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: 7.2/10 (28 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 7.2 out of 10 based on 28 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/o8bvfpv

213 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Today’s confusing stat. This thread with only a title and no content and not even a single comment, was voted 6 out of 10.

    60

    • #

      So someone thinks no news is slightly good news perhaps?

      120

      • #
        Gee Aye

        Yes… No news is meh

        12

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          But “meh” is the new “rad”, which was once the new “awsome”, after it was “cool”.

          110

          • #

            I take your point below but just in case you need to speak with today’s whipper snappers, “meh” is an indication of indifference. It is a shrug of the shoulders often done in the face of other people that are enthusiastic about the thing.

            32

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              But it is fashionable to be indifferent, it is still part of the herd mentality, and the need to fit in, especially if you are in the percentile that spans the early-’teens to late-twenties demographic.

              20

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          My point being that a proportion of society will vote for whatever they think is fashionable, today. Or was that yesterday? Or perhaps it is happening tomorrow?

          What to choose? It would be social death to pick the wrong one …

          It happens in all herds.

          130

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I am always scratching my head about human herd behaviour. I can never work it out. As a youngster, we were raised in a household where we could debate pretty much anything, and politics and religion was also fair game. The standing comemnt was if you have a proposition, all good but you best be able to defend it with facts or reason, and if it didnt stand up to scrutiny then take it on the chin and move on……

            I seemed to get a triple dose of all this though – I dont have any real love of sport ( I dont hate sport ), I cant understand why emotion would sway reason, and I cant understand why people would follow a herd, especially if its the wrong thing or a dumb thing to do….

            The lack of “love of sport gene” seems to vex me though – in Australia especially where our mopst popular tv show is home and away ( and thus indicative of the bulk of the population in some way ) I just cant get my head around it. I find australian society at times like a toyota corolla – heavily governed and bland but functional…..

            Thoughts welcome…

            80

            • #
              Annie

              I think that I might have inherited a similar gene OriginalSteve.

              30

            • #

              Steve,

              that’s an interesting thing, and something I have thought about often.

              I have a deep and abiding love for the game of cricket, so it might seem I have that sport gene, as you mentioned.

              However, it has often puzzled me as to why I have that love of cricket.

              There was nothing of any sporting love when I trace my family back by asking parents. My dad had a sort of a passing interest in Richmond at the VFL level. My Mum had virtually zero interest in any sport at all. Dad’s parents were the same as were my Mum’s parents, and neither could recall any love for any sport further back than that even.

              Same with my four siblings, virtually non of them much interested in sports at all, other than my brother who played some Union and League in his late teens and early 20′s.

              None of any of those relatives can actually stand the game of cricket.

              Even I had no interest in any sport until I was ten, when that love of cricket began, and prior to that, I barely knew the game existed except in passing during the Summer.

              I can trace that love of cricket to one single event, the visit of Wes Hall to our Primary school, just after that Tied test in Brisbane, and again, I only know of the result of that Test from hindsight, as I wasn’t even paying attention at the time.

              That visit was in the last week of school prior to the Christmas break, and the only reason I put my hand up to attend this small coaching clinic was to get out of the classroom. I had never held a bat, and never actually seen a real cricket ball.

              Here was his huge man standing at the crease and just rolling his arm over and the ball was past me before I even knew, and he was just not even trying. All Summer break, I practiced with a tennis ball in the driveway at home bowling it up against the gate, and from that point forward, I just could not get enough cricket.

              So, what I’m getting at here, is that I’m not sure if there is a gene which pre-disposes you to a love of Sport, Politics or anything like pastimes.

              I’m of the opinion that there is a trigger event, and everything stems from that point.

              There is a sudden event, even an astonishing thing, as in my case, that piques your interest at the time, and from there, it all begins, if you can see my point here.

              Tony.

              60

    • #
      Leo Morgan

      It’s possible someone, possibly even me, accidentally clicked on the voting bar. I think I’m innocent on this occasion, but I’ve definitely been guilty of it in the past.

      110

      • #
        Dave

        .

        Plus being an “Unthreaded Weekend”

        You can actually vote without commenting
        Or comment without voting

        Surely the rules don’t stipulate a Comment must be associated with a vote?

        I vote at the elections 1st without commenting?

        I not going to vote in this instant, because it’s Unthreaded!

        70

      • #
        Annie

        Leo M…I know the feeling!

        40

    • #
      ScotsmaninUtah

      The folks at BOM obviously mistook the voting bar for a temperature scale and seeing a ZERO were “compelled” to homogenize it.

      280

    • #
      tom0mason

      Gee Aye,

      Maybe many jaded readers, upon seeing the empty page, are powered with taedium vitae to a more powerful feeling of lethargic ennui, which breaks through the monotinous indfference of lassitude, and in recognition mark their approval.

      :)

      110

    • #
      TedM

      Well here’s something really worth watching.

      https://youtu.be/w4hbKF5-qUE

      50

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    A few moments ago I read an article on the Christian Science Monitor. They asked “is there an angle we missed?” I didn’t record my exact words, but they were to the effect of:
    “Your articles seem to completely ignore the idea of a non-green solutions.
    A nuclear powered world with genetic engineering will not only reduce carbon emissions, it will abolish hunger and poverty alike.
    Life as the Greens would have it is nasty, brutish, solitary and short. A rational life is wealthy, happy and long. Stop arguing in favour of the enviro-loons non-solutions.”

    I’m glad they asked.

    You might not agree with my exact ideas, but I encourage all of us to speak up whenever we are offered the non choice of “Which way do you think is the best way to achieve these green goals?”

    290

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Posted this on previous thread, probably fits better here.
    ……………………………………………………..

    Just got this from Change.Dot.Org

    Desmond Tutu has just started this petition to Tony Abbott calling for a 100% by 2050 renewable energy target – will you sign it? HELL NO, I say!!!

    Today, the human family faces one of its greatest moral challenges – climate change.

    If we stay on our current course, our world can expect to suffer more deadly storms, heat waves, droughts, crop failures, water shortages, mass migration, and new threats to our health and security.

    This will hurt all of us — especially the hungry, the sick, the poor, and the excluded. The people who benefited least from the burning of fossil fuels are already paying a steep price.

    Yet I have hope. I know that when we walk together for an urgent good cause, we will become an irresistible force. I have seen it in my own lifetime. I know that, working together, we can change the world for the better.

    Today, we have a grave moral obligation to turn back the tide of climate change. We are called to care for the earth, which shelters all life, and to protect it from further harm.

    For this reason, I am joining with the believers of the world’s diverse religions and so many other men and women of good will to take small positive actions in my own life.

    Together, we are also urging the world’s political leaders to take immediate action on the climate.

    Let the strength of our voices be heard all across the world, in all centers of power and especially in the upcoming climate talks in Paris, when leaders have one last chance to reach a global agreement on reducing carbon emissions before it is too late.

    Will you join me today to protect our earth and save our future?

    With faith, hope and love,

    Jo is there anyway you can organise a counter petition pointing out the futility of any attempt to reduce Co2 and the ultimate harm increasing so called clean energy will do to society.

    331

    • #
      Rick Bradford

      I really dislike the sanctimonious twit Tutu.

      Look how he writes “will you join me to protect the earth” as though everybody who disagrees with him must be out to destroy the earth.

      It is similar to the “for our children and our children’s children” bombast which tacitly assumes that all climate skeptics must hate their offspring.

      Those of us who disagree with the “narrative” live not just in error, but also in sin, apparently.

      311

      • #
        Peter C

        “I really dislike the sanctimonious twit Tutu”
        :-)

        112

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Instead he might consider the imminent population explosion in Africa.He’s well on the Neo- Marxist redistribution trip and thinks the affluent west owes Africa.More money to despots etc….

          100

      • #
        Dave in the states

        What about making sure that our children and grandchildren have supplies of cheap, abundant, energy? Making energy scare and expensive in futile and symbolic gestures is doing them and those of poorer nations no favors.

        How about not taking away from their individual freedoms and liberties as well?

        130

        • #
          David Maddison

          Not only are they making energy scarce and expensive, they are making it scary for the children.

          60

      • #
        Manfred

        Ivory pulpits and towers, much the same really.

        80

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Manfred, to be fair, like Tutu I have a faith, however I’m also quick to pull Tutu up and tell him he seems to be follwoing a faulty line of reasoning backed with no science.

          Tutu has fallen into a trap of using his clerical office as a leverage point to fund the genocidal greens. Where I struggle with an educated man like tutu, is where his education oculd easily find that there is no science backing of CAGW, so in a way he has as a public figure, a higher level of responsbility to get it right.

          The only conclusion I can come to is he has a lack of understanding and is acting out of ignorance. It would be a pity of someone is his own congregation has to pull him up short.

          God said we had to be stewards of this world, but he also said we had to be wise. I cant see where ignoring science is wisdom.

          60

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Sorry….typo…..

            “as a leverage point to fund the genocidal greens.”

            should read

            “as a leverage point to accidentally support the genocidal greens agenda.”

            Meant to go back and correct, and forgot.

            30

      • #
        Angry

        Whatever happened to Rudds “little gracie” ?

        What a BS artist he was !

        40

    • #
      Annie

      “small positive actions…”

      What about encouraging litter louts to pick up their blighted litter for a start? How about not throwing it out in the first place? Our area is a beautiful place spoilt by litter louts (our dear tourists from Melbourne?).

      I find the quantity of litter lying around along the roadsides utterly depressing. Anyone who has driven up from Melbourne to Eildon or Mansfield via Healesville or through the Christmas Hills area lately will have seen just what I am talking about. It’s really ugly.

      100

      • #

        Except “small positive actions” won’t fix the problem according to global warming scientists.

        I agree with your idea that picking up litter would be a good start for improving life on the planet—and not throwing it out would be even better. In the US, there are groups of volunteers that clean the roadsides at specific intervals. They get a sign put up with their organization’s name. It’s Adopt-a-Highway. It always bothered me that humans were such mess makers we needed this kind of volunteer work. What is more depressing is finding trash in wilderness areas. People hiked in and are too lazy to handle their trash properly? How does that work?

        60

    • #
      Gordon Cheyne

      Desmond can stick his petition up his tutu.
      He would do more to relieve poverty if he preached a little family planning: 300 million women have no access to this simple technology that is our best means of reducing poverty, and for improving the human condition.

      153

    • #
      tom0mason

      Dear Desmond Tutu,

      Thank you for your concern but please understand this is not about the morals you seem to be concerned about.

      This is about science being misused and abused to generate the political outcome of keeping the poor, poor and powerless, and protect the rich as rich elites, and very powerful. This is about very big money, big power — a new world order no less, and a very big supra-governmental agencies telling your people – all people – how to live their lives.

      You survived Apartheid; the forced separation of people by the powerful local authority, and their determinations of ‘race’ and color of one’s skin. The UN by it’s action wishes to separate peoples by a simple method —
      Elite and worth living well, or
      Not elite and allowed to perish.
      They are guided by the philosophy of Thomas R. Malthus and the writings of people like Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and those in the Club of Rome. These people do not wish to help you, or the majority of humanity. They will, with plausible deniability, let most people die, either through conflict or negligence; consider the slow and disorganized response of the UN to the Ebola outbreak. Why do you think that was?

