxide’s radiation has nothing to do with surface temperatures which are set by this temperature gradient formed by gravity. We can calculate what that gradient ought to be, and we find it on all planets with significant atmospheres. This is the new 21st century paradigm shift in climate science that I first wrote about in an article published nearly three years ago. It is the truth of the matter, and all your efforts to reduce carbon dioxide levels are pointless and ineffective in so far as surface temperatures are concerned. Long term natural cooling will start within the next 100 years or so and last for nearly 500 years, just as was the case between the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.

    Your only response to the controlling efforts of the US is to present them with this correct physics and I guarantee that I can defend it against anyone in the world. I do so regularly on climate blogs, just for starters – out arguing thousands of the warmist hoaxsters, and I’m happy to help you in any discussion or negotiation anywhere in the world if need be. Why not contact the best physicists and watch them debate these issues with me? Only then will you really learn about it all and respect the fact that I am presenting correct physics. Perhaps you need a Senate Enquiry at which I could be a witness.

    Regards

    Doug Cotton

    2815

    • #
      James Murphy

      I very much look forward to seeing what sort of responses you get for this impressive piece of text.

      83

    • #
      Hugh

      Well, that should grate on you if you remember school-boy physics that says heat is not transferred from cold to hot.

      Heat is not transferred from cold to hot. No net heat. Heat flows from hot to cold. CO2 is supposed to only slow down that flow, not turn it around.

      Claiming a breach of laws of thermodynamics in science is childish. Sorry.

      110

      • #

        Hugh my hand held Fluke 62 optical thermometer at room temperature tells me from the radiation incoming that the inside of my chest freezer is -26.7 degrees C. thermal radiation travels in both directions but more leaves a warmer object. It is so simple a youn child can easily understand but people who do not wish to will never get it.

        100

        • #
          bobl

          Yes sliggy, like those who think that putting reflective foil around a light bulb wont heat up the light bulb filament.

          However, Sliggy if I place my hot kettle at 100deg C inside your -26.7 degree deenergized freezer, and we agree that the temperature represents the kinetic energy state of the objects – what happens. The Nett Energy goes from the kettle to the freezer does it not (the Kettle gets colder and the Freezer gets warmer).

          100

        • #
          tom0mason

          Siliggy,

          Your Fluke 62 optical thermometer is actually calculating the temperature from sensing the level of a very narrow band of infra-red radiant energy. See Fuke’s Application Note here.

          All objects emit infrared (thermal) radiation. The intensity of the radiation depends on the temperature and nature of the material’s surface.

          ….
          As the object becomes hotter, the radiation intensity rapidly increases and the peak of the radiation shifts towards shorter wavelengths. The relationship between total radiation intensity (all wavelengths) and temperature is defined by the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
          Q = esT^4 where:

          Q = radiation intensity
          e = emissivity of material
          s = Stefan-Boltzmann constant
          T = absolute temperature

          At a given temperature, the maximum radiation is achieved when the object has an emissivity of 1.

          [my bold]

          Infra-red is not heat, it is a narrow band of frequencies within the electromagnetic spectrum.
          Thus the reading you get is a calculated indication of temperature only accurate within the strict physical limitations allowed for by the manufacturer.
          So Siliggy, what is the emissivity of your freezer? Does it matter?

          50

          • #

            So Siliggy, what is the emissivity of your freezer? Does it matter?

            Yes it matters for accuracy but not to disprove my point. The device has a setting for emissivity that I did not bother to set I just pointed it down a dark cavity. There are lots of things in the freezer that are different colours. Moving the thermometer around does get a range of temperatures that is too wide to exist in there. I could put a black target in there but it would take time to cool then frost over. The things i measure for real with it(hot pipes) are painted black at the places i point it. My point with the freezer is simply that “thermal radiation” (Note I did not say heat) travels in both directions not just from warm to cold. For the device to work at all radiation MUST travel from the cold freezer to the warm instrument. No need at all to refer to Boltzmann,Planck or bandwidth with this one simple point. The direction of travel from cold to hot is all that matters. More radiation at a wider bandwidth goes back the other way but that is just not measured.
            Was asked the other day to measure the temperature of an ice stick in a bottle of wine. Told them I could not get an accurate reading from it but they were happy with a simply knowing if it was cooling or not. It was. Often accuracy is not needed.

            41

            • #

              “I might add “All objects emit infrared (thermal) radiation.” That is not the only band of thermal radiation. While pointing satellite dishes I can see the noise radiating from objects like trees and walls at 12GHz and 4GHz on my signal analyser fed with signals received by normal consumer quality LNBs.

              41

      • #
        toorightmate

        Breaching the Laws of Thermodynamics should be punishable by law.
        Defying the Law of Gravity hands out its own punishment.

        70

      • #
        gai

        John Kehr, a Chem engineer has a good essay on The Difference between “Forcing” and Heat Transfer

        21

        • #
          tom0mason

          gai,
          Good catch but I agree with Richard C (NZ) comments there about ‘Radiant’ and ‘Heat’ energies. Sadly these days they are often mixed-up, and this is at the heart of the questions I ask at #2.1.1 above.

          20

          • #
            gai

            Thanks Tom,

            I do understand that. My favorite example is the latent heat of vaporization. I just demonstrated that my teapot will stay the temperature of boiling water (100C) until I boil all the water out of it and then I scorch the crap out of my teapot and it turns cherry red, radiating visible light.

            (Now there is a nice example for the first year physics students to study and explain.)

            50

        • #

          John Kehr, a Chem engineer has a good essay on The Difference between “Forcing” and Heat Transfer

          Reading that nearly had me sucked in for a minute. What a laugh!
          I suggest anyone that was fooled by it read this then read that again checking the numbers and see the DUMB mistake. You will kick yourself.
          http://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/how-to-read-a-solar-panel-specification-part-1-power-temperature-specs/

          11

          • #

            Ok red thumber here are some more realistic numbers. Just for you because you are special.
            “For a cool autumn day the sun is likely providing 100 W/m2 of energy.”
            Now replace that with a number that is still an aproximation but did not come out of flat earther land. 1000W/M2 and you get “That is why the 364 W/m2 of potential heat transfer from air that is 10 °C will not warm you up, but the actual heat transfer of” 1̶0̶0̶W̶m̶2 1000W/m2 “from the sun will.”

            20

            • #
              gai

              Here is Trainbreath’s cartoon showing the ClimAstrologists 161 W/m2 at the surface (They project onto a flat surface by dividing by 4)

              http://www.goes-r.gov/users/comet/volcanic_ash/impacts/media/graphics/global_energy_flows.jpg

              From a spreadsheet R.A. Cook has for all latitudes for the actual radiation on to a horizontal surface at 12:00 noon on that “average” 342 watts/meter^2 “perfectly clear” day during September 23rd. TOA actual = 1353 watts/meter^2.

              The direct radiation is 540 watts/meter^2 @ 80N at high noon. That is maximum and it falls from there. At the equator it is 1150 watts/meter^2

              Trainbreath lives on a flat disk always facing a faint sun but if you are talking about his ‘Cartoon’ then those are the numbers you start with to show he is a flake. Kehr was doing a series of post to show just that. I just pulled one post of the set specifically dealing with transfer of energy vs potential aka ‘Forcing’.

              10

              • #

                gai
                ” I just pulled one post of the set specifically dealing with transfer of energy vs potential aka ‘Forcing’.”
                Trenberth certainly has some problems but this Kehr page is much worse. Trenberths problems are more related to cyclic changes in spectrum that do not alter TSI as predicted, massive uncounted extra inputs and outputs, incorrect averaging of nonlinear relationships and numbers with wide error margins. Your Kehr page even with corrected numbers has faulty logic and is just wrong. Try running the example at night with no sun. You will clearly be cooler when the sky is not cloudy. Call it Names like “forcing” or whatever but that cloud is returning heat even though it is cooler than you are. When the day comes a small hole in the cloud that is facing the sun will let in the massively more powerful sunlight, the two souces of heat do add. It is incorrect to not count the radiation coming back from the cloud as well as the larger heat from the sun. Oh and humans are not flat and less likely to be horizontal at noon.

                00

              • #
                gai

                Siliggy,

                A cloudy night has nothing to do with CO2/IR It is all about HEAT OF VAPORIZATION.

                And yes water as a vapor (water droplets not a gas) absorbs across the IR spectrum during the day. Dr Happer showed that in Slide #16 The thunderhead anvil FTIR satellite spectrum is top right graph. The BOTTOM CURVE just above the X axis. In other words it blocks almost all outgoing IR. The other four spectra are cloud free spectra for the tropical west Pacific, Sahara Desert, Southern Iraq and Antarctica.

                Slides: http://www.sealevel.info/Happer_UNC_2014-09-08/UNC-9-8-2014.pptx

                If you look at real world Day/Night temps in Brazil (humidity 80% with no rain) vs Algeria ( humidity around 0%)

                #1. The monthly high is 10C lower and the monthly low is ~ 10C higher when the H2O is added to the atmosphere. On top of that the average is 4C lower when in Brazil vs Algeria despite Brazil being closer to the equator and ata lower elevation.

                That is the latent heat of vaporization energy coming into play and the example Warmists use on the ignorant Useful Innocents to ‘show’ the effect of a green house gas.

                It is of course a lie. So NAMES do matter.

                10

          • #
            gai

            I don’t know what the devil that article has to do with what John Kehr was saying.

            In short the articles says:
            Solar energy is converted to heat (molecules jumping up and down more and more vigorously) and electricity (electrons gaily running down a copper wire.)

            John Kehr says a ” For cool autumn day the sun is likely providing 100 W/m2 of energy.”

            Depending on where and when you are the sun provides anywhere from Zero W/m^2 to a value of 1150 W/m^2 at the equator at mid day. link

            The key point I was trying to get at is “Forcing” cannot warm anything, only the positive flow of energy can cause something to warm up.

            John is explaining the difference between energy transfer and “forcing” (A word I hate) It used to be called potential. With the first, energy is flowing because of a difference in temperatures (or potentials) The other is just the potential for energy transfer. (As usual the Progressives mangled and changed words to confuse.)

            ……………

            About that 1000 W/m2 your article talks of…

            When the sun is warming the earth in Trainbreath’s cartoon, it is only 161 W/m2 at the surface but when the solar panel snakeoil salemen talk it miraculously becomes 1000 W/m2. SUCH A DEAL!

            Only it is not a deal but deceptive advertising.

            …. The panel is advertised to deliver 250 Watts of electricity under laboratory STC conditions. The specification provides an IV curve– where I is current in amperes and V is voltage. Current (amps) X voltage = Watts. Their curve shows that at STC laboratory conditions when the panel is illuminated at 1,000 W/m2 it produces slightly over 250 Watts. The curve also shows that at the assumed insolation defined in Going Solar the amount of electricity is 50 Watts as defined in the insolation averages. Our precise calculation puts the true value at 54.75 Watts.

            Thus the actual power generated from one panel averaged over 24 hours, 365 days, is only 21.9% of the output advertised.

            The Green Mirage

            20

            • #

              “The key point I was trying to get at is “Forcing” cannot warm anything, only the positive flow of energy can cause something to warm up.”
              This key point is self contradictory, illogical and absolute rubbish. The net flow of energy out is reduced by the positive forcing going the other way. An analogue is a garden hose. Apply forcing near the open end of the hose away from the tap and the pressure in the hose goes up even if the forcing is less than the pressure at the tap.

              10

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Hugh, welcome to the parallel universe of Doug

        43

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      As I see it, the problem is not with the physics. The biggest part of the problem is with ability to count. Physics comes after.