      I hope the Good Lord gives you eyes to see the remarkable disservice to humanity the UN has become, and the savage future it is trying to foist on all humanity.

      161

      • #
        Angry

        Tutu and the word MORALS should not be in the same sentence…

        70

        • #

          OK Angry, try something more articulate. Why should they not be in the same sentence. Do you mean he is immoral or that he lacks morals or something like that? Whatever it is, what is your reasoning? Why did you capitalise “morals”? While you are at it, you have not stated what you mean by morals?

          Do you think that hit and run comments that derail and trivialise someone else’s earnest and well intentioned comments is moral?

          Hmm OK some people might think I resemble that last sentence.

          25

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Tell him he is dreaming!

      By the way, Des is older than Francis. Both are older than I. They should remember better, they were there to see it all.

      100

    • #
      ROM

      .
      Another day
      Another survey!
      This time under the auspices of the UN , the Oversea Development Institute [ what ever they are ] and Ipsos Mori, a survey outfit if my memory is correct .

      MYAnalytics [ My World Analytics ]

      Votes;

      7,767,402 and counting

      Data Last Updated
      Mon Aug 17 2015 16:06:09 GMT+1000 (EST)
      ———————-
      Segments & Priorities

      16 categories are included.

      Top was ; A good Education – 5,165,856

      Bottom; Action taken on climate change ; 1,602,408

      Age brackets from 46 to 60 and above 60 years of age are the only age groups where Climate Change Action rates above any other category and then it is only second from the bottom just above “Internet and phone access”.

      A good education was rated the highest across ALL categories of voters.
      Better health care was rated second across 10 of the 15 categories of voters and in third place in the other 4 out of 5 categories.

      Highest number of voters by nations were ;

      Mexico; ——-1,730,773
      Nigeria ;—— 1,597,697
      India ; ———901,670
      Pakistan; —–701,616
      ETC
      ———————

      If politicians worldwide are at all responsive to their citizens wishes and demands, Paris and it’s western based Paris-ite attendees is dead.

      Almost nobody will come at casting aside the national aspirations of their citizens and their nation’s interests least of all the under developed world, to climb aboard a corrupted from the beginning and totally anti-nationlistic World government as pushed by the hard core left environmentalist and green scammers in an all out effort to implement their climate change scam and the great power grab that is fundamental to their pathological and psychotic drive to achieve power at any cost.

      Paris is their last shot and if it fails then it will be long slow, very noisy and agonising death for the global warming cult and its cultists and quite possibly and probably over time, of the green cult as we as they will increasingly be seen as total failures in doing anything constructive at all to advance the quality of life for the world’s peoples.

      20

    • #

      7-8-15 Solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years reports Lawrence Solomon. This prompts him to ask: “Will temperatures on Earth be dropping until the year 2100 to Little Ice Age levels, as Horst-Joachim Ludecke, a scientist at Germany’s Saarland University predicted? Or will the temperatures only plunge until 2060, as Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory predicted? Or has the cooling already begun, and might it end as soon as 2030 as claimed by Anastasios Tsonis, head of the Atmospheric Science Group at the University of Wisconsin?” (1)
      Add to this a recent study published in Nature that predicts the Earth is about to go through a major climactic shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures and fewer hurricanes hitting the United States. (2)
      It isn’t just recently that some researchers have suggested we were heading for a Little Ice Age. Earlier reports summarized results from numerous researchers around the world. (3,4) http://canadafreepress.com/article/73588
      ……………………………..
      Does CO2 drive significant climate change? 


      Earth currently basks in a benign climate interval, an interglacial warm period punctuated by occasional “Little Ice Ages” and between long periodic species-destroying eras of ice. As recently as twelve thousand years ago, large parts of Earth’s surface were covered by ice sheets up to 3km thick. Many species of mega-fauna disappeared suddenly in this cataclysm.


      Global warming has never been a threat to Earth’s inhabitants, even with temperatures several degrees above those of this modern warm era. The real danger to life on Earth is global cooling, and its big brother, Snow-ball Earth.


      Studies of sunspots and other solar variables suggest that a “Little Ice Age” is probably caused by solar variations. If solar activity decreases, two things happen. Firstly, Earth’s surface cools because of the reduced solar radiation. Secondly, the sun’s magnetic shield also weakens, allowing more cosmic rays to strike the atmosphere, thus creating more nuclei for cloud generation. The extra cloud cover adds to the cooling trend by shading the surface and reflecting more solar radiation. Those who study solar cycles are already warning that Earth is facing the likely onset of a modern “Little Ice Age”.
      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/climate_concern_is_misdirected.html#ixzz3j6uw2UrL

      00

  • #
    Just-A-Guy

    Science of Doom,

    In a recent exchange between us, you responded to a comment by me that presented the first of several flaws in an article you wrote. As promised, here is the next instalment.

    Science of Doom explains the “greenhouse” effect – part 2

    At first you wrote:

    Questions like these are great, they clarify for me the common problems people have in understanding the “greenhouse” effect (always in quotes because it’s not really like a greenhouse at all!)

    Then you wrote:

    I’ll first give an analogy. This is an illustration not a proof.

    You have a house without a roof. It has a heater on the floor and there aren’t any other sources of energy. The temperature being measured is around 10°C, it’s a bit chilly. Someone puts a roof on the house, what happens to the temperature? It goes up, maybe now it is 15°C.
    . . .
    So instead of all the radiation from the earth’s surface simply heading up and out of the top of atmosphere, instead, some proportion is being “redirected” back down to the earth’s surface.

    Like a roof but different.

    And finally:

    It increases the surface temperature above what it would be if this effect didn’t exist. (Like a roof on a house).

    So, at the beginning of your explanation the effect of co2 on temperatures is ‘not really like a greenhouse at all‘. Half way through your explanation it’s ‘like a greenhouse but different‘. By the time we get to the end of your explanation it’s ‘like the roof on a house’. WTF!?

    In the first place you contradict yourself. First you say that the effect of co2 on temperatures is ‘not at all’ like a greenhouse, and then you go ahead and use the analogy of a greenhouse!?

    In the second place, if the effect of co2 on temperatures is ‘not at all’ like a greenhouse, then your analogy is actually a false analogy. You can’t use something as an analogy to something else when that something else is fundamentally different. In fact, you could have easily left out this false analogy and still got the message across.

    Please take heed and read my lips. It doesn’t matter if you used a false analogy intentionally or inadvertently. The end result is still the same. Especially because of the gradual change in the language and the concepts that language conveys to the lay person when describing the effect of co2 on temperatures. I.E. ‘Not like a greenhouse at all’ becomes ‘like a roof but different’ becomes ‘like the roof of a house’.

    Another contradiction introduces a Logical Fallacy

    You wrote:

    I don’t want to try and pull the “argument from authority” because I don’t really accept it myself.

    And then you go ahead and write:

    ask yourself:

    “If 99.99% of physicists past and present believe this effect is real and measurable, how likely is it that none of them realized there is a basic error in the theory?”

    You don’t accept the use of an ‘appeal to authority’ but you use it anyway.

    Hmm. How confident are you in your so called ‘science’ that you need to resort to logical fallacies?

    Conclusion

    You claimed before that your article was meant to be a simple article. But rather than being simple, you’ve used a false analogy and tricky language thereby creating more confusion in the process. And just in case all that didn’t work, well, you throw in a logical fallacy just for good measure.

    Nice!

    Abe

    163

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      There was another comment that Science of Doom also replied to. That reply and my response can be found here.

      Abe

      84

    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks Abe,

      Greenhouse Theory! Still waiting for replies from our luke warmists.

      I haven’t read your reference but your comments about the argument from authority seem pretty cogent to me.

      93

    • #
      Leo Morgan

      @ Just-A-Guy,
      I’m not following why you think your response to Science-of-Doom advances your argument.
      You repsond to his illustration with the bold-text phrases “Like a roof but different”, and “Like a roof”. It seemed to me as if you thought you’d caught him in a contradiction. But that’s not how similes work.
      We can easily say “A heart is like a pump, only different” and then say “It compresses blood like a pump”, without contradicting ourselves at all.
      We can say “A car is like a horse, only different” and then say “It carries a driver and goods like a horse”, again without contradicting ourselves at all.
      I don’t understand why you think he can’t say “The greenhouse effect is like a roof only different”, and then go on to say “It holds temperature in like a roof.” It’s no more a contradiction than any of the other examples were. Thats because of the way similes work. They disclose similarities in some aspects, without being exact models. Why do you think his example isn’t equally as acceptable as the others?

      Equally, I find his pharase ““If 99.99% of physicists past and present believe this effect is real and measurable, how likely is it that none of them realized there is a basic error in the theory?” to be unexceptionable. He is not claiming we should accept their authority as if it were holy writ, but acknowledge the fact of their expertise in their area. Physicists as experts in physics are aware that there is a flaw in the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The two theories are mutually incompatible. It is reasonable to expect similar awareness in the case of greenhouse theory if such a flaw exists.
      Of course, that argument is a paragmatic one rather than a logical proof that no such error can exist, but so what? As Descartes showed, I cannot logically prove that YOU exist, yet I accept it as reasonable to do so. In the same vein, his argument is reasonable.

      I confess, I’ve tried and failed to understand the arguments of the ‘sky slayers’. Do you have a reference to an easy to follow article that puts their viewpoint?

      32

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Leo Morgan,

        You wrote:

        I’m not following why you think your response to Science-of-Doom advances your argument.

        You also wrote:

        I confess, I’ve tried and failed to understand the arguments of the ‘sky slayers’. Do you have a reference to an easy to follow article that puts their viewpoint?

        Before responding to the specific objections contained in your comment, let’s address these two related statements.

        If I understand you correctly, you believe that I belong to a group of people called ‘sky slayers’. You’ve also come to the conclusion that you don’t understand their arguments. I only have a vague idea of what the ‘sky slayers’ are but if I’m right, they’re a group of people who disagree with the claim that our atmosphere functions in a way that is similar to the way a greenhouse operates. More specifically, if I understand them correctly, they reject the claim that our atmosphere traps heat in a way that is similar to the way a greenhouse traps heat.

        Guilt by association. Are you familiar with the concept?

        From the article at wisegeek:

        Guilt by association is a form of association fallacy in which someone makes conclusions with the use of assumptions based on the traits of people, ideas, and things which are actually unrelated.
        . . .
        Like other cognitive biases, guilt by association is designed to help people function in the world by allowing them to make quick judgments. Sometimes, this can be a good thing, as cognitive biases can allow people to interpret information quickly and sometimes surprisingly accurately. In other instances, cognitive biases get in the way of actually evaluating information, and they can lead people into logical traps.

        People often use this fallacy in rhetoric, in appeals to the emotions of readers and listeners.
        . . .
        In the heat of discussion, sometimes it is hard to catch guilt by association, especially when it is well-deployed. People often use it in an attempt to trick people into rejecting arguments, as in “someone you dislike supports this argument, so the argument must be bad,” . . .

        Whether I belong to this group or not is irrelevant to the arguments I’ve put forth. Those arguments should be evaluated on their own merit or lack thereof.

        The statements you made, as quoted, are also a form of Poisoning the Well.