      Climate science is wholly contained in the science of statistics. Statistics is not an exact science. It seems to me that even though this fact is surely taught, few people understand it. In statistics every answer has a margin of error. As that answer is taken into a new question the margins of error compound. For this reason it is necessary, to guard against unacceptable error, to always relate answers back to the original data.

      Many statistical algorithms are developed not on a scientific basis, but on a “best fit” basis. In different applications these formulae will produce varying margins of error in the fit, while very often the user has no understanding of this. Computer models present an example of this problem.

      60

      • #
        gai

        Ted,

        I always thought it was a problem with significant figures (not to mention the distinct lack of error bars.)

        40

      • #
        edwina

        On Q&A last Monday one guest was an American, Neil deGrasse Tyson. He continues the Cosmos series started by Carl Sagen. Somehow the topic of statistics arose. He scoffed at statistics by way of mentioning how poorly statistics faired in or predicted the GFC. Yet he is one of the 3 top well known global warming persons in America. Al Gore is one of the other of the trio. The AGW didn’t come up Monday night. But it amazes me that a top acknowledged science guru believing in catastrophic warming denies the validity or usefulness in chaotic systems.

        41

        • #
          gai

          he IPCC itself tells us why the models will never be predictive beyond a very short time span and that is because they recognize climate as a ‘complex non linear chaotic ‘ system.

          The IPCC actually said in the Science Report in TAR:

          …in climate research and modeling we should recognise that we are dealing with a complex non linear chaotic signature and therefore that long-term prediction of future climatic states is not possible

          Projections of future climate change are not like weather forecasts. It is not possible to make deterministic, definitive predictions of how climate will evolve over the next century and beyond as it is with short-term weather forecasts. It is not even possible to make projections of the frequency of occurrence of all possible outcomes in the way that it might be possible with a calibrated probabilistic medium-range weather forecast. Projections of climate change are uncertain, firstly because they are primarily dependent on scenarios of future anthropogenic and natural forcings that are uncertain, secondly because of incomplete understanding and imprecise models of the climate system and finally because of the existence of internal climate variability. The term climate projection tacitly implies these uncertainties and dependencies…

          IPCC 2001 section 4.2.2.2 page 774

          30

    • #
      Peter C

      Personally I am disappointed by the responses to Doug’s post.

      He has a problem with the science of CO2 induced Climate Change and so do I.

      Instead of slamming him down, I would hope to see a collaborative effort to turn some of his ideas into concepts which can be understood by non science people.

      34

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Peter but his concepts are nonsense supported by made up mumbo jumbo. You are asking people to support something plainly stupid just because they agree with his motives. No one here would ever lower themselves in such a way.

        65

        • #
          Peter C

          Peter but his concepts are nonsense supported by made up mumbo jumbo

          Disagree Gee Aye. Doug may not explain himself well. But you should read his posts more carefully before you dismiss his ideas.

          You speak for yourself only.

          44

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Gee Aye,

          You wrote:

          Peter but his concepts are nonsense supported by made up mumbo jumbo. You are asking people to support something plainly stupid just because they agree with his motives.

          I’ve been following Doug Cotton’s attempts at promoting his theory and have yet to find anything even closely resembling a coherent presentation. You’re right, there are a lot of concepts which he tries to convey, unsuccessfully, using made up mumbo jumbo. But I’m willing to go even one step further.

          The tactics he uses are even more abhorent than his ‘loose language’. I’ve seen him make post after post, all within the comments to one blog article, where all he basically says is, “I’m right and to prove I’m right, just go to my web-site and you’ll see.” He’s done this many times both here and elsewhere.

          Well, I went to his web-site and he doesn’t provide enough information to cogently explain what his theory is. Ahh…but you do get the ‘opportunity’ to buy his book! How wonderfully capitalist of him!

          Not to mention the fact that he’s posted here on Jo’s blog using at least five different ‘names’, and as always, conveniently providing a link to his web-site.

          Having said all that, I’m inclined to believe that he is onto something. I’m not saying his theory is wrong. In order to do that I, or someone else, would have to first be able to comprehend what it is he’s talking about. Maybe he needs someone other than himself to ‘present’ the theory. The thing is that, if he’s right, and the theory does have value, then the tactics he’s been using do nothing more than ‘shoot himself in the foot’.

          So I wouldn’t go so far as to say his theory is ‘plainly stupid’. I’d say that it appears to be plainly stupid because of a lack of clarity and because of the use of bad tactics in promoting it.

          Abe

          90

          • #

            I do love having the support of the Japanese Prime Minister.

            11

          • #
            Peter C

            Abe,

            I don’t think Doug’s theory is stupid. And in fact he explains it quite well. He may have a problem understanding human nature and the reaction to his constant posts.

            In essence he promotes the thermo-gravitational theory. In other words in a gravitational field a planetary atmosphere will develop a temperature gradient (warmer at the bottom and cooler at the top). That is true in our earth’s atmosphere (at least in the troposphere, which is most of the atmosphere) and also in all the other planetary atmospheres with have been checked so far.

            He then considers the case of Venus, which has a very thick atmosphere composed of CO2. Venus is very hot in the lower atmosphere and at the surface and the temperature can be explained by the thermo-gravitational theory without any runaway greenhouse effect.

            The problem is that the cloudy atmosphere of Venus is so opaque that sunlight could not penetrate to warm the surface directly. So the heating has to occur in the upper atmosphere of Venus and then penetrate downward against an adverse thermal gradient.

            To explain that he proposes his “heat creep theory”, which says that when the gravitional field is taken into account the energy gradient is in fact flat, so heat can spread evenly through the atmosphere.

            The issue for me is to devise suitable empirical tests which will discriminate between the two theories ie greenhouse vs thermo-gravitational. Despite all the passionate debate, no one seems interested in doing that.

            Apologies to Doug if I have misrepresented his work.

            13

            • #

              The problem is that the cloudy atmosphere of Venus is so opaque that sunlight could not penetrate to warm the surface directly

              does he say that and you believe it? So zero gets to the surface? None? Not a single photon? Not at any wavelength? No EM from the sun hits the surface to be reflected or absorbed? None? And therefore zero EM (zero!)is emitted at any frequency and that therefore zero energy of a wavelength that CO2 will “catch”. Zero? So the CO2 does nothing on venus?

              Nothing?

              And what studies has Doug demolished to reach this conclusion? The 100′s that have been done? He’s falsified all observed data, all spectral data and all the physics this relies on? All of it?

              Or zero?

              31

              • #

                I need GI here to slap me down for arguing by incredulity

                22

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Speaking of incredulity try:

                Slice 1 large lemon finely. Also 1 peeled onion.
                Layer in a pre-warmed slow cooker.
                Scatter 1 cup raisins, 100 gm. quince paste and 1 teaspoon dried oregano on top. Sit chicken leg and/or thigh pieces on top. (Brown first if liked).
                Pour over 1 cup chicken stock & ¼ good olive oil. Season with salt and pepper. Cook on low 6 hours.
                Serve with steamed spinach and grilled eggplant slices.

                (Personally I would leave out the salt as already in the stock, and some rice instead eggplant, but your choice).

                10

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Sorry, slice onion as per lemon.

                10

              • #
                Peter C

                So zero gets to the surface(of Venus)? None? Not a single photon? Not at any wavelength?

                Straw man Gee Aye!

                Why don’t you read what I said again and try to understand.
                I was summarising Doug Cotton’s theory.

                21

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Indeed. Poorly “argued” by me. So he claims this odd thing and you don’t endorse it then?

                20

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Thanks G3. Do you have a no meat version?

                00

              • #
                Peter C

                Everyone has moved on Gee Aye, hence no one else will read this.

                However since I have been reading you a lot I thought that you would feel compelled to reply, and then to check to to see if I responded.

                So he claims this odd thing and you don’t endorse it then?

                Did you read this? “The issue for me is to devise suitable empirical tests which will discriminate between the two theories, greenhouse vs thermo-gravitational.”

                Is that endorsement?
                I consider his theory viable. There is supporting evidence from planetary exploration. But a true test of the competing theories has not yet been devised.

                You are a smart guy, so you might like to turn your considerable intellect to the problem. I have had some ideas but my resources are not sufficient to resolve the uncertainties associated with my proposed experiments.

                30

              • #
                LtCusper

                Peter C 9:48pm: The suitable real world empirical test is here, Doug’s hypothesis and thermo-gravitational would have had the black line continue trending up when the cirrus showed up at 1:30am; it didn’t. Both pools of water cooled all night and the one in view of the cirrus added energy is shown to have a higher temperature several inches down by thermometer than the other pool not viewing the cirrus. This same cloud detection is observed daily in NOAA ESRL data.

                http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/can-infrared-radiation-warm-a-water-body-part-ii/

                50

              • #
                gai

                LtCusper,

                I am afraid that Roy is missing the point.

                FIRST:
                CO2 has a specific band it radiates at and experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM. Where is CO2 is radiating? In the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface. CO2 doesn’t start radiating IR until it is in the stratosphere. Before that, at ground level, it is ten times more likely to hand off the energy via collision and contributes slightly to convection.

                http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/stratospheric_cooling.jpg

                So what is Roy actually seeing? He tells us.

                I’d like to try this again when the air mass is not so humid

                The radiation that the water is absorbing is the radiation emitted by WATER! With the formation of clouds it is the radiation from the gas form of water condensing to the liquid form of water, the heat of vaporization. So since the energy is coming FROM water in the first place of course it is going to affect water.

                That does not negate this graph:
                http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif

                …………….

                Plant Physics
                By Karl J. Niklas, Hanns-Christof Spatz

                ” …Water owes its remarkable properties (including a very high specific heat and the highest known heat of vaporization) to the distribution of its positive and negative electrical charges (dipole moment) and intermolecular hydrogen bonds….

                Very large amounts of energy must be supplied to break water’s hydrogen bonds, and two bonds must be broken for one molecule to evaporate….

                Water has an extrememy high surface tension due to its large intermolecular cohesive forces, which become dramatically unbalanced at the liquid-gaseous interface. These cohesive forces confer great tensil strength, which allows water to be drawn up vertically u8nder negative pressure over considerable heights without breaking….

                It attenuates all wavelengths of visible light and thus all wavelengths of photosynthetically active radiation (400-700nm) (abbreviated PAR). This attenuation, however, is not uniform across all PAR wavelengths. Water’s absorption of light begins to rise noticably as wavelengths increase above 550 nm and increases significantly at the red end of the spectrum, particularly in the near-infrared. Therefore, although water appears colorless, it is actually a blue liquid. One consequence of this property that is beneficial to plants is that water provides an excellent heat-absorption filter; for example, a water column 1 m deep absorbs about 35% of light with wavelengths of more than 680nm (Kirck 1983)…

                …………….

                More from an Ocean Science course:

                ….The most important concept in an ocean science course is that large quantities of heat are effectively stored in the oceans and ice, and then transported through the oceans and atmosphere, as a result of water’s heat properties and phase changes….

                the latent heat of vaporization of water (2,260 J·g-1) is higher than any other known substance.

                When a gas is allowed to cool to become a liquid and eventually a solid, both the sensible heat and the latent heat of vaporization and fusion are released….

                Water evaporated from the oceans carries the very large amount of heat associated with its evaporation with it when it enters the atmosphere. This heat is transported with the water vapor in the atmosphere until the water condenses to become rain or snow when the heat is released to the atmosphere.. This mechanism of heat transport is critical to the distribution of the sun’s heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, especially the transport of heat from low latitudes to higher latitudes and the transport of heat from the oceans onto the continents. As a result, this mechanism is a critical factor in controlling climate and is also the source of energy for weather systems….”
                http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/ch/07/welcome.asp

                33

              • #

                Thanks for asking but I don’t think there is a point trying to ask me to formulate such a test. My engineering knowledge (ie if I thought of something I’d not know if it were possible to construct) and imagination don’t equip me to comment. My feeling is that since his theory has less explanatory power and requires throwing out vast amounts theory supported by “conventional” physics, it is not worthy of such attention.

                00

            • #
              gai

              Peter C

              more on adiabatic atmosphere (in the troposphere)

              …you are told to expect the temperature to drop by about 1 degree per 100 meters you go upwards….

              The adiabatic gas law does not apply above about 20 kilometers (i.e., in the stratosphere) because at these altitudes the air is no longer strongly mixed….

              In conclusion, we have demonstrated that the temperature of the lower atmosphere should fall off approximately linearly with increasing height above ground level, whilst the pressure should fall off far more rapidly than this, and the density should fall off at some intermediate rate. We have also shown that the lapse rate of the temperature should be about 10 degree centigrade per kilometer in dry air, but somewhat less than this in wet air. In fact, all off these predictions are, more or less, correct. It is amazing that such accurate predictions can be obtained from the two simple laws, constant for an isothermal gas, and constant for an adiabatic gas.
              http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node56.html

              It is the entire atmosphere that helps the earth retain heat because it is a miserable conductor of heat. This is why a dry down jacket insulates so well and a soggy wet one is worse than useless. ‘Green house gases’ have little to do with insulating the earth and the effect of water is from the heat of vaporization more than from it’s interaction with IR radiated from the earth. Remember water vapor grabs a lot of the incoming sunlight too and having a high heat capacity and high heat of vaporization, retains it until it is released at night when the temperature falls below the dew point or clouds form.

              31

              • #
                Wayne Job

                That the theories promoted for the cause of global warming are total BS is beyond doubt. That most of theoretical science has been barking up the wrong tree for around a hundred years is also beyond question.
                Gravity theory alone does not explain our universe or planetary orbits [ 95% of the matter in the universe is missing] rings a big bell. The full electro magnetic spectrum, nor gravity explains the average temperature of the Earth or any planet.
                This missing part of the universe is energy connecting all bodies with a flow that enters at the poles and exits in a band around 30 degrees north and south of the equator, this gives us our tropics and even on the sun explains the band of sun spot around the equator on the sun.
                This energy is the basic particle that the entire universe is made from. Somewhat undetectable but it can be manipulated to effect both gravity and radio-active decay [ it has been noted by science that the moods of the sun alter radio-active decay]
                The shut up and calculate mentality using exotic and wrong maths , fudges and ever altering constants in physics, is manipulation to prove pet theories that are all blind alleys. Take a simple X-ray vacuum tube, it has a plate at either end inside a glass container with a hard vacuum. It has been noted that an unconnected tube has electrons spontaneously appearing in the tube? Does science try to explain this,no they ignore it.
                Photons, the visible ones are light, add two spins to them and they become electrons, what energy is in a vacuum tube to spin up photons? It is the missing 95% of the universe energy, two more spins on an electron it becomes a proton, thus the building block of the entire universe is begun.
                It will eventually be found that the dark matter- dark energy is the aether of old consisting of a sea of photons with some spin missing thus invisible. Main stream science has been less than useless and most of our modern world has been created by practical people stumbling across things that work oft by accident.

                05

              • #
                Peter C

                Thanks gai, LtCusper and others,

                It will take me the rest of the week to read your replies (carefully)and try to understand them.

                I may post up something next weekend to continue the discussion.

                Gee Aye says it is not worth his while responding, because he has nothing to contribute. He is right.

                12

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Correct peter. I hope that is not a surprise that I actually don’t have the knowledge or resources to help you, but I am honoured to be asked. Probably very few could help but be aware that my reply is more helpful than that of someone who thinks they can help and sounds like they know what they are talking about.

                20

              • #
                Peter C

                Green Thumb from me Gee Aye. Best I can do at present.

                You are very good at spotting logical flaws.

                00

            • #
              LtCusper

              gai 12:05am: First, I would urge you to go the original source of your first link graphic, the top right 400 color is a duplicate color of the lower and is not in the 1995 original.

              The original source will also inform you the approx. 650 wavenumber region shown below the dotted line is the main troposphere CO2 absorption meaning the upper colorful display is due less energy reaching those pressure levels from below at that wavenumber (the suddenly paler blue area below the dotted line).

              “CO2 doesn’t start radiating IR until it is in the stratosphere.”

              CO2 is matter, has mass, its Planck function from test shows emission at all frequencies, all temperatures, all the time, multiplied by its particular emissivity.

              “The radiation that the water is absorbing is the radiation emitted by WATER!”

              Actually in the test water ice and some wv, yes, water ice is matter, has mass, its Planck function from test shows emission at all frequencies, all temperatures, all the time, multiplied by its particular emissivity.

              “So since the energy is coming FROM water in the first place of course it is going to affect water.”

              Same way all added incident energy radiated from any source affects the water pool on the surface by 1LOT. Doug’s & thermo-gravitational hypotheses that the incident energy doesn’t actually exist, or if so, not measurable below 1 nanometer of water are falsified by Dr. Spencer’s test.

              40

              • #
                gai

                “….CO2 is matter, has mass, its Planck function from test shows emission at all frequencies, all temperatures, all the time, multiplied by its particular emissivity….”

                SAY WHAT?!?

                We are talking about a GAS @ SP not a solid.
                Chemists use the fact that a gas has spectral lines all the time for identification purposes. So do astronomers.

                In 1900, a German scientist named Max Planck wrote an equation to show the relationship between energy and frequency of electromagnetic radiation :

                E = hn

                where E is the energy of a bit of light called a quantum, A quantum is the smallest bit of electromagnetic radiation that can be emitted. It is also called a photon of light or small “packet” of electromagnetic radiation. The “h” in the above equation is a very small constant called “Planck’s constant” (6.626068 × 10-34 J s) and “n” is the frequency of the radiation. Through various experiments of Planck and Albert Einstein, it came to be accepted that light has properties of particles as well as waves. Planck’s “quantum” idea became the basis for the modern understanding of atomic structure. In the above equation, as the frequency of radiation increases, its energy increases by the increment “h”. In other words, energy was not continuous, it was quantized – only certain energies are allowed….http://www.kentchemistry.com/links/AtomicStructure/PlanckQuantized.htm

                NEXT LESSON:

                As I just discussed in the Spectral Lines page, electrons fall to lower energy levels and give off light in the form of a spectrum. These spectral lines are actually specific amounts of energy for when an electron transitions to a lower energy level….

                Jahann Balmer in 1885 derived an equation to calculate the visible wavelengths that the hydrogen spectrum displayed. The lines that appear at 410 nm, 434 nm, 486 nm, and 656 nm. These electrons are falling to the 2nd energy level from higher ones. This transition to the 2nd energy level is now referred to as the “Balmer Series” of electron transitions.

                Johan Rydberg use Balmers work to derived an equation for all electron transitions in a hydrogen atom. …

                I suggest you also read this:
                http://www.uni.edu/morgans/astro/course/Notes/section1/new4.html

                >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

                Where CO2 starts emitting a photon in the atmosphere is based on data .

                Paraphrasing Dr.R. Brown, Physicist Duke Univ.
                What is the absorption cross-section for a 15 micron photon?
                That’s the effective surface area intercepted by each CO2 molecule. It is large enough that the mean free path of LWIR photons in the pressure-broadened absorption bands of CO2 in the lower atmosphere is in the order of a meter. That means that LWIR photons — whatever their “size” — with frequencies in the band go no more than a meter or few before they are absorbed by a CO2 molecule.

                When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is much longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon as well as the other CO2 molecules around.

                In other words near the surface back radiation, aka a ‘resonantly re-emitted’ photon is a RARE EVENT.

                Dr Happer in his graduate level UNC lecture (9/2014) agreed with Dr. Brown and further stated that the time to radiate is about ten times slower than the time to the next collision in the troposphere. Dr Happer in his lecture also answered my question about where CO2 energy is radiated instead of being handed off via collision. Experimental data shows barely any radiation at 11 KM and that radiating is in the stratosphere ~ 47 KM above the surface. (As shown in that graph)

                The take away from his UNC lecture was the CO2 ‘modeling’ is a mish-mash of theoretical equations and experimentally derived data. Where the Climate alarmists missed the boat is in using equations for ‘line broadening’ aka the ‘wings’ where the additional CO2 absorption ( at 400 ppm) is supposedly taking place. These equations produce results that do not match up to the experimental data. The lines are not as broad as theory would have it. This means you take the exponential curve Steve showed a few days ago (CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Very Small) and squash it even flatter at 400 ppm and above. This means the CO2 sensitivity is much smaller than calculated by the IPCC.

                24

              • #
                LtCusper

                gai – gases have mass. Substitute in any frequency to that energy eqn. you posted, the resulting E is non-zero as I wrote. Look at the ideal, perfect emitter Planck function math, not 0 emission at any freq. at any temperature. The lines are due the real & particular emissivity multiplier at each incident feq. of the material of interest not the Planck function which is continuous (see your link Fig. 9).

                30

              • #
                gai

                OK, I understand now. Quantum Physics doesn’t exist and Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy doesn’t work.

                03

              • #
                LtCusper

                gai – Then you must not understand your own astronomy link, quantum physics and atomic absorption spectroscopy work fine, read up on that link. The lines come from the particular emissivity/absorptivity dynamics of the gas molecules not the Planck ideal continuous curve. CO2 in particular at about 650 wavenumber has a lot of unique but not 100% absorptivity at that freq. as shown in your 1st link, particular hydrogen absorptivity creates a line in your “Light” link Fig. 6, 7. The top continuous spectrum is what I wrote about (i.e. Planck ideal BB, all freq.s all temperatures), then each gas creates an absorption line at particular wave number&freq. that does not go to zero emission as no real material perfectly reflects and/or transmits at any freq. even though one can spot the lines.

                30

    • #
      Barry

      With the greatest of respect, Doug, you are wasting your time. Politics is about people. Understand the person and you understand their politics. First, none of them will read that much text, because they have no NEED to learn. I emphasise the word ‘need’, because that is where the people part of it comes in.

      Just look at Australian politics. On the side amusingly described as ‘conservative’, politicians might want to change the government’s response to carbon dioxide but instead they give us a wishy-washy sop to extremists, simply to try to lessen the opportunity their opponents have to score points against them. In other words, their policy serves no purpose other than to improve their own re-election chances. That is the pathetic state of politics in most Western countries.

      On the Left, the warmist side, you have several ‘people’ factors at work. First, you have the mentally ill leftists who, for one reason or another, have developed an obsessive hatred of coal and have closed their mind to everything else. I suspect the irrational, obsessive hatred of coal of many on the Left has its roots in the 1970s, when the anti-US Left – egged on by the Soviets – emerged as a powerful force in Western societies. At the time, the US was the dominant economic force in the world, particularly in mining, so it was the natural target for those wishing to vent their hatred for the US. That has carried through to this day.

      Then you have the naive Left – the naive and the young whose only concern is to socially advertise how virtuous they are. I call this mental masturbation. Nothing more needs to be said about this cohort, as there is no depth to their arguments. However, you need to remember that it is a particularly large cohort and the Left have been particularly skilled at exploiting them. But it couldn’t be any other way. If you are a young person, chock full of puppy hormones that are driving you to socially advertise yourself, the only way you can satisfy your primitive urge to socially distinguish yourself is to be opposed to the status quo. You don’t do it by saying that everything is fine and you agree with the mainstream view.