        From the article at fallacyfiles:

        To poison the well is to commit a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an argumentative opponent. As with regular ad hominems, the well may be poisoned in either an abusive or circumstantial way. For instance:
        . . .
        2. “My opponent is a dentist, so of course he will oppose the fluoridating of water, since he will lose business.” (Circumstantial)

        In the next comment. I’ll address your specific objections to the arguments I presented in my original comment above.

        Abe

        13

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Leo Morgan,

        You wrote:

        You repsond to his illustration with the bold-text phrases “Like a roof but different”, and “Like a roof”. It seemed to me as if you thought you’d caught him in a contradiction.

        It’s unclear what you mean by the word illustration. Are you referring to the illustration, i.e. diagram at the top of his article?
        Or . . .
        Are you referring to his illustration, i.e. explanation of the so-called ‘greenhouse’ effect?

        If you’re referring to the diagram, then no, my statements in the comment above are not meant, nor should they be understood to be, an objection to the use of that diagram. (My objection to the use of that diagram was presented on another thread.) If you’re referring to the explanation of the so-called ‘greenhouse’ effect then my response is as follows:

        Cherry Picking. I put three of SoD’s statements in bold italics. You’ve only quoted two of them. The one that’s missing is the one that points to the contradiction, so of course, leaving that statement out of your response makes it look as if there’s no contradiction in the SoD article.

        The quote from Science of Doom that you left out:

        . . . the “greenhouse” effect (always in quotes because it’s not really like a greenhouse at all!)

        My objection is simple. If the effect of co2 (among other gases) on temperatures is not at all like a greenhouse then why use a greenhouse as an example of that effect?

        You can’t construct a simile between two thing that are not at all similar. Even if these two things are similar in some aspect(s), the contradiction still stands because SoD clearly states that they are not similar at all. The contradiction is in the statements themselves.

        As far as how similes work, there needs to be more than just a comparison between two objects or concepts in order to construct one. There needs to be a third concept which tells us specifically what aspect or characteristic of the two objects is being compared. With respect to the heart, if we’re talking about it’s function, what it does, then you’re wrong, a heart is not like a pump in this respect, it is a pump. That’s what it does. If you were taliking about some other characteristic such as what the heart is made of, then it would be like a pump but made of a different material. The same is true with your comparison between a horse and a car. Unless you specify what characteristic your using as a basis for comparison, any simile you construct will be useless by virtue of it’s vagueness.

        Before I continue, let me Just-Say-This: The distinctions pointed to in my comments may seem trivial to you or others. They’re not. Not when we’re discussing science and rational thought. In order for the conclusions of some experiment in science to have any meaning, the hypothesis needs to be clear and precise. The same is true with the null-hypothesis, the methods used, and the presentation of the conclusions drawn. Any vagueness in any of these steps will pollute the experiment by allowing it to be misinterpreted.

        In science, accuracy is everything. Without it, all we’re left with is conjectures.

        You wrote:

        Equally, I find his pharase ““If 99.99% of physicists past and present believe this effect is real and measurable, how likely is it that none of them realized there is a basic error in the theory?” to be unexceptionable. He is not claiming we should accept their authority as if it were holy writ, but acknowledge the fact of their expertise in their area.

        Straw man. I never claimed that SoD was asking us to accept the pronouncements of physicists as ‘holy writ’. What I said was that he, SoD, specifically said that he does not accept the use of an appeal to authority and then goes right ahead and uses an appeal to authority. Here too, as before, the statements themselves are self contradictory. It doesn’t even matter if the physicists are right or wrong. The contradiction in SoD’s statements stands regardless of the position of the physicists.

        I could go on and point out other inconsistencies in your response to my comments, but I believe this should be enough to support my overall position and reject your objections to that position outright.

        Abe

        13

        • #

          If you don’t want us to use “greenhouse gas”, what should CO2 be called? CO2 and no reference to its physics or chemistry? That’s going to complicate physics and chemistry. The term has been out there for over a century. If we were going to change the term, it would have been good to do so much earlier in the game.

          50

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Sheri,

            Before they were called ‘greenhouse gases’ the were referred to as atmospheric gases. That’s what they are. That’s also where they exist. Why give them a new name that doesn’t describe what they are or what they do?

            As far as the term ‘greenhouse gas’ referencing the physics or chemistry of co2, please remember that a greenhouse works because it prevents the natural cooling of water vapor, (primarily, among the other atmospheric gases), by putting up a physical barrier that prevents it, (them), from rising up into the atmosphere.

            Would the water vapor (and other gases) be allowed to continue it’s (their) ascent into the atmosphere, it (they) would cool. That’s what happens to hot, rising air (the collective term we use for the sum total of all the gases in our atmosphere) in the atmosphere. The greenhouse confines the heated water molecules (along with the other atmospheric gases) within a physical structure and in so doing, the heat content of those molecules is also confined within that structure. Remove that structure and those molecules will continue to rise and cool.

            Therefore, a greenhouse is the exact opposite of an open atmosphere in the way it functions. This is all so basic and clear, I’m at a complete loss as to why people continue to believe these two structures, a greenhouse and an open atmosphere, have anything in common at all as regards the physics that describe how they work.

            Abe

            73

            • #

              yes Abe they are atmospheric gases. Are you suggesting that we should not classify atmospheric gases into different types of gases (like we do with clouds, animals, soil etc). Do you think there is no physical difference in the gases? I don’t think chemists would agree with that and certainly your body responds to them differently, so I am going with the idea that we can classify them into groups or categories.

              It is pretty clear that what you are advocating is that we don’t give them a name that “describes what they are or what they do?”. They get categorised when in a cyclinder; Hydrogen is labelled and handled quite differently to N2 for instance. I don’t think your argument would sit well with international health and safety orgs. When they are floating about in the atmosphere together they each maintain their own chemistry and don’t suddenly revert to being “atmospheric gases”.

              Just out of interest – do you believe in spectroscopy?

              40

              • #
                Just-A-Guy

                Gee Aye,

                You wrote:

                It is pretty clear that what you are advocating is that we don’t give them a name that “describes what they are or what they do?”.

                That’s not clear at all because . . .

                What I actually said was:

                Before they were called ‘greenhouse gases’ the were referred to as atmospheric gases. That’s what they are. That’s also where they exist. Why give them a new name that doesn’t describe what they are or what they do?

                That means that what I’m objecting to is the specific name ‘greenhouse gases’ and not to any other name.

                IOW. I’m not suggesting that the gases that make up our atmosphere not be classified into meaningful, descriptive sub-groups. That’s not what I said at all. What I’m suggesting is that we stop classifying them into false categories and naming them using inaccurate, non-descriptive names. There’s a big difference there.

                I’ll use co2 as an example to show you what I mean.

                Today, carbon dioxide is called a ‘greenhouse gas’. Let’s think about that for a moment and try and see if this name has any meaning related to the gas itself.

                First of all, it’s not created only in a greenhouse and it isn’t found primarily in a greenhouse. So we can’t use the name ‘greenhouse gas’ to describe where it comes from.

                Secondly, it doesn’t physically stop other molecules fron rising up through the atmosphere as does a greenhouse so we can’t call it a ‘greenhuse gas’ because of it’s physical properties or because of what it does in the atmosphere.

                In the third place, not one of it’s chemical properties resemble the chemical properties of a greenhouse so we can’t call it a ‘greenhouse gas’ because of it’s chemical properties.
                The sillyness of the third statement is what gives away the false nature of the so-called ‘clasification’ of carbon dioxide as a ‘greenhouse gas’.

                So if it’s not like a greenhouse because of it’s chemical or physical properties and it’s not like a greenhouse because of it’s origin, then what would you suggest be the justification for calling co2 a ‘greenhouse gas’?

                I’m all ears.

                The rest of your comment is based on the assumption that I don’t want to classify atmospheric gases into any sub-categories at all or that I’m against classifying them according to some other meaningful criteria. Since that’s not my position, we can just dismiss the rest of the comment and leave it at that.

                Abe

                33

              • #

                Thanks for your response and you make some fair points but I don’t think you’ve given a good case for any need for policing the way categories are named. Categories, rightly, arise and are used as required and might only exist fleetingly but usefully for a specific purpose. I don’t see how agonising on the categories name is a worthwhile distraction.

                Yes “greenhouse gas” has become a shorthand for gasses that have particular properties regarding absorption and emission of energy. I understand what is meant by it as you do. I can understand the case for a name that describes the physical attributes better, but I disagree that it is worth the effort.

                31

              • #
                tom0mason

                Why not call them ‘IR active’ gasses instead of ‘greenhouse’ gasses?

                50

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Sheri,

            I almost forgot.

            You wrote:

            That’s going to complicate physics and chemistry.

            I disagree. The inaccurate, non-descriptive term ‘greenhouse gas’ is what’s causing all of the confusion.

            You also wrote:

            The term has been out there for over a century.

            The term ‘aether’ was also out there for about a century. The term ‘geo-centric’ was also out there for over a millenium. The term ‘phlogiston’ was out ther for a long time as well.

            The length of time a term has been used has no bearing on it’s validity. We threw those other terms away when we realised they were inadequate to describe anything in the physical world. We can do the same for ‘greenhouse gas’ as soon as we realise that the term has no meaning in the physical world. The sooner the better.

            You wrote:

            If we were going to change the term, it would have been good to do so much earlier in the game.

            We don’t have to change the term. All we need to do is stop using it and continue using the original term that adequately and accurately describes it. i.e. atmospheric gas.

            Abe

            60

            • #
              Wayne Job

              Discount not the Aether sir for 95% percent of the universe is missing, and thus dark matter and dark energy were invented to fill the big hole in a universe governed only by gravity. I have also noted that about that about 95% of all the categories of theoretical science is about as kosher the science of the universe.

              Thus I say discount not the Aether for there is a power in the vacuum that is 95% of the universe, whatever it is it gives life to the universe.

              22

      • #

        Leo—I have tried to understand some of the arguments from the “slayers” but have not had much success. You could Google John Sullivan and maybe find something.

        I have difficulty understanding why Science of Doom is considered a warmist sight. It seems skeptics use the same criteria as warmists—if someone is not in complete agreement with the person, then that person is the enemy. I don’t agree with everything on SofD, but I do read it for the math and science. It also has a more civil tone than many blogs.

        50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          This was all so much easier in my previous incarnation.

          We only had four elements to worry about, and then some idiot introduced something called aether, and the world has gotten more complicated ever since.

          20

  • #
  • #
    NigelW

    A humble request for help from the good citizens of Jo’s blog.

    The background: My better half is studying Psychology (Adelaide Uni), and this semester one of her subjects is Public Scandals & Moral Panics. For her essay/presentation I suggested she use Climate Change, specifically using John Cooks 97% (which we hear all the time, don’t we?) and also the rebuttal by Legates et al.

    So what I need help from you guys (and gals) with is finding recent (this year, at most) articles using the 97% of climate scientists number within Australian media.

    My unsubtle hope is that a few eyes within the Adelaide Uni Psychology faculty may be opened, but that may just be a bridge too far…

    Thank you in advance.

    120

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      “Public Scandals & Moral Panics”.

      Hard to imagine that this topic appears in a modern psychology course.

      It sounds more like something from the Philosophy unit or political science?

      KK

      60

    • #
      Peter C

      I suggested she use Climate Change, specifically using John Cooks 97% (which we hear all the time, don’t we?) and also the rebuttal by Legates et al.

      Great idea, but I do not recommend it. An automatic fail.

      170

    • #
      toorightmate

      Nigel,
      I can not help with your request, BUT please warn your better half to steer clear of the professors.

      70

    • #
      Leo Morgan

      I may be able to offer some advice, but only indirectly. I seldom watch television or read newspapers directly. I get my news from blogs, news sites and Google News.
      Have you tried a Google News search, limited in time and in country? That should refer you to many articles.
      I can’t cite particular examples of them trumpeting Cook, but a good source for panic would be Hobart’s Mercury newspaper. I abandoned them after fact-checking fifty of their articles on global warming, and discovering that none of their reporting fairly represented the original science.
      A propos of the 97% figure, it was claimed to have been tweeted by Barak Obama, but that was false at the time. Although there was a Barack Obama twitter account; it was run by a private company who tweeted on his behalf. However, later this year he stated ‘they now let him have his own twitter account’, so its possible he’s retweeted it since then.
      Andrew Bolt’s blog might be a good source of references to articles that abuse the 97% figure.
      Insofar as alarm and moral panic is concerned, the billions of dollars we spent to reduce australia’s contribution of 6 one thousanfths of a degree of warming might be useful. Bolt mentions it here: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/cutting_emissions_will_amount_to_26_per_cent_of_bugger_all/ and links to the peer reviewed article.

      20

    • #
      John F. Hultquist

      Have her pick a topic about which she and the prof agree. Then do a good job of writing/wordsmithing.

      In the spirit of “Looking out for Number One”, she should strive for the best grade in the class she is capable of. Such a plan does NOT include deliberately antagonizing the instructor.
      You, Nigel, can go to a pub and p—soff anyone you want.

      70

      • #
        handjive

        A couple:
        NASA: Scientific consensus: Earth’s climate is warming

        Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree

        > This Australian ABC link doesn’t say “97%” as such, but, “consensus”:

        Bureau of Meteorology bearers of bad El Niño tidings to farmers

        “This year the consensus of all the models the Bureau looks at is absolutely unequivocal; they indicate we will be in a sustained El Niño event over the next five to six months.”
        . . .
        Fwiw, I tend to agree with John F. Hultquist (#6.5).

        The SA education system has gulped down the climate kool-aide, as the Flinders-Lomborg Consensus Centre debacle and book burning demonstrates, and the wall of denial your “better half” will meet is dense.

        Play the game, get the pass, then write a paper to “put the wind up ‘em” might seem the better option in today’s 97% “climate” of settled science. As sad as that option is.

        40

    • #
      el gordo

      Avoid Cook et al and concentrate on mass delusion, the herd mentality.

      http://diehardempiricist.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/apocalypse-not-climate-change-and-other.html

      30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Desmond Tutu a professional activist that has participated in just about all the social justice crusades for so long he probably forgets what he’s opposing on a daily basis, instead of addressing perpetual African problems of civil war, HIV, fuel poverty, food poverty, constant Despot regimes, fragile infrastructure, cultural abuse and disunity he see’s Climate Change as the greatest threat to not just Africa but everyone, really?

    Professional windbags like this have helped repress developing countries for years by voicing concerns then forming committee’s then making sure these committee’s are funded by others then receive recognition of their efforts by others all the time doing SFA for the poor sods they appeared so concerned about from the start.

    Tutu can shove his ill informed bandwagon self serving views and try his snake oil sales pitch on someone else, we have more than enough d#$kheads in this country spouting the same crap without importing it from a failed communist experiment!

    161

  • #
  • #
    Peter C

    An Experiment to Test the Thermo-Gravitational Theory of Atmospheric Warming.
    The observed surface temperature of the Earth is approximately 33C higher than expected from calculations of the input energy of the sun and the expected (and apparently observed by satellites) output radiation. The Greenhouse effect Theory is used to explain the discrepancy. The greenhouse theory however does not give any numerical predictions which could justify the 33C numerical result.
    Last week Doug Cotton surprised some readers with his post, which asserted that the Gravitation of the Earth explains the 33C warming. He also asserted (once again) his theory that entropy is minimised by the gravitational/thermal gradient.
    Consequently (according to Doug) radiant energy can be absorbed in the upper atmosphere and spread downward against an apparent thermal gradient, due to a process that he calls “heat creep”. My interpretation of that is that he says that the thermo-gravitational energy field is in fact flat, so that heat can spread evenly through atmosphere, even though there is a temperature gradient, warmer at the bottom, cooler at the top.

    Of course not everyone agrees:
    Lord Kelvin in 1904: “an ideal atmosphere, perfectly isolated from absorption as well as emission of radiation, will, after enough time has passed, reach a state of uniform temperature, irrespective of the presence of the gravitational field”.
    http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4087

    Physicist Roger Brown of Duke University
    “In nature, the dry adiabatic lapse rate of air in the atmosphere is maintained because the system is differentially heated from below causing parcels of air to constantly move up and down.
    “. The….. assertion, that the dry adiabatic lapse rate alone explains the bulk of so-called “greenhouse warming” of the atmosphere as a stable feature of a bulk equilibrium gas, is incorrect.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/24/refutation-of-stable-thermal-equilibrium-lapse-rates/
    Brown says that a gravitational thermal gradient would breach Voldemort’s Law (2LoT). To prove that he gives a Thought Experiment, in which an isolated vertical gas column is connected from bottom to top by an insulated heat conductive pathway (a silver conductor). According to Brown that would create a perpetual motion machine (heat produced by the gravitational gradient is cycled back by the conductor)
    Supporters of the Thermo-gravitational theory make a similar accusation against the Greenhouse Theory.

    So what to believe? Well call me Thomas if you like, but I don’t like to believe anything except empirical evidence. Show me the marks!

    So the Roger Brown’s thought experiment has to be made into a real experiment. The most famous “thought experiment” in history is that proposed by Albert Einstein in his paper introducing his Special Theory of Relativity. Now everyone makes up thought experiments. Einstein’s thought experiment helped to explain his new theory, but no one at the time considered it as proof. A lot of real empirical observations and experiments were made to confirm the theory.
    First attempts have been made and the initial results are helpful to the Thermo-gravitationists.

    The problem is that the experimental conditions are extremely stringent. Brown say that a stable isolated atmosphere would be isothermal (same temperature throughout) and the Thermo-gravitationists say the temperature gradient would be 9.8C/km. That seems like a big difference and it is. But it is hard to measure.
    Consider the problems! Initially I thought, no worries, just make an insulated water pipe 1000ft long and place it in a vertical position. I thought that insulated hot water pipe would do. The Omega transmission tower in East Gippsland, Victoria seemed like a suitable vertical location (it has now been demolished because a BASE jumper jumped off and killed himself) A vertical pipe 1000ft high should (or should not) have a temperature gradient of 3C (easily measured).
    But 1000ft is a long way. The insulation is unlikely to prevent heat transfer across the insulation barrier at 1C/300ft. So plastic foam insulation is insufficient. How about a Dewar flask 1000ft high. Very impracticable. A Dewar flask 300ft high is probably testing the limits of practicablility. And that only produces a temperature differential of only 1C, which tests the capability of thermometers.
    Of course no reputable Physics department would consider funding and performing such an experiment. The science is settled! They would rather look for nonexistent dark matter in deep underground mines.
    http://mag.alumni.unimelb.edu.au/tag/dark-matter/

    70

    • #
      Rick Will

      There are two possible adiabatic conditions for and ideal atmospheric column. One is isothermal and the other is isentropic. In parts of the atmosphere where thermal conductivity is not dominant, such as the troposphere where convection dominates, the stable condition is isentropic. Heat transport in this column is primarily through the gross movement of the air. The isentropic solution to the laws of thermodynamics requires a thermal gradient.

      The thought experiment proposed would alter the system conditions as you are no longer dealing with an atmosphere alone. That new system would tend toward isothermal stability as conduction is assumed to dominate. Introducing the conductive wire has changed the system.

      The real atmosphere exhibits both isothermal and isentropic states but the troposphere is essentially isentropic.

      To further confuse the situation, the real atmosphere is far from adiabatic. There is heat transfer at the base of the air column due to radiation, conduction, convection and evaporation. Then throughout the column there is heat transfer due to radiation, conduction and condensation.

      There is no doubt that the troposphere mostly behaves isentropically – easily verified. In that case the temperature lapse rate is a function of the gravitational consent and specific heat at constant pressure for the air.

      If you were to dissect climate models they will exhibit a lapse rate similar to that derived from the simple isentropic solution. However the real air column is not adiabatic as it gets heat transfer from a range of sources. Climate models are dealing with this detail.

      I surmise that climate models are reasonably accurate for determining the direct radiative affect of additional CO2 in the atmosphere but I know for certain that they do not accurately determine how that alters albedo even in the short term. Knowing average albedo and lapse rate (a simple function of gravity and specific heat of air) then the average surface temperature can be determined. The models do not attempt to model longer term chemical and biological response to CO2 as these are given inputs for the modelling.

      20

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Rick Will,

        You wrote:

        In parts of the atmosphere where thermal conductivity is not dominant, such as the troposphere where convection dominates, the stable condition is isentropic.

        I’ve often wondered abot the term or phrase, thermal conductivity, and what it means but never got around to asking about it.

        On the face of it, thermal refers to heat and conductivity means transport or convey. So wouldn’t this be the same as saying radiative transfer when referring to electromanetic radiation and conduction when reffering to kinetic energy moving from one molecule to another in a collision.

        It seems to me that in both cases there is a movement of energy from one atom/molecule/body to another so it would appear that thermal conductivity could be used to describe both.

        Am I right? And if not, why not?

        Thanks,
        Abe

        11

        • #
          Rick Will

          Conductivity is the transfer of heat, or molecular excitation, through the same medium. It occurs through molecules transferring their kinetic energy from one to another and can occur in a solid or fluid. Conduction cannot occur through a vacuum.

          Radiation is energy transfer without direct contact of molecules. Radiation can transfer energy across a vacuum.

          The other form of energy stranger is convection. Convective heat transfer can only occur in a fluid where the molecules can move with relative freedom within the medium. The relative significance of conduction in air versus convection is appreciated by the design of glass wool insulting batts. Batts mostly comprise air but the fibres restrict the movement of air within the matrix of the batts thereby dramatically lowering the convective heat transfer. That leaves conductive heat transfer, which is very low for air.

          Heat is observed as the molecular excitation, which is the same irrespective of means of energy transfer, but the means of heat transfer from one molecule to another can have a variety of paths. Air has low thermal conductivity; the two main gases present in air have low absorption to a wide portion of the radiation spectrum but air in the troposphere is very effective at transferring heat through convection, being enhanced when the air is moist.

          Conduction, radiation and convection are all forms of heat transfer but they are different mechanisms. Hence it is not correct to refer to them all as thermal conductivity. Doing so would be to use the term “conduction” without precise meaning.

          30

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Rick Will,

            Thank you for the quick response. I’ve read it twice and I’m pretty sure I’ve got it now.

            Cheers,
            Abe

            10

      • #
        Peter C

        There is no doubt that the troposphere mostly behaves isentropically – easily verified

        If that is the case then Prof Brown must be incorrect.