      I need to cut this short, so I won’t go into other human factors that are in play. But just look at what drives leftist politicians to pander to the mentally damaged lunatic fringe who want to shut down fossil fuels and switch to so-called ‘renewables’. The politicians know that this 10 per cent of the population is the one they have to pander to in order to stay in power. That is the beginning and end of it. It has nothing to do with science, beliefs or ideology. It is all about people. Don’t waste your time, Doug. Until we have the Swiss system of direct democracy, we will have to live with our country being destroyed by the self-serving psychopaths who are drawn to the political sphere.

      40

  • #
    Ceetee

    Just quietly Jo, time to go into politics perhaps?.

    90

    • #
      el gordo

      That would be the waste of a talent, Joanne is doing a fine job here as editor of this highly regarded ‘daily’.

      Admittedly the money is not good, but ultimately getting the science right will be invaluable.

      60

  • #
    • #

      You make some very good points about the decision to deploy the atomic bomb. It was basically to kill tens, (or even hundreds) of thousands of people in an instant, or for WW2 to drag on for many more months with the expectation (based on considerable experience) of many times that number being killed. What would you do? I share Pointman’s view that horrendous though the decision was, it was the right one to make.
      In climate there is a decision that the so-called experts have fluffed. Suppose Stern was right in 2006 when he said the costs of doing nothing were 5 to 20 times the cost of action of doing nothing. That climate cost could include millions of people dead each year from famine, floods and extreme weather. Would it be a no-brainer to initiate mitigation? I compare with the atomic bomb.
      First the atomic bomb was known to work. The science was there, and the terrible thing had been tested. The low-cost, high-impact policies to reduce emissions that Stern assumes are not there. Renewables are very high cost and have very little impact. Policies like carbon taxes and carbon trading have been tested and been found wanting.
      Second, the atomic bomb had a method of delivery – a single plane. Mitigation policies to have a large impact need dozens of governments to enact policies over decades. the delivery method is not in place.
      Third, the atomic bomb had operatives to arm the thing and a target. There are with no clear instructions on mitigation on how the policies work, nor how to optimize the impact.

      40

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Just spent a few days working on the Island of Labuan, just off the Borneo coast. Windy, wet and relatively cool. Locals can’t remember another August like this. Must be the volcanoes, or maybe just climate?

    70

  • #
    Steve

    “When you believe in things that you don’t understand,
    Then we suffer,
    Superstition ain’t the way”

    Stevie Wonder

    80

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Just one of those ironic moments in life that wouldn’t be half as funny if it were scripted.
    http://www2.epa.gov/region8/gold-king-mine-release-emergency-response
    The pictures were a PR disaster.
    http://imgur.com/w6OdBeG
    The USA EPA were merely inspecting the rubble pile retaining wall when somehow they “unexpectedly triggered a large release of mine waste water” as the rubble pile gave way spilling a plume of “copper, lead, and manganese” into the nearest creek. I mean it wasn’t their fault, obviously, because the mine owner was already allowing tailings to leak, that’s why the EPA was there to begin with. You can’t expect the EPA to perfectly clean up after negligent mining companies can you? So it’s just sheer bad luck that the situation escalated beyond all heck the moment EPA boffins got involved.

    Ah, but really, there is no indication that any great harm has been done, yellow clay coloured water just looks bad in photos, but it isn’t much more than mud. Just a rare opportunity for a chortle with a side serving of schadenfreude.

    80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      And the EPA response? Dump loads of caustic soda and flocculants into the coloured water.
      Well, it would work in the laboratory.

      I wonder if they have ever thought of dilution? Few people realise the ability of nature to recover from big spills. The longest term effect is usually the howls of anguish from the ignorant.
      Years ago I read of a ‘disaster’ in the USA, when a plating factory dumped its zinc cyanide tank into the river alongside the factory. Thus killing most fish, which floated belly up and attracted lots of adverse attention because there was a large city 25 miles down stream, which got its drinking water from the river. When the fuss died down and the plating factory had installed the demanded effluent holding tanks (after switching to a non cyanide process) the factory manager pointed out that they had been dumping like that for over 20 years. Obviously the river flow was great enough to dilute the pollution down to a concentration low enough for bacteria etc. to clean the water.
      I am not defending the factory management who were obviously fools, but saying it isn’t always a permanent disaster. Note the rate of recovery from oil spills, although don’t look on “green” sites for any mention.

      70

      • #
        gai

        The old saying was:

        “The solution to pollution is dilution”

        Doesn’t work real well when you have cities full of factories all dumping in the same river — then you get a burning river like Cuyahoga River.

        50

    • #
      gai

      The comments are hysterical. (Literally) Interesting that when the evocative words are aimed at the Oboma admin. the Useful Innocents scream YOU ARE LYING! And toss other temper tantrums. (Colorado is now the new California.)

      60

  • #
    James Murphy

    I had just left a drilling rig in the middle of Australia 7-8 years ago when the down-hill facing side of the cuttings ‘sump’ blew out, and quite a few (ok, maybe a couple of hundred at most) cubic metres of muddy water and rock went down the hill. It looked far worse than it was, as the light-medium grey colour of the water contrasted strongly with the natural brown/red landscape. The water would have had a pH of about 9.5 (though bacterial action rapidly decreases this), and the chemicals were either biodegradable, or inert, There is probably a higher background level of potassium (from potassium chloride) in the soil now, but that’d be about it.

    Not pretty (before the cleanup), but I would almost put money on it that it was far less detrimental to the environment than knocking wildlife out of the sky with wind turbines.

    No doubt there’s an EPA report on it somewhere.

    110

    • #
      James Murphy

      This was meant to be a response to post # 7…

      10

    • #
      ianl8888


      There is probably a higher background level of potassium (from potassium chloride) in the soil now …

      I trust you sent the EPA an invoice for the fertiliser :) It’s not every day that potash is distributed into soil free of charge

      60

    • #
      bobl

      Erg. Radiation, Radiation, Radiation … everybody please run around in circles screaming radiation at the top of your lungs. Imagine all that radioactive potassium CONTAMINATING the soil. Could be almost as damaging as the 4 Mile Island – Quickie Mart Banana display

      30

      • #
        James Murphy

        People often wonder why I glow in the dark… There would have been quite a lot of barium sulphate in the mix as well, so I like to think it all would have balanced itself out… and, following in the footsteps of the great Warmists of our time, I am saying that based on nothing more than how I ‘feel’, as facts can be annoyingly contradictory in that regard.

        10

  • #
    tom0mason

    With the meeting of the Paris-ites coming up, with the usual increase on MSM channels of climate catastrophe porn, rhetoric, and propaganda being pumped up; I thought this old piece was worth an airing –

    Bloomborg Headline News|
    By Ran Damitall | Sept 31, 2014 | 03:61 AM CET+0401

    Known Global Reserves of Panic Predictions At All Time Low.

    Scientists predict the world will run out of topics to panic about within 9.7 years (99.8% confidence), which is almost ten times faster than the first UN projections.
    “Imaginization is running out”, says some industry insiders, while others said that “Peak Panic” is predicted to occur some time in “the next 2 to 3 years, maybe sooner!”, adding that, “… after, with global scientific research imaginations are already stretched to yawning point”, causing the world to experience a “complete collapse of the Panic Credit market.”

    WWFP spokesperson was unavailable due to severe apprehension and fear. However the well known panic đeŊ¡er, Anthony Whatt from the notorious WhattTFJustHappened.com blog site said:
    “I’ve little trust with the output of the CHIMP5* modeling as it has imaginization forcing set just too high…”

    Meanwhile US Chief Panicologist Professor ‘Bull’ McKibblen said -
    “Stay alarmed! The models nearly predicted this. And remember the calmists, the panic đen¡ers are wrong.”
    When questioned further he added,
    “It’s just the new catastrophic anomalous normal, the panic market should adjust.”

    A White House spokesperson, of indeterminate gender, age, and ethnicity, told this reporter:

    “The President intends to sleep on it.”

    And on the markets -
    Panic Credit shares reached an all time low today, as panic swept through the Panic Credit share markets globally. Marketeers at ‘Swipeit and Run International’ said future markets may significantly under-panicing leading to falling interest rates.

    The forecast is for periods of seriously restful sleep in the long term.
    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    *CHIMP5 – Computer Humanized Imagined Massive Panic, modeling array #5.

    More at [paywalled ($$)]
    ħttp¦//www.ßloomborg.com/news/2014-31-09/grid_locked/five-tħreats-more-terrifying-tħan-calm-panic-before-the-market-panic-storm-causes-panic-alarm.hŧm

    :)

    From an original idea by commentator ‘Safetyguy66′ at Joanne Nova website
    (joannenova.com.au/2014/08/peak-china/#comment-1531554)

    200

  • #
    doubting dave

    “INTERESTING DOG WALKS” Hi folks i spent my morning taking my little yorkie terrier on a walk to a local nature reserve that we visit from time to time, its in the village of Eakring ( old saxon for oak ring ) the reserve is called DUKES WOOD a place with a big but little known history (outside of Nottinghamshire at least). Here, is where oil was first commercially extracted in the UK ,its where the British Petroleum company( BP ) was founded and later became BP’S base when they discovered and drilled for north sea oil, after oil production at Dukes Wood finished in the 1980′s the site was turned into a nature reserve with a small museum and visitors centre and donated to the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust.Dukes Wood played a vital role during the war supplying oil to the armed forces whilst the German U boats where preventing supplies from abroad, largely thanks to the bravery and skill of American oil workers that volunteered their services , these men became known as the ‘American Roughnecks of Sherwood Forest’and there is a bronze statue at the site known as the ‘oil patch warrior’ erected in their honour. Dukes Wood has its own website here http://www.dukeswoodoilmuseum.co.uk/ where you can read its history and the story of the ‘oil patch warriors or click on the photo gallery to see the awful damage done to the environment by those nasty evil fossil fuel fiends , errr or not and just so you Aussies don’t feel left out of the story here is a link to how the origins of Dukes Wood and the British petroleum company can be traced back to Queensland Australia circa 1882 http://www.dukeswoodoilmuseum.co.uk/british_petroleum.htm

    70

    • #
      James Murphy

      This is interesting! I have to admit, with 12-ish years in the oil industry, and work in a few countries for various oil companies (including BP), I have little knowledge of the history of North sea oil/gas fields, aside from knowing it kicked off sometime in the mid 1960s. (My excuse is that I haven’t worked in any North Sea sectors!). The Piper Alpha disaster was always used as an example of what not to do, in various training courses.

      Interestingly, it seems BP will again come to the rescue the UK (well, Europe, actually), once Shah Deniz Stage 2 is online. It’s supposed to be able to provide something like 20% of european gas requirements.

      40

      • #
        doubting dave

        James the Dukes wood site has a link to how north sea oil and gas got started http://www.dukeswoodoilmuseum.co.uk/sea_gem.htm

        30

      • #
        Chris, Hervey Bay.

        Seems to me a lot of ‘Oil’ people frequent Jo’s site.
        I started in 1965 and finished, retired, in 2003.
        Travelled all over, Middle East and Indonesia.

        50

        • #
          James Murphy

          For me at least, when I was at university, the oil industry was not where I saw myself working as a geologist, but in retrospect, the work has allowed me to travel widely, make some good friends, learn a lot about different cultures and places, as well as making some decent money along the way. The more I see of other cultures, the more obvious it is, that despite supposed differences in race, or religion, humans are still humans everywhere, and we all have much more in common with each other than we usually care to admit.