        How is it easily verified?

        00

        • #
          Rick Will

          The temperature lapse rate exists in the troposphere; falling almost linearly with elevation. It is empirically evident.

          If you plot the temperature as you climb in an airplane you will observe that it falls as you gain height. Another way to verify is to take a temperature measurement at the bottom of a mountain and then at the top; either simultaneously with two observers or the shortest interval between measurements.

          A third method is to choose two nearby locations having significantly different elevations and monitor temperature data. For example Mt Buller and Mansfield:
          http://www.mtbuller.com.au/Winter/?gclid=CMCym_OUsccCFVYJvAodRewMRA
          http://www.weatherzone.com.au/vic/north-east/mansfield
          The difference in elevations id 1805 – 247m = 1558m.
          The temperature difference showing now is 7.7C so temperature lapse rate here at this point in time is 4.9C/km.

          You can do the same exercise for any number of locations and quickly determine that there is a temperature gradient in the troposphere. It is far from constant temperature with elevation.

          The tropospheric lapse rate would be better described as isentropic rather than adiabatic although the isentropic result of a near linear temperature lapse rate with elevation assumes adiabatic conditions, which it only approximates. The fact is that in the troposphere the ability of the air to transport heat via convection dominates the other means of heat input or transfer via radiation or conduction. The system only requires a tiny amount of radiation making its way to the surface below to keep that state dominant. The isentropic state can fail when the surface cools rapidly, resulting in a temperature inversion with elevation.

          The atmosphere on Mars is very thin and it exhibits a near constant temperature with altitude – conduction dominates the heat transport. By comparison Venus has an extremely dense atmosphere and it has a near constant temperature lapse rate to an elevation of 70km, roughly corresponding to the same pressure on Earth at 10km, which demarks the top of the troposphere.

          If you were to conduct the proposed experiment with an insulated tall column using near surface atmospheric conditions the column would settle with a thermal gradient – it is a stable state where convection dominates over conduction. If the system is then changed to make thermal conduction more dominant than convection it will settle to a constant temperature. Both conditions are stable states depending on what means of heat transfer dominates. However know that the atmosphere is not in an adiabatic state. It is able to lose and gain heat through a variety of processes. Hence the experiment does not model the real atmosphere.

          20

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks Rick,

        There is no doubt that the troposphere mostly behaves isentropically – easily verified.

        Does that mean that Prof Brown (isothermal) is incorrect?

        How is it (isentropic) easily verified?

        00

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Peter,

      I’ve given a little thought to the “uniform temperature” versus “gradient temperature” behavior of a column of non-greenhouse gases in a gravitational field. To me this is a fascinating question; and at our current level of understanding of physics, we should be able to predict which is true. Having read many of Dr. Brown’s comments on WUWT, I’ve formed the opinion that Dr. Brown is one smart physicist; and by disagreeing with him, there’s a good chance I’ll be proven wrong. However, I read Dr. Brown’s post that you referenced and a few of the associated comments. At this point, although I haven’t made up my mind, I favor the “gradient temperature” argument. Here’s why.

      In a comment dated January 24, 2012 at 8:23 am of your referenced URL, Dr. Brown wrote:

      If those two containers have the same temperature, they have the same average kinetic energy per particle (for a monatomic gas). This doesn’t even depend on the mass of the particles.

      I infer from this statement that if the column of gas is at a uniform temperature then the average kinetic energy per gas molecule at the top of the column is the same as the average kinetic energy per gas molecule at the bottom of the column. As I explain below, at a quick look this inference seems to imply the Earth cannot hold a non-greenhouse gas atmosphere–i.e., after a sufficient time, all gas molecules will escape the gravitational pull of the Earth.

      One consequence of a uniform temperature column is that the average speed of the molecules are the same at all positions (altitudes) within the column and that average speed is set by the temperature of the column, which if the column of gas is in thermal equilibrium with the Earth’s surface is set by the temperature of the Earth’s surface. I believe that for helium gas, at temperatures near 300K a significant fraction of the helium molecules near sea level have a speed in excess of “the Earth-surface escape velocity.” In fact, as I understand it, this effect is one reason atmospheric levels of helium gas are so low. Specifically, if helium molecules at the Earth’s surface had an unhindered path to space (i.e., didn’t bump into other gas molecules) and were moving in directions whose orbits did not intersect the Earth’s surface, the molecules would leave the Earth never to return.

      It is well known that the escape velocity of an object decreases with distance above the Earth’s surface. This implies that a gas molecule with speed “x” at the surface of the Earth may be less than the Earth-surface escape velocity; but at some height above the Earth’s surface, the gas molecule’s velocity “x” will exceed the escape velocity for that altitude. Thus, it seems to me that if the constant temperature model is correct (i.e., the gas molecules have the same average kinetic energy at all altitudes) for any reasonable Earth surface temperature, there is an altitude at which the average kinetic energy would imply a sufficient individual molecule velocity to “escape the gravitational pull of the Earth and leave the Earth never to return.” As molecules in the column leave the Earth, the number of gas molecules in the column decreases. However, if the temperature of the bottom of the column remains unchanged (I’m assuming the surface of the Earth is not affected by non-greenhouse gas molecules) and the temperature in the column is everywhere the same, then it seems to me that it’s just a matter of time before all gas molecules reach the altitude at which their speed is in excess of the escape velocity at that altitude and the molecules will leave the column. Bottom line, without the injection of gas molecules into the atmosphere, eventually all gas molecules will leave the Earth and the Earth won’t have an atmosphere.

      I’d appreciate any thoughts you, or other readers of this thread, have on the matter.

      00

      • #
        Rick Will

        The linked paper is the best analysis of the atmospheric thermodynamics I have come across:
        http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/climatethermoslayer.pdf

        You will see that section 7 gives the two solutions for a adiabatic equilibrium.

        In the real atmosphere the a profile similar to the isentropic state is observed to prevail in the troposphere:
        http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/profile.jpg
        However the higher levels of the atmosphere exhibit distinctly different temperature profiles with elevation.

        Earth’s atmosphere does lose gas; mainly hydrogen and helium. However it also gains gas. The gravity of Mars was not large enough to retain a substantial atmosphere and it has leaked away.

        10

        • #
          Reed Coray

          Rick,

          Thank you for the reference. Because hydrogen chemically reacts with many elements, I can understand how the Earth’s atmosphere gains hydrogen–the decomposition of the molecules into their constituent elements. However, helium is a different matter. Helium is chemically inert. As I understand it, most of the helium used by man is mined from underground sources. So to the degree those underground sources leak helium the Earth’s atmosphere can gain helium; but helium is not generated by chemical decomposition of molecules.

          00

      • #
        Peter C

        Thanks Reed,

        Professor Brown may be right or he may be wrong.

        Hydrogen and Helium seem to escape from the gravitation of the earth.

        The observed lapse rate only applies in the troposphere.

        We still have two theories about the cause of the lapse rate. Both can be wrong, but only one can be right! In the past a new theory has had to pass a number of empirical tests to gain acceptance. In the case of Einstein’s theory very elaborate and precise experiments were performed to put the theory to the test.

        Greenhouse should pass some test! A sufficiently well designed test should discriminate between the isothermal (greenhouse) and thermo-gravitational theories about the atmospheric lapse rate.

        I do not think that “at our current level of understanding we should be able to predict which one is true”. We can of course make a prediction but that is not empirical evidence.

        Maybe someone can come up with the evidence.

        00

  • #
    edwina

    Back in 1972 I bought probably the first edition of “Limits To Growth” by The Club Of Rome, whoever they were. They used simple linear computer charts ‘showing’ how at the then rate of consumption the world would be depleted of resources by around 1990. Of course that never happened.

    Later, the theme was taken up by Greenpeace and now by so called climate scientists. One result is the call for cease using fossil fuels by 2100 even though they are not going to be depleted. And the stronger the call for halting a few degrees of warming that the earth has endured quite well in the past perhaps has another motive.

    That is, even though about 190 nations have been conned into agreeing to less use of coal, I ask myseelf who benefits the most? Well, admittedly, I have a conspiracy theory and it goes like this. The likes of Europe, North America, Japan, now China, have all gained their standard of living by use of coal energy for over 150 years.

    If, however poor India, African nations, South American nations and Asian nations make use of coal power over say the next 50 years they will certainly attain a standard of living like the developed nations. This would mean much larger and destructive competition for the developed nations. By depriving all the poor nations of cheap coal energy the lid can be kept on such ‘dire’ development.

    In a way, it is a return to the colonial days where northern hemisphere powers colonised South America, Asia and Africa. Only instead of slavery or looting it’s a new colonialism where the poor nations are kept poor and a source of cheap labor and resources. There is no way these poor nations could afford to get enough energy from wind, solar or even nuclearpower. Even Hydro is challenged.

    By ‘pretending’ to be concerned about climate change the powerful nations can hold their positionsfor a long while to come.

    80

  • #

    Just wondering – What with the Pope and Archbishop Tutu weighing in on the “Green” Warmist side. Aren’t they and the Warmist doomsayers the heretics for heeding the word of Mann rather than the spiritual needs of their Flock?

    … just sayin’

    170

    • #
      edwina

      Correct. When faced with some terrible existential threat such as a world war churches would be filled with people praying to God for guidance and deliverance. But this time the appeal is to Gaia and mere mortals. Also, it seems the threat of nuclear war and nuclear winter has receded from memories despite the threat as high as ever.

      60

    • #

      Every VIP will earn big carbonista brownie points if they do this in the lead up to Paris. I expect they are being pressured not to be “weak”, or “silent”. They will be “counted on” to support it. There is so much money and power on the table there is plenty of room for bartering and swaps.

      You scratch my back… and what I really need is a Press Release in Aug-Sept-Oct….

      100

      • #
        • #
          James Murphy

          Dominated by a couple of noisy, yet inaccurate and superficial commenters with a penchant for name-calling and insults, the comments section is yet another example of how little the general public understand, or care about science in general. If you leave aside the claims, and counter claims, it seems to come down to people being unable to define what ‘science’ is, not knowing anything about the scientific method, and not being able to differentiate between science, and engineering, and that’s about as polite as I can be, really.

          Is this what the general education (comprehension/retention) level has fallen to, or has it always been this bad, I wonder?

          52

          • #

            I can’t say if it was always this bad, but 40 years ago I would have been flunked for the practices that are now common in global warming. I think maybe there was period where science mattered, like with Sputnik and the space race, but superstition seemed to be a better sell and science was put on life support (maybe a medically induced coma?). That being said, I knew a very large number, and still know, that believed nonsensical things about science or just didn’t believe in science at all. Some of these graduated high school the same time I did. Perhaps it’s more a question of whether the politics of the moment has control over science and wants to use it for power leveraging., plus individual attitudes toward science.

            60

      • #
        Manfred

        Well, the money at least doesn’t appear to be in short supply, either of itself or of those willing to spend other peoples money.
        It’s seems such endless fun working at the fountain head of an inexhaustible cash spigot. I think the eco-glitterati have cottoned on quite well.

        10

        • #
          Peter C

          When people get the chance to decide how to spend their own money, the supply of funds for causes dries up very quickly.