          No sane geologist should fall for the AGW arguments…

          70

          • #
            doubting dave

            jAMES ,Good man, and what you say is true and north notts is a coal mininig area where millions of tons of quality coal has been left underground and miners have lost there jobs for what ??? so Dax can burn wood ??

            10

          • #
            doubting dave

            DRAX OF COURSE , SORRY SHOULD OF SPELL CHECKED

            00

  • #
    handjive

    The Scientific Method -Richard Feynman, Cornell University, 1964

    1. Guess
    2. Compute the consequences of the guess
    3. Compare experiment with observations to see if correct.
    4. If it disagrees with experiment, it’s WRONG.

    Rolling Stone, August 5, 2015:

    Michael Mann, another prominent climate scientist, recently said of the unexpectedly sudden Atlantic slowdown, “This is yet another example of where observations suggest that climate model predictions may be too conservative when it comes to the pace at which certain aspects of climate change are proceeding.”
    . . .
    It can’t be any clearer.

    90

  • #
    The Backslider

    Something to blow your minds for the weekend:

    https://www.facebook.com/SydneyUrshanPage/videos/589078747895163/

    70

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Wow you just have to admire such talent and skill, the Chapman Stick is very Sitar like and reminded me of the legendary Ravi Shankar playing at Woodstock 1969 ,

      20

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        I am remembering Ravi Shankar. In the 50′s I am having one of his records. It was very-very melodious.

        10

    • #
      handjive

      Nice.

      As any rock fan knows, the Beatles never got back together.

      What you might not know is that even partial Beatles reunions and “near misses” were frustratingly rare back when such things mattered (prior to George Harrison’s death in 2001).

      Which is why the videos below is so enjoyable (via guitaraficionado.com):

      On June 5, 1987, three of the five original musicians who appeared on the classic Beatles White Album track “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” reunited to perform the song live at the Prince’s Trust Rock Gala at London’s Wembley Arena.

      For the closest thing to a full-on Beatles reunion, there’s nothing quite like the mid-Nineties footage of McCartney, Harrison and Starr hanging out together during the making of Anthology (bottom video).

      40

  • #
    Another Ian

    “How to write a bullshit “sciency” article (about anything).”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2015/08/what-would-we-d-57.html

    and links

    30

  • #
    gai

    “the unexpectedly sudden Atlantic slowdown…”

    Chasing that down I came up with this:

    Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation
    Minus the CAGW nonsense

    …. Maps of temperature trends over the twentieth century show a conspicuous region of cooling in the northern Atlantic. Here we present multiple lines of evidence suggesting that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the twentieth century and particularly after 1970….
    Using a multi-proxy temperature reconstruction for the AMOC index suggests that the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium (p > 0.99).

    Here is the OH SH…!

    BACKGROUND: A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates
    Gerard Bond et al

    Abstract

    Evidence from North Atlantic deep sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 ± 500 years. The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state. Amplification of the cycle during the last glaciation may have been linked to the North Atlantic’s thermohaline circulation.

    So There are abrupt shifts and amplification of them may be linked to the [slow down?] of the North Atlantic’s thermohaline circulation.

    E.M. Smith gets into this in a lot of detail in his D.O. Ride My See-Saw, Mr. [Gerald] Bond

    ….For this reason, the Holocene climate in our model is stable with respect to the 1,500-year forcing cycle, while the glacial climate is not. We can thus explain the large fluctuations of Greenland temperature during the glacial climate in terms of ocean circulation instability, requiring only a weak trigger but not necessarily any major ice-sheet instability. In the Holocene, the 1,500-year cycle is still present but is not amplified by ocean circulation instability, so that its signature is only weak.

    First off, this is A Very Big Deal! It means that as long as we’re warm, we stay warm and relatively stable. Secondly, it says that once we start getting significantly cold, things become more unstable, and we can ‘latch up’ into a very cold configuration of water flow. The article also talks about a mode during transitions from generally warm / cold to the other where things are more prone to twitching back and forth. So, since we’re on the cusp of a new Glacial, in terms of Milankovich cycles and W/m^2 north of 60 degrees… at some point we get just a tiny bit too cold, then when we hit the 1500 year “bump” (whatever it is), we have the oceans switch to a cold phase circulation and Europe goes into the meat locker…. Southern Hemisphere not so much…

    The actual paper goes on to say:

    ….Sediment data also suggest that changes in the Atlantic thermohaline circulation are crucial in these abrupt climate changes13,14, and it is difcult to imagine a mechanism for such dramatic and rapid temperature changes that does not involve large changes in ocean heat transport….

    …Many modelling studies in the past have shown that the Atlantic thermohaline circulation
    (1) is a signicant contributor to the regional heat budget over the North Atlantic region,
    (2) is sensitive to freshwater input into the North Atlantic, and
    (3) is a nonlinear system with thresholds for transitions between qualitatively different circulation modes…..

    80

    • #
      el gordo

      If we can agree that the LIA was not a Bond Event, then we are in line for a major excursion.

      On that score its probably best not to alarm anyone prematurely, unless we see the obvious signs. My mantra, a Gleissberg is nothing to fear.

      10

      • #
        gai

        “If we can agree that the LIA was not a Bond Event, then we are in line for a major excursion.”

        E.M. Smith calls the LIA a half Bond Event. (I hope this is just an 88 year Gleissberg dip. That was my first guess, a few years ago.)

        …IMHO (and here’s where I take that leap off the pier…) this is a largely solar driven event, but with lunar tidal involvement. The sun “goes sleepy”, and perhaps very sleepy, right at the time when the lunar tidal and angular momentum transfers make the ocean sensitive to current shifts. Similar shifts happen in the moving conductive fluids that make up the ‘dynamo’ giving us our magnetic field. Depending on the particular states of all those things, and likely some particulars of variation in the driving force, we get different strength events.

        It happens every 1500 years. You can’t stop it. You can’t change it. You can’t even accurately predict it. (In particular, was the Little Ice Age THIS 1500 year “one”? Or was that The Dark Ages starting in 535 AD?)

        Earlier we saw my speculation about 1/2 Period Bond Events.
        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/intermediate-period-half-bond-events/

        I think that makes the Little Ice Age a 1/2 period event. The Iron Age Cold Period was Bond Event 2 and had onset at 900 BC. Add 3000 to that you get 2100 AD. Yet it’s really 1470 not 1500 per cycle… Now it becomes 2040 AD. Remarkably close to the 2030-2040 AD range of some of the current estimates for deep cold (especially Habibullo I. Abdussamatov out of Russia whom I had the great pleasure of meeting once…). Add 1470 AD to 900 BC, you get 570 AD. Rather close to that Dark Ages beginning date.

        And take the 535 AD known start, add 1470, you end up at 2005. Just about the time this solar funk started. Make it even one or two solar cycles of ‘jitter’ off, and we’re at 535+1500 = 2035 AD (or 2025 AD ). In all cases, the error bands on a 1500 ish year estimate make it “about now” and not “about 1800 AD”.

        But at least now we have a better idea what “indicators” to look for.

        Changes in the Gulf Stream. [Check]

        Extra cold in England and northern Western Europe. [Check]

        Ongoing magnetic field decay, and increasing sporadic field reversal / abnormal areas. [Check see Vulcevic]

        Length Of Day changes (of small degree, but out of the ordinary for recent times). [Check]

        We can also speculate that the “backing up” of the Gulf Stream and added warmth in the Gulf of Mexico will result in a hotter middle of the USA. (Golly, haven’t we been seeing that lately?…) and a set of very nice weather in Florida….
        https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/d-o-ride-my-see-saw-mr-bond/

        E. M is good at the ‘Dig Here’ stuff and stringing together a bunch of isolated facts. I do it too but E.M. is a lot better at it.

        I also figured out close to Florida was a good spot to be so we moved within 400 miles of Florida. Just far enough north to be out of the worst of the heat and humidity.

        50

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    I see Geoffrey Cousins of the ACF is claiming that only Tony Abbott believes in a future for coal.
    Somewhat more than unusually stupid even for an advanced Paris-ite as he cannot see the connection between a huge coal mine that will ship to India and what they want the coal for.
    I see that roughly 1200 new coal fired power stations are building or in the planning stage, which surely should indicate that there is some interest in coal elsewhere in the World, but he forgot to mention that too.

    Tony, should the coal industry adopt the slogan, Coal fired – more power than a 1,000 windmills?

    80

    • #

      Tony, should the coal industry adopt the slogan, Coal fired – more power than a 1,000 windmills?

      Or, for Australia, in the case of Bayswater, more power than ALL of them!

      Bayswater – 17,500GWH per year.

      EVERY wind tower in Australia – 9,700GWH per year. (which in fact is only 55% of the total power delivered by Bayswater)

      Tony.

      PostScript – Incidentally, just ONE new USC coal fired power plant with two 1200MW units will deliver more power than 3,000 Wind towers with a 2.5MW generator on top of the pole, and 3000 wind towers is 15 HUGE scale Wind Plants (500MW from 200 towers)

      120

      • #
        Chris, Hervey Bay.

        Tony, I’m back home from PA.
        I can’t remember the complete conversation as I was in complete shock. Where a very little knowledge is a BAD thing.
        From ‘knowledgeable’ American. “we don’t have any trouble with using renewable energy, we only have 110 volts”

        I walked away and got another really stiff drink !

        100

  • #
    gai

    Well, this explains a lot!

    The Global Change Research Act 1990 is a United States law requiring research into global warming and related issues….

    The law codified the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), set up by presidential authority in 1989, and mandated the creation of the Global Change Research Information Office (GCRIO), which began work in 1993. The act requires extensive reports to be updated and distributed every four years….

    For more SEE No Place For Skeptics at the Govt Table
    by E.M. Smith

    HUMMmmmm 1989… That was the year after Senator Wirth and Hansen played dirty tricks on Congress to get them to believe it was very hot. A PBS interview with Tim Wirth who organized the 1988 Senate hearing at which James Hansen addressed global warming. Wirth brags about the trick he played. The trick was designed to help get Mike DoCaCa* elected. On Nov. 8, 1988, Republican George Bush defeated Democrat Michael Dukakis but it didn’t help us defeat CAGW did it?

    * Nickname used by MA residents who disliked him intensely. When he came to our plant campaigning I refused to shake his hand and turned my back on him. (The look on his face was priceless.)