          00

      • #
        Leo Morgan

        VIP’s remember: imaginary Greenie points are worthless.
        They just put a target on your back to be accused of betrayal if you stop buying into ever more extreme green positions.
        It doesn’t get you votes. 90% of us vote against the Greens in Australia.
        The Abbott government has done more for the environment than any preceding government, but that fact is useless when it comes to electoral support.
        Even VIP’s who have espoused the rhetoric continuously will be abandoned in favour of anyone who makes a bigger promise regardless of how irrational and economically ignorant it is.

        10

  • #
    el gordo

    “Wikipedia’s global warming entry sees 2-3 edits a day, with more than 100 words altered, while the standard model in physics has around 10 words changed every few weeks,” Wilson notes. “The high rate of change observed in politically controversial scientific topics makes it difficult for experts to monitor their accuracy and contribute time-consuming corrections.”

    Tallbloke’s Talkshop

    120

  • #
    pat

    the six months the MSM was giving the PM is up…they’re in for the kill.

    ***the main result is WAAAYYYY down in the article and, even then, u have to believe the poll is legitimate in the first place. if the Australian public want TENS OF BILLIONS MORE DOLLARS spent on CAGW, then it shows just how deceptive & toxic the MSM is on the subject:

    16 Aug: SMH: Michael Gordon: Fairfax poll: Forget ScoMo, Malcolm Turnbull is the choice if Tony Abbott tumbles
    LINK: Poll puts government in ‘disaster’ zone
    The latest Fairfax-Ipsos poll reveals a massive swing of more than seven per cent against the government since the last election. Analysis with Mark Kenny
    LINK: Coalition faces 36-seat electoral wipeout: poll
    This is a result that clarifies the choice for Liberal Party MPs if, and when, they decide they cannot go to the next election under Tony Abbott’s leadership.
    Malcolm Turnbull has firmed as the public’s choice of Liberal leader, while the Coalition vote has gone backwards since the Prime Minister survived a leadership spill motion in February…
    Turnbull has a whopping 18-point lead over the next most favoured choice in Julie Bishop; a 26-point lead over Abbott, and a 36-point lead over the circling Scott (ScoMo) Morrison and the struggling Joe Hockey…
    He is seen as more in sync with an electorate that wants more action on climate change and supports marriage equality…
    ***First, Turnbull still trails Abbott as preferred leader among Coalition voters by eight points, with both men dropping five points since February…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/fairfax-poll-forget-scomo-malcolm-turnbull-is-the-choice-if-tony-abbott-tumbles-20150816-gj09lg.html

    20

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Rather than the public’s choice that reads like Turnbull is the choice of the press.

      I very much doubt that the public will ever be asked “how much do you want to spend on global warming?” With a list of what would be required. Try Henry Ergas in today’s Australian. He estimates Shorten’s policy at over $100 billion with the average electricity bill going up at least $600 p.a.

      30

  • #
    Dariusz

    From my heart
    I was always wondering why conformity is dominant in human history. From a evolutionary point of view this is a perfectly understandable behaviour. In Nazi Germany or Soviet Union states to survive was to conform.
    But today there is no need to conform in order to survive, however keeping quiet is a norm. Except a for few individuals on the right there is no drive to be courageous. The left thinks they they are courageous and heroic identifying themselves with the Galileos (when defending eg pseudo-science of GW) and “oppressed” minorities.

    Yet in the communist reality that I lived through I did not see a single leftie complaining about the bread lines or poverty of the workers. In fact people were conviced that they were far better off than their compatriots across the wall. The energy poverty also existed in the east and this was treated as normal. My grandparents got their 1st electrical bulb in 1972 just in time for the Munich Olympics . As a result, cows were not milked as my grandparents watched government TV from dawn to dusk.
    When I was 16 I knew I was living in the Orwellian reality and yet my dad who supposed to be more experienced believed this was the only ideal. Now many years later he tells me that I was right. But how is that possible? 16 year old youngester vs 45 year old person in 1977, both of us convinced of our 180 degree realities.
    Was this a conformity driven by survival or on my part being naive and idealistic? But even after my country was finally liberated he still maintained communist ideas for the next 20 years.
    Now I live in Australia. No one is threatening anyone,s life in this free country, but conformism is rapant. Was it like that all the time in free countries or I just expect too much?

    110

    • #

      You ask a very interesting question. You’re a very astute observer.

      Conformity as an evolutionary trait may not be as necessary today but it is still essential in many areas. Most businesses have rules for hiring people that non-conformists would not meet and thus would not be able to be employed. We live in cities where there is a certain amount of conformity required to avoid chaos. Evolutionary traits do not vanish very quickly—it’s far too soon to expect conformity to vanish via evolution, if it ever can. In the 60′s in the USA, “non-conformity” became the new conformity. Even when people think they are not conforming, they are actually just changing the group to which they conform.

      Often, children/adolescents do see the world very clearly, often moreso than their parents. This is threatening to adults because they realize that the non-conforming ideas expressed by the child will in the end harm the child as an adult. The child, and the parents, may be ostecized. So as we grow older, we conform more. We give up the truth and go for acceptance.

      Yes, conformity always existed in free countries too. Conformity isn’t there because of government policy, it’s there because that how humans are made.

      50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        And not just humans. Albino pigeons don’t survive long enough to mate and breed. They are pecked to death by other pigeons.

        It seems that nature wants evolutionary adaption, but only to a modest degree and at an appropriate speed.

        60

      • #
        el gordo

        There are outliers within society who have trouble conforming to groupthink, the most outlandish become artists.

        Its not easy being me, but I have managed to adapt.

        50

    • #
      ianl8888


      … Was it like that all the time in free countries …

      Yes

      People need to “belong” to a group (or groups), to feel accepted. So it is necessary to take on protective colouration, ie. to espouse what the group seems to espouse, whether one believes it or not. After a while, you have well forgotten that you may have ever disbelieved

      The most interesting sequence occurs on the odd times when reality intrudes and it becomes necessary to change gears. So when people come to espouse that which they previously claimed as silly and this contradiction is pointed out, the reaction is to deny the contradiction (“I never said that”) or to attack the critic – but never to admit the original position as wrong

      C’est la vie, for over 4m years

      20

    • #
      Manfred

      Edward de Bono wrote of the inescapable tension that exists between the individual’s need to express their individuality and the need to belong (to the group).

      The motivations and priorities that underpin respective needs presumably change from moment to moment, with experience, with age and with ability, to mention but a few variables.

      The famous Vulcan aphorism, ‘the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one’ sounds nice, and indeed it may be practical but is not necessarily true.

      10

  • #
  • #
    OB

    Here in the UK the average demand for electricity for the past 24 hours is 25.4GW.
    The average supplied by our wind generators is a whopping 360.1MW or 1.4% of demand
    and it is cloudy so there will not be much from the solar panels especially from the
    one that is installed on the north facing roof of a house I saw this morning; guess
    they just wanted to say that they are taking the “moral high ground” or was someone
    taking then homeowner for a “ride”? North facing works well in Australia but it’s
    not such a good idea in the UK.

    60

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    as BBQ season draws to a close my thoughts a drawn to unimportant events coming up..

    COP21 Paris climate conference – December 2015

    Here are a few pointers and some important info ..

    Dates 30th Nov- 11th Dec (unhomogenized )
    Start time 6:00pm (homogenized so it’s actually 11:00am )

    The French president wants it to be a success and thus attract eco-tourists so bring lots of money.
    There will be no dancing zebras
    Countries have been asked to please submit their pledges “before” 30th November
    and..
    Mexico has already submitted their pledge
    So… America/Australia we are still waiting for those suitcases of cash

    If you are attending – Things to do before you go ..

    check Sea level
    check current Temperature
    check ENSO meter
    pack your Inhaler (Asthma sufferers)
    pack your portable CO2 capture unit – breathing out is strictly prohibited
    pack your Violin
    pack a Box of tissues..

    Note: There will be no “after conference” celebration/party, but “disappointment” counseling will be provided by Professor Lyn Littlefield.

    100

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      What? No dancing zebras? That’s it… I’m not going.

      80

      • #
        tom0mason

        Graeme No.3

        Sorry about the dancing zebras but as was announced earlier, following the much reported difficulty with the unicorns, and the injuries caused, both acts are cancelled.
        These acts have been replaced by, what has been deemed the best option, 8 zen polar bears and their readings, meditations and insight on world poverty and hunger.
        The organizers hope you will enjoy the show. :)

        60

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    For the el Nino watchers

    “A Deeper Look At The Top 10 El Ninos Since 1870″

    http://sabolscience.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/a-deeper-look-at-top-10-el-ninos-since.html

    via a comment

    “craigm350 says: 16 August 2015 at 1:08 am” at

    https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/el-nio-and-cold/#comments

    30

    • #

      Thank you for the link! I was just wondering about past El Ninos and what effects they have!

      20

    • #
      el gordo

      Thanks for that Ian, I have been wondering for some time what caused the huge temperature spike in the late 19th century.

      We have long known it was El Nino, but in my wild imaginings I envisaged a warm blob off the US west coast may have joined up and caused catastrophe. As you know that Nino caused the loss of 20 million people.

      At the time there was a cool blob off the west coast, so the reason for that extraordinary heat spike remains unresolved.

      20

  • #
    Another Ian

    More on #19

    Anyone remember what 1957-58 did re weather?

    Looks very similar to the current pattern.

    20

    • #
      el gordo

      I’m concentrating on the 1962-63 winter in Europe and there appears to be no indication of anything unusual in the run up.

      10

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    For the third time in a fortnight, snow down to 100 m ASL in Tasmania.
    One can’t help but wonder how long it will take for the idea to sink into these greenskulls that “global warming” is an aberration and a scam?

    80

    • #

      yeah… snow in Tasmania. End of debate.

      14

      • #
        Angry

        “Gee Aye”,
        No doubt if it had been hot you would have been spruking “global warming” !
        Not a very deep thinker are you ?
        QED

        41

        • #

          I am not a deep thinker but I know what QED means and it doesn’t mean, “I win”.

          So 2 deficiencies in your “argument”

          1. Go do some research and see if you can find any evidence that I have ever spruiked GW in response above average hot conditions.

          2. I implied, in a snide way, that snow in Tasmania is proof of nothing. Your counter argument is not rational or relevant. You countered by name calling (not a deep thinker) and making up something about what I would say in an unrelated circumstance.

          13

          • #
            el gordo

            ‘snow in Tasmania is proof of nothing’

            Unless its still on the ground in summer.

            21

            • #

              true enough… I meant the current snow. However it would be significant if there are summer avalanches on Mt Wellington and nascent glaciation.

              12

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘I meant the current snow.’

                Yeah, but within a decade its more than feasible that snow in the western highlands will still be on the ground during summer. Similar to Scotland at the moment.

                Here is what John White (Surgeon General of the Settlement) wrote on January 1, 1788 as they approached Tasmania.

                ‘As we run in with the land, which is pretty high, we were surprised to see, at this season of the year, some small patches of snow.’

                Its not much to hang my hat on, but worthwhile anecdotal evidence for a global cooling signal at the time.

                30

              • #

                hmmm be careful there… what if the actual evidence is that snowfall in summer has become less common? Summer snow occurs still and the skifields were closed in the 1930s – not really a coherent argument for anything there but much better than “Angry’s”

                03

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘not really a coherent argument’

                Winter snow on the ground in the Taswegian summer is a sign of global cooling.

                In November 1788, back in England, “a very severe frost the latter end of the year, by which the Thames was so completely frozen over, that Mrs Porteus and myself walked over it from Fulham to Putney.”

                10

  • #
    David Maddison

    I went on a historic steam train ride on the weekend put on by volunteers at Steamrail Victoria (see https://www.facebook.com/steamrail). It was a fantastic ride and I loved the smell of the burning coal wafting through the cabin. The train was 351 metres long and it could go as fast as a modern train. I was surprised at the speed it could attain and its acceleration. I was hoping it would increase my carbon footprint but thinking about it, burning coal in a steam boiler and converting the steam to motive power is probably more efficient than burning coal to turn into electricity and transmitting that hundreds of kms for use in an electric train.

    50

    • #
      Angry

      Love the Steam Trains.
      We are planning a day trip on one in the next few weeks.

      40

      • #
        David Maddison

        Highly recommended! Steam train operators (volunteers) have complained to me how the greatly increased cost of our plentiful coal resources really adversely affects their costs.

        40

  • #
    pat

    how does Fairfax square Michael Gordon’s statement in the SMH article i posted last nite, which states:

    ***First, Turnbull still trails Abbott as preferred leader among Coalition voters by eight points, with both men dropping five points since February…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/fairfax-poll-forget-scomo-malcolm-turnbull-is-the-choice-if-tony-abbott-tumbles-20150816-gj09lg.html

    with:

    17 Aug: SMH: Mark Kenny: Tony Abbott’s leadership faces new dangers as Fairfax-Ipsos poll predicts Coalition wipeout
    Malcolm Turnbull is cementing his lead over Tony Abbott as the most popular choice as Liberal leader and prime minister ***ACROSS ALL MAJOR VOTER GROUPS, according to new polling which also shows the Coalition is facing a 36-seat electoral wipeout…
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tony-abbotts-leadership-faces-new-dangers-as-new-ipsos-poll-predicts-coalition-wipeout-20150816-gj01ip.html

    on the MSM (radio) this morning, all i have heard is that Turnbull is the choice for Liberal leader ***ACROSS ALL MAJOR VOTER GROUPS. ABC News Radio’s Marius Benson led with it and sounded positively gleeful.

    10

  • #
    TdeF

    There is a discussion though, the influence of fear mongering warmist theology in church groups. You have Pope Francis on board, now Desmond Tutu and the Anglican Synod praying for success in Paris.

    Global warming appeals to the other religions which talk about man being evil and repenting and praying for salvation from hell fire. Sound familiar? The sort of people who would give all their possessions to Jim Jones and go off to a jungle in Guyana and commit mass suicide present a problem politically, as do the type of people who would believe in the Rapture in 2011. They do not seem to see the Swami in his Rolls Royce with his people in hessian sacks is logically absurd. The scientoligist are another rich organization based on Science fiction, aliens and volcanoes and atom bombs and fear and money.

    So the local priests also push global warming and the evils of coal and hell fire. This is a powerful combination of fantasy and religion and fear, pushed from the pulpit and now from Rome. There is little of it though from Arabic Islam, partly as they see the West as evil anyway and partly as they have all the oil. The you get the Green movement, another fear based organization which wants to stop Natural Selection and the movement of the tectonic plates and sea level changes. King Canute never did win that argument.

    What is ironic is the religious groups pushing what they see as evil mankind hell fire Science orthodoxy, or is it because it strikes a resonance with their products? Parallel marketing.

    30

    • #

      I think the Pope’s support is a marker for how the power of the modern Catholic church is reduced to pandering to big-government. Back in the days when the kings answered to Rome, the Pope would have had none of this. The Church used to lead philosophy and moral debates. Now it follows.

      Either the Pope i/ sincerely believes the warming fears (he may despite the skeptics in the church), ii/ thinks it will attract younger people to Catholicism (seems unlikely given the strongest green-faithers are the least sympathetic to Christianity), iii/ by pandering to big-gov the church may be rewarded with more grants, and iv/ lives in fear of the media calling the church “deniers”, “backwards”,
      anti-science. Namecalling still works.

      60

      • #
        ianl8888


        … lives in fear of the media calling the church “deniers”, “backwards”,
        anti-science

        Yep – what I’ve called protective colouration (I prefer to remain anonymous to protect my clients and colleagues from spiteful ecoloon attacks. That is my “protective colouration”)

        Six months from now, the church will not admit that it took until July 2015 to get onboard. The damage from the child abuse issue is still well and truly alive and informing its’ PR

        20

      • #
        Frank

        Jo,
        The dear man is just following the science, the Catholic church accepts the consensus in all the other scientific fields and even recognises the theory of evolution which greatly undermines the institution. It is appeal to relevant authority.

        03

        • #

          The dear man is just following the Gods of Mainstream Science. Exactly.

          Let’s rent out our brains and be obedient little “thinkers” eh? Do not look at the evidence. Do not consider each issue on its merits. The government is always right. Repeat after me…

          40

          • #
            Frank

            Thank heavens for these ports of sanity in a sea of corrupted science, you will eventually be proven right if ever your evidence is properly peer reviewed.

            12

            • #

              So, Frank, what you are really saying is peer-review has now been elevated to God and the Pope is now worshipping the appropriate God.

              10

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Frank,

          If history has taught us anything, it’s this:

          In science, the conscensus has been wrong much more often than it has been right.

          Abe

          20

        • #

          NO, the Catholic Church does not follow the consensus in all other fields unless you are saying science says life begins at conception, in which case abortion is murder.

          00

      • #
        Another Ian

        Jo

        Maybe George Pell has explained the financial situation and they need to get on the gravy train?

        10

    • #

      If I can add something here, I think it’s (not a fear of the unknown) a lack of knowledge of the unknown which has driven people’s beliefs on this subject.

      For so long now, people in authority have categorically stated that the only ‘cure’ is a wholesale closure of the major sources of CO2 emissions, those fossil fuel driven power plants and a wholesale move to renewable power, wind and solar power mainly.

      People have no knowledge of what that entails, as 99.9% of the general public just think electrical power comes out of the proverbial hole in the wall.

      Electrical power is just electrical power, no matter where it comes from.

      That belief that it is all the same is reinforced by virtually everyone in authority, not out of wilful disregard, but because they also have a lack of knowledge about it too.

      The per capita meme, wholly a furphy, again reinforces this belief, because people believe that power consumption is just what they personally consume, so the meme that rooftop solar power gains credence as a remedy, when rooftop solar solve a partial problem for a fraction of the total number of homes, and that Residential Sector is basically only one third of total power consumption.

      So I can say ….. well just turn off the power plants and this whole thing will just go away.

      I actually fear for the time if that actually happens.

      People would think, well, a blackout for some hours, a day perhaps, a couple of days even. I could handle that.

      Again, a false thought, devolving back to that per capita meme.

      Turn off the power and everything grinds to an utter stop. It would cost quite literally hundreds of millions off dollars a day, and would result in a number of deaths. It would be absolutely horrendous, as would the wholesale rioting and looting which would surely follow.

      Until someone, (and a whole lot of them in concert) explains what it actually means to close down REAL power plants and attempt to replace them with part time toys, the public will NEVER understand just what it means.

      Everyone in authority is pushing the fix, but only because they have no concept themselves what it means.

      When and if someone actually DOES come out and explain it, that one person will be vilified as (insert the usual word here) so, it’s now become an education process to explain it correctly, and trust me, that will never happen.

      I dread the day when someone in power just arbitrarily shuts off a major power plant. It’s be too late for ‘I told you so’ then.

      Tony.

      70

      • #
        ianl8888

        The MSM have spent the last 20 years or more deliberately avoiding any publicity or hard discussion of this, especially the actual GWh numbers that base load requires and the renewabubble contribution to that

        The various senior editors have NOT done that out of ignorance – it is quite purposeful

        It’s actually a Renaissance in reverse … objectively fascinating but for the awful consequences

        50

        • #

          Absolutely correct ianl8888.

          Nameplate is the only metric being used, and that vastly overstates the capability of those renewables.

          Australia’s total power consumption comes in at around 210TWH a year, and around 60 to 65% of that is required absolutely on a 24 hour basis.

          Nameplate total for Wind comes in at around 4000MW which gives the impression that it is indeed quite large, but when distilled down, all wind supplies is the equivalent of around 1200MW of Nameplate, or around 4.4% of that total consumption, but it’s not part of that absolute 24 hour absolute requirement, even though it might contribute some of the time across that 24 hour period.

          Rooftop Solar shows an even more dramatic disconnect between reality and actual.

          There are around 1.5 million rooftop systems, and the average installation comes in at 2.2KW and this gives a total Nameplate of 3300MW, again a seemingly large number.

          Actual power generated across a whole year is the equivalent of around the power delivered from only 450MW, and with most of it consumed by the homes with the systems, then what is delivered back to the grid comes in at around the equivalent of only 100MW at the absolute maximum, and that’s spread across the whole of Australia.

          Even taking into account the total power generated (consumed by homes PLUS fed back to the grid) then that percentage of total consumption is only 1.5%.

          Considering just that Residential sector which consumes only 30% of the overall total, (63TWH) even then rooftop solar contributes only 5.7% in total to just that Residential Sector, and that’s what is consumed by the homes PLUS what is fed back to the grids. That’s spread across the whole of Australia, so what is in individual areas is so minute as to not even be considered for consumption elsewhere other than what the home itself is using it for.

          When you have such tiny percentages like that, it becomes patently obvious why they use Nameplate only. If they use actual generated power, people would just sneer at it for the joke it all is.

          The amount of power being fed back to the grid by rooftop solar would be difficult to even notice, except in some areas where it might be a bright cloud free day in Summer, and even then, heaven help the grid controller who relies on rooftop solar being fed to the grid in his area to cover full supply.

          People have no concept of the simple Load Curve for power consumption, what it actually means, and just why it is so important, and when I read comments where people say that Base Load is an outdated concept of zero significance, I immediately discontinue any discussion with them.

          People just DO NOT want to know the truth.

          Tony.

          30

      • #
        David Maddison

        We need to make a pro-science, pro-evidence version of Gore’s science fiction movie “An Inconvenient Truth”.

        I’d be happy to work on such a project if anyone were interested.

        10

        • #

          Welcome Mr Maddison to your interview to be part of our wonderful multimedia venture into pro-science. Just a few questions to get out of the way before we proceed as your answers to these may help us both to not waste each others’ time.

          Do you think a job application should include statements that characterise things that are disagreed with with terms such as “science fiction”. Do you think that what you just wrote displays the sorts of attributes you want “pro-science” to represent, and which will promote the science we all want to see for the centuries to come?

          00

          • #

            Why not. The other side got away with it.

            Tony.

            10

            • #

              My point exactly Tony… Mr Madddison is advocating pro-science and he (and you) recognise that the other side is not being pro-science and yet you both advocate methods that the other side used that were not pro-science.

              So that is why not.

              00

              • #

                Gee Aye,

                Then surely even you must see my (consistent) stance on attempting to explain the truth about renewable power in the manner I do.

                No one wants to know that.

                People will believe (implicitly) the spin put forth in the name of whatever it is that they want to believe, and then call me a liar.