    50

  • #
    pat

    those infamous google algore-ithms are still at work?

    searched “climate change” “news” articles for past 24 hours. almost at the top of the first page of 20 results, i got this 8 Aug AAP piece which was posted online 12 hours ago:

    8 Aug: News.com.au: AAP: Shorten seeks action with US on climate
    BILL Shorten wants Australia and the US to work together on tackling climate change, warning of more dangerous fires and extreme floods in both countries because of inaction.
    THE opposition leader made the call during an address to the Australian American Leadership Dialogue Gala Dinner in Melbourne on Saturday night…
    Labor wants 50 per cent of Australia’s electricity to come from renewable energy by 2030 and plans to build an emissions trading scheme.
    “On both these fronts the United States gives us great hope,” Mr Shorten said, referencing the US’s agreement with China last year and President Barack Obama’s speech on climate change in Brisbane at the G20 summit.
    Mr Shorten also praised the president’s climate action plan, which will cut nearly six billion tonnes of pollution through to 2030.
    “This isn’t rhetoric, this isn’t symbolism. This is the future,” he said.
    http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/shorten-seeks-action-with-us-on-climate/story-e6frfku9-1227475726254

    4 pages of results (20 per page) later, i got the following AAP piece posted half an hour ago!
    this is it in its entirety:

    9 Aug: SBS: AAP: We’re doing better than many on climate: PM
    In a message released today as politicians head back to Canberra after the winter recess, Mr Abbott said Australia is on track to meet and beat its Kyoto targets, cutting emissions by five per cent on 2000 levels – the equivalent of a 13 per cent reduction on 2005 levels.
    He says on a per capita basis, Australia is doing better than the United States, Canada, Japan and Europe.
    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/08/09/were-doing-better-many-climate-pm

    40

  • #
    pat

    news.com.au is as alarmist as ABC/Fairfax – here’s proof from just their opening page of “climate change” stories:

    Top 5 stories:

    Country that’s ‘immune’ to climate change
    AS THE threat of global warming looms ever larger, scientists are offering up ideas for where we should move to ensure we survive the longest…

    Withering smack-down to wind farm haters
    A PUBLIC health expert has likened people who say wind turbines are dangerous to those who believe in aliens or have superstitions about lottery numbers…

    ‘One of the most extreme readings ever’
    THERE’S a place in the world that is in the middle of a heatwave that has ***almost broken the record for the hottest temperature ever recorded…

    ‘No plan B’: Obama’s terrifying warning
    THE US President has warned that none of us will escape the looming danger: “No challenge poses a greater threat to our future.”

    Why the mammoths were toast

    some choice headlines from the rest:

    ‘The world could be overwhelmed’
    FAMINE. Disease. Drought. Any one of these would be a crisis, but now we’re facing all of them at once in a ‘perfect storm’

    Warming ‘as dangerous as nuclear war’

    Earth becoming ‘immense pile of filth’

    Abbott slammed as ‘world’s worst climate villain’

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change

    50

  • #
    aussieguy

    5 part series from former Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore…

    What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkdbSxyXftc

    The Truth about CO2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc

    Are GMOs Good or Bad?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSten18rI9A

    Trees Are the Answer
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZN6QuAdxLI

    Why I Left Greenpeace
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpBnJq19R60

    40

  • #
    pat

    9 Aug: UK Telegraph: Christopher Booker: Thank Goodness, the Republicans will squash Obama’s climate lunacy
    Ask not how the US President’s Clean Energy Plan will keep the lights on…especially if you work at the BBC
    Last week in the White House, to a roomful of 150 cheering environmental activists, President Obama unveiled his answer to what he called “the greatest threat facing the world”…
    Inevitably the BBC Today programme wheeled on one of Obama’s senior “climate” advisers, to tell us how wonderful this all is, and how it will slash US energy bills so dramatically that, between 2020 and 2030, it will save consumers “$139 billion”. This is implausible enough, But, equally inevitably, what the BBC interviewer did not ask was how America can keep its lights on and its economy running when, after all those “dirty” coal-fired power plants have been closed down, the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, But that is precisely the all-important question which, when faced with such insanity, either in the US or here in Britain, the BBC’s journalists are careful never to ask…
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/11790332/Thank-Goodness-the-Republicans-will-squash-Obamas-climate-lunacy.html

    50

  • #
    Rick Will

    Syukuro Manabe is the climate scientists’ climate scientist – voted the most influential work on climate modelling.

    In the interview reported here:
    http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/07/the-carbon-brief-interview-syukuro-manabe/
    he gives insight into the present status of climate modelling.

    His view on the state of modelling:
    “As the models get ever more complicated – or, as some people say, sophisticated – no one person can appreciate what’s going on inside them. One modeller can be an expert in one component of the model, but doesn’t know the other parts. But now it is impossible to do so. If you make a prediction based on the model and you don’t understand it very well then it is no better than a fortune-teller’s prediction.”

    By this reasoning the conclusion from this is that IPCC climate modellers are fortune tellers as none of them understand all the detail in the present models they are using.

    His view on why the models give poor results:
    “One of the most challenging tasks of climate science is to determine the sensitivity of climate. It is often defined as the response of the global mean surface temperature to the doubling of atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, given sufficient time. Unfortunately, there is a large spread among the sensitivity of climate models. The spread is attributable in no small part to the parameterisation of cloud process that has become increasingly detailed, introducing many parameters that are difficult to determine either theoretically or observationally. In order to solve this problem, it is desirable to constrain the parameterisation of cloud macroscopically, using satellite observation of the radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere. I have been working on this problem.”

    Within this paragraph he links to a recent paper he produced where he assesses the so-called gain factor for clouds produced by a range of models compared against measured outgoing radiation; both reflected solar radiation and long wave radiation:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568.full
    This is a simple test for the validity of the models with regard to a key parameter. The variation between measured data and modelled data for cloud radiative forcing is shown in graph C in this figure:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568/F5.expansion.html
    Note the data is only from yearly variation so does not include any longer term effects that the models do not incorporate. Even here the cloud gain factor for the models varies from -0.5 tp 0.3 while the data places it close to zero.

    The first figure in the paper has some useful data on the overall impact of clouds to outgoing long wave radiation:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568/F1.expansion.html
    The OLR in the presence of clouds is reduced by around 28W/m^2 but that value reduces with increasing surface temperature.

    The second figure shows the data for reflected solar radiation:
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568/F2.expansion.html
    Here the impact of cloud is that 50W/m^2 is reflected by the cloud but the amount reflected falls a little as surface temperature rises.

    From these two figures it is apparent the net impact of clouds, based on monthly averages for one year over the globe between latitudes 60N to 60S, is about 22W/m^2 net reduction in surface heat flux – more SR being reflected than OLR being absorbed . This data alone shows the significance of clouds in reducing global heat input.

    The effectiveness of clouds in modulating the surface temperature is further supported by there being little variation in the TOA heat fluxes in the northern and southern hemisphere despite the NH being predominantly land with relatively high surface albedo and the SH being predominantly water with low albedo.

    Anyone claiming the science is settled has limited knowledge.

    60

  • #
    Len

    Climate Council page on facebook once again spreading more propaganda today. I am blocked from commenting after previous comments.

    60

  • #
    el gordo

    Solar activity over the past 200 years is totally unrelated to the rise in temperatures on earth.

    http://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/

    41

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Looks like we have “sunspot homogenisation”. So according to this new paper there has been no change in the sun since the 18th century, so all warming since then has been down to us! That clears that up.

      80

    • #
      PeterS

      These days whenever I see the word “corrected” in a title for a scientific paper or whatever, I immediately translate it to “fudged to give the illusion of truth”.

      40

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Whaaaaat???!!??!!!???

      At the measurement level; That’s how far their scheme has gone?

      I mean… the ion chamber counts since 1951, the 10Be proxies which go from 1400 to 1975… we’ve got more than one source showing that solar activity increased over the last 100 years.

      Who paid IAU to take a dive in the 3rd round?
      They can’t get away with this.

      80

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I got a reply email from Nir Shaviv this morning.


      From - Tue Aug 11 12:09:12 2015
      Return-Path: [Redacted]
      Message-Id: [Redacted] ED
      Subject: Re: The credibility of SSN v2.0
      Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 23:30:51 +0200

      Hi Andrew, since you are one of half a dozen that asked me, I decided to blog about it, see
      http://www.sciencebits.com/sunspots_2.0
      cheers
      — nir

      My interpretation of his blog post is that he’s saying SSN v2.0 could be a blessing in disguise, because the new version could point to exactly which aspect of the sun is modulating the climate, and it doesn’t have to be sunspots.

      Fair enough. I still can’t see how the IAU can get away with these statements:
      • “These results [...] make it difficult to explain the observed changes in the climate that started in the 18th century and extended through the industrial revolution to the 20th century as being significantly influenced by natural solar trends.”
      [Nope! We've got two other independent sources of solar activity measurement which both show an increase.]
      • “The apparent upward trend of solar activity between the 18th century and the late 20th century has now been identified as a major calibration error in the Group Sunspot Number.”
      [Nope! A calibration error on counting sunspots doesn't effect calibrations of geomagnetic measurements and isotope ratios.]

      In that press release the IAU took a dive.

      30

  • #
    Peter C

    Just finished watching “THE AGE OF URANIUM” (part one) by Derek Muller on SBS.

    Pretty Good. Early 20th Century Physics well explained, and perhaps this was the apogee (high point) of Physics. Where have physicists gone since then? Into ever more esoteric speculations of Philosophy!

    Anyway Derek said (something like)this:

    E=MC^2:

    Energy and Matter are related and the multiplier is a humungous number C^2. C=the speed of light, which is huge and C^2 is huge squared which is humungous. i.e. a lot of energy.”

    But thing that got me thinking is this. Why is the number C^2? Why is the speed of light a constant in the equation? What does that mean?

    Unfortunately Derek did not give the answer. Another important unknown in the world of physics!

    40

    • #
      James Murphy

      I haven’t seen this documentary, so i don’t know how much was explained… I have seen a few of his youtube videos, and he seems like a smart, and passionate presenter – not overtly displaying the axe-grinding common with the likes of Dr Karl, Robyn Williams, and other ABC ‘science’ people.

      what disturbs me the most about some of the videos Derek does, is that the concepts should already be known, or at least vaguely familiar to a lot of people, as it is often high-school level science, or lower. Such is the abominable state of science education in Australia…

      As far as I remember from university physics (which was a disturbing amount of time ago – to me at least), this is where you need to look at how Einstein developed his special theory of relativity. All that springs to mind is that C^2 was a constant that worked, even though it was not empirical. light (electromagnetic radiation) must always have a velocity, and that if you wanted to accelerate yourself to the speed of light, the amount of energy required is exponential (or a similar rate of increase) compared to the velocity increase… none of this, i am sure, answers your questions though… sorry!

      20

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks James,

        Perhaps the connection is there somehow.

        is E = the amount of energy required to accelerate mass to the speed of light? Obviously not quite true, but maybe close.

        I was given a book as a prize in my HSC year, in which the Einstein papers were translated and interpreted. Einstein seems to have developed the theory of special relativity from just 2 concepts:
        1. There is no special place in the universe. Physics must be the same for all observers.
        2. The speed of light is constant and appears the same to all observers, no matter what their relative velocities might be to each other. This involves a paradox which is resolved by making both length and time relative quantities.

        00

  • #
    gai

    In looking at wind power deaths I found this news article. It is from an Anti-coal/Pro-nuclear person and is chock full of the misdirection and lies found throughout the CAGW propaganda. I decided to take it apart and discover the truth.

    His numbers looked a wee bit suspicious, so lets look at them. Are we really comparing apples to apples?

    The Answer is NO!
    The deaths from renewables are DIRECT deaths. They do not include mining of the materials to manufacture the equipment.

    The Coal deaths are the largest number that can be attributed to coal. They include 16 mining deaths (2014) in the USA, the ONE US power plant death (1998) and pixie dust numbers manufactured at the direction of the EPA — “7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution.”
    SEE JunkScience for the lowdown on the EPAs ‘Junk Science’

    Remember coal and natural gas replaced the indoor cooking and other heating fires using BIOMASS; wood, dung, and other burnables. These biomass fires currently kill 3.5 million people a year, mostly in the developing world. Therefore clean coal has caused a REDUCTION in air pollution caused deaths and not an increase.

    These fictious numbers are then compared to the 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011 in England. (England, not the UK as in Scotland where a lot of wind turbines are located???)

    So right there WIND KILLED MORE PEOPLE per kilowatt-hr. FULL STOP!

    Even his Nuclear death numbers are off. He gives nuclear deaths as 90, while the World Nuclear Association shows only the 30 deaths from Chernobyl and none from Fukushima or mining. (There maybe mining accidental deaths but none from radiation)

    Do these people never stop making up numbers?

    …………

    SUPPORTING INFORMATION:

    Forget Eagle Deaths, Wind Turbines Kill Humans

    Who cares about birds? What about humans being killed by wind farm accidents? Last week a study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife researchers on the number of eagle deaths by wind turbines ruffled some feathers …, but industry supporters were quick to note that other human activities kill more, so who cares?

    Does this same philosophy hold true for human deaths? A colleague at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology sent me a paper from the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum 2013 (Wind Farm Accidents and Fatalities) that was rather enlightening.

    In England, there were 163 wind turbine accidents that killed 14 people in 2011. Wind produced about 15 billion kWhrs that year, so using a capacity factor of 25%, that translates to about 1,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced (the world produces 15 trillion kWhrs per year from all sources).

    Nuclear energy produced over 90 billion kWhrs in England with no deaths. In that same year, America produced about 800 billion kWhrs from nuclear with no deaths.

    Since so many more people die from other causes, can we just forget about it? Like the eagles?

    Does any energy source kill a significant number of people? In a post from last year, we discussed human fatalities by energy source (How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt?), and how coal is the biggest killer in U.S. energy at 15,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced, while nuclear is the least at zero.

    He gives nuclear deaths as 90.

    I find

    World Nuclear Association
    Fukushima Accident (Updated June 2015) — “The death toll directly due to the nuclear accident or radiation exposure remained zero… Three Tepco employees at the Daiichi and Daini plants were killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami…”

    Chernobyl Accident 1986 (Updated June 2015) — “..Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning. UNSCEAR says that apart from increased thyroid cancers, “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.”…”
    For mining of Uranium, no deaths from radiation. (Maybe from mining accidents.)

    In the last 50 years, individual mining operations have been larger, and efficient ventilation and other precautions now protect underground miners from these hazards. Open cut mining of uranium virtually eliminates the danger. There has been no known case of illness caused by radiation among uranium miners in Australia or Canada. While this may be partly due to the lack of detailed information on occupational health from operations in the 1950s, it is clear that no major occupational health effects have been experienced in either country.

    While uranium oxide product from a mine is certainly radioactive, the long half-lives involved mean that it is practically impossible to receive a harmful radiation dose from it.

    So that is 30 deaths not 90.

    COAL

    The Clean Air Task Force issued studies based on the deaths and other adverse health affects attributable to the fine particle air pollution resulting from power plants. The latest report (2010) says there are over 7,500 deaths each year are attributable to fine particle pollution from U.S. power plants. (Remember these studies used illegal human experiments that had asthmatics and children sucking on diesel fumes and are questioned due to linear extrapolation vs threshold issues.)

    What about mines?
    In 2013 there were 20 deaths and in 2014 there were 16 deaths according to the US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.

    What about coal power generation plants?
    I will be darned if I can find any numbers except this from OSHA – Power Generation Industry
    “A Plant Operator at a Coal Fired Power Generation Plant in Texas, Died When He Fell Between the Bypass Dampers Located in the Flu Gas Disulfurization Unit.Report 98TX23501, (1998, December 28).

    How about other energy sources?
    2003 to 2009 (six years) In the USA there were 716 oil and natural gas employees killed or 120 per year.

    rooftop solar installers – in California since 2009 there were three deaths. The Next Big Future gives an estimate of 100-150 deaths in the solar roofing industry worldwide each year.

    80

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Uranium can be solution mined to produce high quality yellowcake. The fatality rate for such facilities should be zero.

      20

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Frightened world leaders apparently agreed to unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a worldwide Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Science (UN)Truths to prevent public knowledge of the source of energy in cores of heavy atoms on October 24, 1945.

    But standing in Hiroshima’s ruins in August 1945, Kuroda had already realized that the same source of energy in the core of the Sun made our elements and sustains our lives:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf

    Thanks to Max Planck’s 1944 speech in Florence, Italy on the nature of matter, we now have assurance humanity will survive this seventy-year (1945-2015) effort to take totalitarian control of the world:

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Assurance.pdf

    01

  • #
    Another Ian

    In case some haven’t checked WUWT today

    “A Simple Tale About Switching To Renewable Power: Requirements & Consequences.”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/09/a-simple-tale-about-switching-to-renewable-power-requirements-consequences/

    Ought to be required reading around Canberra – if they can still read

    50

  • #
  • #
    pat

    repeated this morning, so plenty of airings for this extraordinarily ignorant show, with the arrogant Robyn Williams.

    tobacco. coal. we’re all going to die. existential threat. Tony Abbott…hahaha. gender issues. audience of group-believers which thinks it is cleverer than everyone else. in other words, it’s the complete CAGW package with cartoons on the webpage:

    AUDIO: 24 mins: 8 Aug: ABC Science Show: The comedy of climate change
    Saturday 12 noon
    Repeated: Thursday 9pm
    Where are the laughs in global warming? Is there a comedy of climate? Three renowned experts in the field offer their considered opinions: Rod Quantock, Hannah Gadsby and Andrew Denton. Recorded at Womadelaide’s 2015 Planet Talks, our guests provide advice on boiling billionaires for dinner, and how to change the minds of sceptics.
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-comedy-of-climate-change/6681526

    a whopping 60 mins at the WOMADelaide website! groan.

    60 mins 50 secs: 4 May: 2015 WOMADelaide Planet Talks – I’m Not A Climate Scientist But…
    Speakers: Andrew Denton, Rod Quantock, Hannah Gadsby
    Host: Robyn Williams
    Climate change is no laughing matter … or is it? Science or satire – how do we best communicate climate science and the urgency to act on the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced? Do more people turn to Will Ferrell’s climate change YouTube clips or Al Gore pie charts and PowerPoints for the truth? Are people more likely to share on social media Leigh Sales’ 7.30 interview with the world’s leading climate scientists or US political satirist John Oliver’s interviews with them? Who makes more sense of carbon politics, Andrew Bolt or Shaun Micallef? All will be revealed. Sit back and listen to the (comedy) experts
    http://womadelaide.podbean.com/e/im-not-a-climate-scientist-but/

    10

  • #
    pat

    to Robyn Williams & the comedians who have obediently answered the call to use comedy against “climate deniers”:

    Labour’s left contender in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn, has stated he wants to re-open Welsh mines, but he has gone further here:

    9 Aug: UK Mirror: Rachel Wearmouth: Labour leadership frontrunner Jeremy Corbyn vows to reopen coal mines if he becomes Prime Minister
    When asked by the BBC whether harnessing more coal would mean reopening North pits, he said: “Where you can re-open pits – yes – and where you can do clean burn coal technology yes.
    “I think we can develop coal technology. Lets do so because energy prices around the world are going up. Open cast mining is not acceptable, deep mined coal is possible and is an alternative.”…
    The news was welcomed with open arms by Wansbeck MP Ian Lavery, a former president of the National Union of Mineworkers.
    He said: “Jeremy’s comments are responsible and both economically and environmentally sensible. Deep mined coal production and consumption is on the increase internationally. In the winter months coal still produces on average 50% of the electricity generated in the UK….
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/labour-leadership-frontrunner-jeremy-corbyn-6221443

    20

    • #
      Another Ian

      Pat,

      I can’t find the link at the moment but it appears that UK coal is in thin seams that need deep pit mining and therefore will need more subsidies to compete with open cut coal from places like Oz.

      10

  • #
    pat

    ***warning: ONLINE SURVEY. it’s all over the MSM. who would believe it? how poorly informed are Australians? who is to blame? the MSM in particular, but also it’s the failure of politicans to spell it out clearly as Ian Plimer did on 2GB this morning.

    9 Aug: Guardian: Lenore Taylor: Australians fear Coalition is not taking climate change seriously, poll shows
    Climate Institute survey reveals overwhelming support for wind and solar energy as the Abbott government seeks to limit support for both
    Australians are deeply worried the Abbott government is underestimating the importance of climate change, new polling shows, as cabinet debates crucial long-term targets for greenhouse gas reductions.
    The annual polling by the Climate Institute thinktank reveals Australians overwhelmingly support wind and solar energy – as the Coalition seeks to limit support for both – and see it as inevitable that coal-fired power stations will have to be phased out and replaced.
    But at the same time, almost half those surveyed (47%) think Labor’s carbon policies will “just increase electricity prices and not do much about pollution”…
    63% think the Abbott government should take climate change more seriously, up six points from 2014.
    71% of Australians agree “it is inevitable that Australia’s current coal-fired generation will need to be replaced” (13% neutral, 5% disagree, 11% don’t know).
    72% agree governments need to implement a plan to ensure the orderly closure of old coal plants and their replacement with clean energy (7% disagree and 14% neutral)…
    Solar is the most preferred energy source: when presented with eight sources, 84% of respondents place solar energy within their top three preferred options…
    ***The poll was a nationally representative online survey conducted by Galaxy Research 27-29 July 2015 among 1,016 Australians aged over 18. Its margin of error is +/- 3%.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/09/australians-fear-coalition-is-not-taking-climate-change-seriously-poll-shows

    10

  • #
    pat

    how any media could give any credence whatsoever to this ONLINE poll is beyond me. everything u need to know is in questions B4 & B8.

    keep in mind the take-homes from this poll for the MSM are -

    Govt must take CC (CAGW) more seriously; and
    coal must go. could the options on offer be more biased?
    and that’s not taking into consideration the use of “climate change” to mean CAGW:

    pdf: 5 pages: 31 July: Climate Institute: GALAXY RESEARCH
    Question B4 For each of the following statements about climate change please indicate the extent that you agree or disagree?

    A. The seriousness of climate change is exaggerated

    B. I trust the science that suggests that the climate is changing due to human activities.

    C. I think the Abbott government should take climate change more seriously,

    D. Australia should be a world leader in finding solutions to climate change.

    E. Tackling climate change creates opportunities for new jobs and investment in clean energy (e.g. solar, wind, geothermal).

    F. Ignoring climate change is simply not an answer, as it increases the risk of the situation getting worse.

    G. The seriousness of climate change is under-estimated by government…

    B8 For each of the following statements about climate change please indicate the extent that you agree or disagree?

    A. It is inevitable that Australia’s current coal fired generation will need to be replaced.

    B. The market and energy companies should be the ones to decide when old coal plants are closed.

    C. Governments need to implement a plan to ensure the orderly closure of old coal plants and their replacement with clean energy.
    http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/CoN_2015_Questionaire.pdf

    MSM doesn’t link to this questionnaire & Fairfax doesn’t mention it’s an ONLINE survey.

    30

  • #
    Ross Stacey

    Interesting headline in today’s Sydney Telegraph. Outlines the costs involved and increasing cost of electricity if Labor is able to implement its target of 50% renewables. No mention of this in ABC news headlines.

    50

  • #
    pat

    have noted the comments re the economic feasability or otherwise of UK coal mines. my point was to show the Robyn Williams/comedy trio that even leftwing darling Corbyn wants coal. they are so politically partisan, they never notice things they don’t want to know.

    anyhow, in the case of this particular mine below, i’ve seen nothing in MSM to suggest it would not have been economically viable…it was turned down on grounds of “visual impact” only:

    5 Aug: Caerphilly Observer: Gareth Hill: Nant Llesg opencast buried as Caerphilly councillors defy threats to sue and reject plan
    On June 24, councillors went against planning officers and called for reasons to object to the mine and today, August 5, they ratified the decision, despite their own officials urging them to accept the proposals.
    The planned mine would have seen six million tonnes of coal mined over at least 14 years on a 478 hectare site, offering up to 239 jobs.
    But a campaign led by residents, environmentalists and climate change activists urged councillors to say no on grounds of visual impact…
    Prior to the meeting protesters gathered outside the council offices, with speakers opposing the mine on grounds of dust, environmental impact, sustainable jobs, the lasting impact after the mine is spent and climate change…
    “Miller Argent would seek to recover costs from the council.”…
    But, Friends of the Earth said they would support the council should they face legal action…
    (from Miller Argent statement) “This project would have brought up to 239 highly paid jobs and considerable investment to the Rhymney Valley, as well as millions of pounds worth of additional benefits to the local community.
    “The benefit fund alone represents up to £1,000 for each local household.
    “Taken together, these would have transformed the economic future of the area for the better…
    http://www.caerphillyobserver.co.uk/news/952872/nant-llesg-opencast-buried-as-caerphilly-councillors-defy-threats-to-sue-and-reject-plan/

    30

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    hey pat, TonyFromOz, did the earth move for you too?

    Pretty sure I just felt another minor earth tremor in Brisbane. Much smaller than the two we had last week, but seemed to last longer, maybe 20 seconds. If I hadn’t been sitting still in a quiet house at the time I would never have noticed it.

    20

  • #
    pat

    the Plimer interview:

    AUDIO: 10 Aug: 2GB: Alan Jones – Professor Ian Plimer
    Alan talks to the emeritus professor about the renewable energy scam.
    http://www.2gb.com/article/alan-jones-professor-ian-plimer-0

    multiple links at Bolt:

    10 Aug: Bolt Blog: Doesn’t work. Doesn’t add up. Doesn’t matter. It’s global warming, right?
    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tips_for_monday_august_10/#commentsmore

    10

  • #
    Len

    Today’ West Australian Editorial has more Climate Change drivel. I will only buy the Monday edition to read the Can You Help? Column

    20

  • #
    Doug Cotton

    This week saw the release of this NEW VIDEO which provides COMPREHENSIVE COVERAGE of JUST PRECISELY WHAT IS WRONG with the GREENHOUSE CONJECTURE and what the new 21st CENTURY PHYSICS TELLS US – it’s all in 22 minutes at: https://youtu.be/QtXwN10qnLw

    Doug please don’t yell at us! – J

    10

  • #
  • #

    I found Miami’s Desiccated Nobel Peace Prize Non-Laureate today.

    Another IPCC lead author who “shares” the Nobel Peace Prize.

    10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Pollution in the manufacture of Solar Cell.
    – (from http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/738098 in the links therein)

    The manufacture of solar panels produces, as byproducts, hexafluoroethane, nitrogen trifluoride, and sulfur hexafluoride. Relative to the CO2 green house gas effect, C2F6, NF3, and SF6 have green house gas effects 12,000, 17,000, and 23,000 times more powerful.

    Further, C2F6 survives for 10,000 years when introduced into the atmosphere. By comparison, the atmospheric residency of CO2 is said to be only a few decades.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Energy, Metals and Toxic Metals used
    http://www.smenet.org, and toxicity info from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15276420 where they say –

    Gallium arsenide (GaAs), indium arsenide (InAs), and aluminium gallium arsenide (AlGaAs) are semiconductor applications. Although the increased use of these materials has raised concerns about occupational exposure to them, there is little information regarding the adverse health effects to workers arising from exposure to these particles. However, available data indicate these semiconductor materials can be toxic in animals. Although acute and chronic toxicity of the lung, reproductive organs, and kidney are associated with exposure to these semiconductor materials, in particular, chronic toxicity should pay much attention owing to low solubility of these materials. Between InAs, GaAs, and AlGaAs, InAs was the most toxic material to the lung followed by GaAs and AlGaAs when given intratracheally. This was probably due to difference in the toxicity of the counter-element of arsenic in semiconductor materials, such as indium, gallium, or aluminium, and not arsenic itself. It appeared that indium, gallium, or aluminium was toxic when released from the particles, though the physical character of the particles also contributes to toxic effect. Although there is no evidence of the carcinogenicity of InAs or AlGaAs, GaAs and InP, which are semiconductor materials, showed the clear evidence of carcinogenic potential.

    •Arsenic (gallium-arsenide semiconductor chips). Toxic!
    Mined in China, Chile, Morocco, Peru, Kazakhstan, Russia, Belgium and Mexico.

    •Bauxite (aluminum). Very large amounts of electricity required to manufacture.
    Mined in Australia, China, Brazil, India, Guinea, Jamaica, Russia, Venezuela, Suriname, Kazakhstan, Guyana and Greece.

    •Boron Minerals (semiconductor chips):
    Mined in United States, Turkey,Argentina, Chile, Russia, Peru, China, Bolivia and Kazakhstan.

    •Cadmium (thin flm solar cells). Toxic!
    Mined in China, Republic of Korea, Japan, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Canada, Russia, United States, India, Netherlands, Poland, Germany and Australia.

    ••Coal (by-product coke is used to make steel. High use required — Metal smelting, plating, vacuum and metal sputtering coating, glass manufacture, etc…). Coal is mined world-wide, and constitutes 45% of the generation of U.S. electricity.

    •Copper (wiring; thin film solar cells).
    Mined in Chile, United States, Peru, China, Australia, Russia, Indonesia, Canada, Zambia, Poland and Mexico.

    •Gallium (solar cells).
    Mined in China, Germany, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

    •Indium (solar cells). Indium is a moderately toxic metal by inhalation and mildly toxic by ingestion. However, the exact nature of its human toxicity is not clearly understood.[www(dot)rsc.org/chemistryworld/podcast/Interactive_Periodic_Table_Transcripts/Indium.asp]
    Mined in China, Republic of Korea, Japan, Canada, Belgium, Russia, Peru and Brazil.

    •Iron ore (steel).
    Mined in China, Brazil, Australia, India, Russia, Ukraine, United States, South Africa, Iran, Canada, Sweden, Kazakhstan, Venezuela and Mexico.

    •Molybdenum (photovoltaic cells). Toxic at high levels.
    Mined in China, United States, Chile, Peru, Mexico, Canada, Armenia, Iran, Russia and Mongolia.

    •Lead (batteries). Toxic!
    Mined in China, Australia, United States, Peru, Mexico, Canada, India, Bolivia, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Ireland andSouth Africa.

    •Phosphate rock (phosphorous). Toxic to human in elemental state (as during processing).
    Mined in China, United States, Morocco, Western Sahara, Russia, Tunisia, Jordan, Brazil, Syria, Israel, Egypt, South Africa and Canada.

    •Selenium (solar cells). High level are toxic.
    Mined in Japan, Belgium, Canada, Russia, Chile, the Philippines, Finland, Peru, Sweden and India.

    •Silica (solar cells).
    Mined in United States, Italy, Germany, United Kingdom, Australia, France, Spain, Japan, Poland, Hungary, South Africa, Mexico, Austria, Iran, Republic of Korea, Slovakia, Canada, Belgium, India, Bulgaria, Norway, Chile, Gambia, Turkey and Czech Republic.

    •Tellurium (solar cells). Toxic
    Mined in Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, Kazakhstan, Peru, Philippines, Russia and United States.

    •Titanium dioxide (solar panels).
    Mined in Australia, South Africa, Canada, China, India, Norway, Ukraine, Vietnam, Mozambique, United States, Sierra Leone and Brazil.

    Information from –

    “Solar FAQs — Photovoltaics — The Basics.” U.S. Department of Energy. Updated 08/13/2008.
    http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/solar/cfm/faqs/third_level.cfm/name=Photovoltaics/cat=The%20Basics#Q5

    U.S. Department of Energy: History of Solar. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf
    “Product Portfolio.” Unimin. [www.unimin.com/prodport.html]
    “Unimin Corporation.” Hoovers. 2010. [www.hoovers.com/company/Unimin_Corporation/jfxhci-1.html]

    Pollick, Michael. “How do Solar Panels Work?” wiseGEEK. Last Modified 29 Jan 2010. [www.wisegeek.com/how-do-solar-panels-work.htm]

    Zang, Patrick, “Phosphate Mining and Mineral Processing in Florida.” Florida Institute of Phosphate
    Research. 2004. [www.fipr.state.fl.us/research-area-mining.htm]

    “Borates.” Rio Tinto. 2010. [riotinto.com/whatweproduce/452_borates.asp ***]

    “Copper.” Rio Tinto: Kennecott Utah Copper. 2009. [kennecott.com/our-products/copper/***]
    and *** 2/6/2015 Now updated to –
    http://www.kennecott.com/products

    50

    • #
      Lucky

      - ‘residency of CO2′, all studies put this in the range 5 to 20 years, the IPCC made up a number of 100 years as it produced the required alarmist results by their models. (The Deniers. Lawrence Solomon. 2008)

      20

      • #
        gai

        Dr. Z. Jaworowski (2007) and Dr Segalstad.

        In a paper recently published in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels, Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh (2009), Professor of Energy Conversion at The Ohio State University, addresses the residence time (RT) of anthropogenic CO2 in the air. He finds that the RT for bulk atmospheric CO2, the molecule 12CO2, is ~5 years, in good agreement with other cited sources (Segalstad, 1998), while the RT for the trace molecule 14CO2 is ~16 years. Both of these residence times are much shorter than what is claimed by the IPCC. The rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 in the last century is not consistent with supply from anthropogenic sources. Such anthropogenic sources account for less than 5% of the present atmosphere, compared to the major input/output from natural sources (~95%). Hence, anthropogenic CO2 is too small to be a significant or relevant factor in the global warming process, particularly when comparing with the far more potent greenhouse gas water vapor. The rising atmospheric CO2 is the outcome of rising temperature rather than vice versa. Correspondingly, Dr. Essenhigh concludes that the politically driven target of capture and sequestration of carbon from combustion sources would be a major and pointless waste of physical and financial resources.

        http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N31/EDIT.php

        30

      • #
        tom0mason

        Yes agreed, I should change that to read –

        “By comparison, the atmospheric residency of CO2 is said to range from just a few years to a maximum of a couple of decades.”

        30

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Seventy years after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the people of Japan were told the truth about the birth of the world five billion years ago:

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/08/09/national/nagasaki-mayor-atomic-bomb-survivors-caution-security-bills-70th-anniversary-bombing/?utm_source=Daily+News+Updates&utm_campaign=10fcdf8581-Monday_email_updates10_08_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c5a6080d40-10fcdf8581-332818853#.VchS0Nm9Kc1

    After WWII, public knowledge of composition (neutrons) and energy (neutron repulsion) was forbidden in cores of

    1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
    2. Some planets like Jupiter
    3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
    4. Galaxies like the Milky Way
    5. The expanding Universe

    Neutron-repulsion in cores of U and Th atoms melted rocks that became the islands of Japan.

    11

  • #
    Adam Smith

    So the Abbott Liberal / National government proposes cutting Australia’s carbon emissions by 26% of 2005 levels by 2030. I bet everyone here is very happy about that.

    [I'm thrilled......]ED

    00

  • #
    Ross Stacey

    I guessed the LNP announcement would be lukewarm. They will now lose the popular vote because not being seen as doing enough for the environment. Why don’t they just start telling the truth, CO2 is not a pollutant. Do something about the environmental rubbish, stop talking rubbish about the climate.

    10

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    A ripping good read of politics and science.

    http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/sillymolecules/lost.pdf

    00