                I’m lucky now that I’ve been doing it for so long that it doesn’t bother me. What scares me is that when the truth does come out, there will be a backlash that won’t be pretty to watch.

                That may scare me, but what puzzles me is that these people in positions of authority spruiking renewable power just must have advisers who can tell them the truth of the matter, and I dread the day these people in authority find out the real truth and have nowhere to hide, having stood on a platform now pulled out from under them by that truth. The response from people who believed them will not be all that nice.

                The phrase ‘told you so’ then becomes totally redundant.

                Tony.

                30

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Lucky for us that Gee Aye is not on the other side then.

              30

      • #

        Tony–As I often say, if electricity wasn’t invisible, this whole “alternate energy source” thing would have died years ago. Because electricity and its sources are invisible, no one really understands what cutting out coal will do to the electric supply. People think those wind turbines actually do something besides making already rich investors richer via taxpayer money. The invisible quality makes all this possible. Try the same thing with water–pull all the water for a town from a intermittent source and see how long before people are upset. It enrages me when beer manufacturers in Colorado (or any other business for that matter) claim they are “using 100% renewable energy” because it’s a LIE. They are using the same electricity as everyone else. They just pay the higher renewable rate. If they used only renewable, their business would be dead in a month.

        I do fear we may end up like I have read about the Philippines, where power is truly intermittent and no one cares. They have given up. Americans, at least, are becoming very good at sitting there and watching the destruction of their lives with the same emotional investment as watching a movie or television show. Maybe less. Will people revolt? I’m not sure any more. They have done nothing to date and there were plenty of chances to act. Perhaps humans are indeed nothing but sheep that will stand in the corner of fence in blizzard and not move until they are all dead. They don’t even try to move…..

        10

    • #
      Angry

      Here is a copy of my email to our local Catholic parish…………..

      To whom it may concern,
      We are parishioners of Mary Help of Christians church at xxxxxxx.
      The last two church bulletins have contained propaganda promoting the global warming SCAM.
      We are furious and extremely angry that this is occurring !
      The current Pope is an absolute disgrace, is not a scientist and has essentially confirmed the fact that the fraud of global warming is nothing but gaia (earth) worship by his vocal support for it.
      This a pagan belief by primitive peoples who believed that the trees, caves, mountains, rivers, lakes etc should be worshiped.
      This not what Jesus or the Bible teaches.
      It is in fact Anti Christian.
      Every intelligent, thinking person can easily see that the hogwash of global warming is nothing but a quest for power and money without any basis in scientific fact or observation.
      One only has to do their our research on some of the following issues for this to be abundantly clear.
      1 Climategate scandal
      2 Homogenization of climate data and the application of algorithms to raw observations to create the illusion that temperatures are hotter than reality and are rising.
      3 The fake consensus that purports that 97% of scientists agree with global warming
      4 The hypocritical nature of the proponents of the global warming scam, many of who own waterfront properties and burn more electricity in their huge mansions than a small town.
      5 The lie that the oceans sea level is rising when actual observations do not support this assertion.
      6 That fact the supporters of this scam see human beings as nothing but parasites on the face of the Earth and want to see a global population of approximately 500 million. Basically advocating genocide for billions of humans. Not very Christian ! One of these is the Popes advisor !
      7 The lie that solar/wind power is cost effective, reliable and can provide 24 hr 7 day a week electricity.
      8 The lie that carbon DIOXIDE is pollution when in fact it is essential for the continuance of all life on Earth (plant food).

      Etc. Etc etc

      These are just a very few of reasons why only gullible ignorant people (useful idiots) are conned by this scam.
      It is an insult to peoples intelligence !

      The Popes approval amongst Catholics has dropped by almost 20% since his announcement of his support for the global warming fraud.

      Not a very wise move since church attendance worldwide is falling.
      Indeed if this brainwashing continues our own family will be reassessing our willingness to attend mass and read drivel from “Laudato si” the Popes extremely misguided encyclical.
      A very distressing thought for us as we have been church going Catholics all of our lives !
      I am sure that other parishioners are thinking along the same lines.

      Here are some relevant articles shedding more light on all of this :-

      Pope’s popularity fall 17% — preaching the climate change religion not so popular?
      http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/popes-popularity-fall-17-preaching-the-climate-change-religion-not-so-popular/#comment-1729708

      A world-government warmist is now advising even the Pope
      http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/newman_is_owed_an_apology_a_world_government_warmist_is_now_advising_even_t/
      The Pope of the Marxist greens
      http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_pope_of_the_marxist_greens/

      The Scientific Pantheist Who Advises Pope Francis
      https://stream.org/scientific-pantheist-who-advises-pope-francis/

      Flagship German FAZ Assails Pope’s “Distorted Depiction Of Civilization”…Encyclical’s Vision “A Frightening Idea”
      http://notrickszone.com/2015/06/23/flagship-german-faz-assails-popes-distorted-depiction-of-civilization-encyclicals-vision-a-frightening-idea/#sthash.S3PTfo47.dpbs

      Pope Francis’ Out Of Touch Climate Warning
      http://www.thegwpf.com/pope-francis-out-of-touch-climate-warning/

      Pope recruits Naomi Klein to fight Climate Change and Capitalism
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/28/pope-recruits-naomi-klein-to-fight-climate-change-and-capitalism/

      Attached is a very enlightening commentary on the opening four sentences of the pontifical academies’
      joint declaration, Climate Change and the Common Good: A Statement of The Problem
      and the Demand for Transformative Solutions, echoes of which resonate in the recent
      papal encyclical. The paper finds that the premise behind the academies’ call for deep
      decarbonization and a rapid reduction in fossil-fuel use is fundamentally flawed.

      Concerned Parishioners.
      Regards

      ………………..

      AND THEN THERE IS THIS……

      ‘I Want My Church Back!’: Irate Man Interrupts Catholic Climate Change Confab
      http://www.prisonplanet.com/i-want-my-church-back-irate-man-interrupts-catholic-climate-change-confab.html

      We feel the same as him!

      30

  • #

    Joanne’s nemesis is honouring the lucky country with her presence: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/17/tony-abbott-is-a-climate-change-villain-says-canadian-author-naomi-klein

    I hope Jo will get the chance to ask her in person if she considers Australia part of the “global south”, which Klein believes gives its inhabitants special insights.

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yes, but the headline has her backing off calling Abbott a Denier.

      I wonder if that was a case of editorial judgement, or if it was her choice of words. Either way, it is interesting. Hurricanes start with small changes in the breeze.

      20

  • #
    pat

    whilst Fairfax is using a couple of graphics of the IPSOS/Fairfax Poll, seemingly interactive, they are NOT linking to the poll, so that the questions & details can be analysed.

    meanwhile the IPSOS website (one of the worst around) hasn’t yet bothered to put up the poll either – how convenient?

    therefore, all MSM are writing rubbish about a IPSOS/Fairfax poll “has been published”, but are merely linking to the Fairfax interpretations of the poll. nice:

    16 Aug: AFR: Philip Coorey: Tony Abbott’s climate policy scores poor marks in poll
    The federal government has been marked down on climate change in a new poll that shows most voters believe it has done too little to address the problem. The poll comes as the government’s official climate change policy adviser (BERNIE FRASER) accuses the Tony Abbott-led government of shirking its part of the collective global task of avoiding dangerous climate change.
    Attitudes vary based on voter allegiance.
    ***Among Coalition voters, 56 per cent say the government has the balance about right while 32 per cent say it is doing too little.However, 73 per cent of Labor voters and 88 per cent of Greens voters say the government is doing too little and 20 per cent of Labor voters and 8 per cent of Greens voters say the balance is about right.
    http://www.afr.com/news/policy/climate/tony-abbotts-climate-policy-scores-poor-marks-in-poll-20150816-gj010e

    this breakdown on the climate change question does not seem to be in any other MSM.

    as for Mark Kenny/SMH (link above), whose “ACROSS ALL MAJOR VOTER GROUPS” was the mantra on radio this morning, ***look what he writes about 15 paras later!

    Mark Kenny/SMH: Malcolm Turnbull is cementing his lead over Tony Abbott as the most popular choice as Liberal leader and prime minister across all major voter groups…
    (THEN ABOUT 15 PARAS LATER, HE WRITES)
    Among all voters, Mr Turnbull, known for his mainstream social views, leads as preferred Liberal leader and prime minister …
    ***However, Mr Abbott still holds a clear edge over Mr Turnbull when that question is asked of Coalition voters exclusively…

    Kenny also writes: The bad news comes as the government continues to languish on the wrong side of popular opinion on issues such as marriage equality, for which public support remains high at 69 per cent, and global warming, where nearly six in every 10 voters think the policy response to date has been “too little”…

    Kenny doesn’t break down how the Coalition voters polled.

    IPSOS is a disgrace. Fairfax & the rest of the MSM ditto.

    30

  • #
    David Maddison

    On my steam train ride yesterday, see above, I spoke to someone about how the earth might actually be beginning to cool. She said to me, “but that is caused by global warming as well”. End of conversation. I could tell she was a true believer and I wanted to enjoy myself.

    30

    • #
      Angry

      “David Maddison”, I personally would have taken the individual to task and explained exactly why was wrong with her “belief”.

      10

  • #
    pat

    Fran’s Breakfast & the daily push for renewables. call the guest a “former state librarian” even tho that position ended 21 years ago! haven’t listened, not interested:

    17 Aug: ABC Breakfast: Making renewable energy more affordable
    Switching to higher cost renewable energy isn’t always an option for people on low incomes — but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t like to use more green power in their homes.
    One company from the Northern Rivers Region of New South Wales is now aiming to meet that demand, by launching a community-run, community-operated energy retail provider.
    It’s called ENOVA, and it plans to offer clean energy alternatives at lower prices, and higher solar feed-in tariffs…
    Former state librarian of New South Wales, and long-time board director Alison Crook is the chair of this new company…
    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/making-renewable-energy-more-affordable/6701778

    Giles has the main man, ex-Origin, & it’s only a start-up looking for $$$:

    3 Aug: SolarChoice: Giles Parkinson: NSW start-up Enova aims to foster community solar growth
    Former power utility exectuive Steve Harris and fellow directors will sign off on a prospectus for the Byron Bay-based Enova, before embarking on a four week road-show around the Northern Rivers region to try and raise $3 to $4 million…
    If $3 million is raised, then Enova will need to have 5,000 customers within three years to be viable. It hopes to begin operations by the end of the year…
    As those figures suggest, Enova is not about to challenge the big three utilities…
    Enova’s main business will be as a retailer – selling renewable-sourced electricity to its customers. But it will also act as an asset owner, installing solar and storage in homes and businesses, and will even provide a service to help customers going off-grid if that’s what they choose to do…
    http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/news/nsw-startup-foster-community-solar-growth-030815

    from Steve Harris/LinkedIn:
    I have a strong background in strategic marketing and business planning with 40 years experience working with Origin Energy through its growth to a $15b top 20 ASX company…

    10

  • #
    pat

    how can the progressive left think they are so smart, yet be this dumb?

    16 Aug: Truth-Out: Bruce Melton: The Clean Power Plan Is Barely Better Than Kyoto; IPPC Says: We Must Remove CO2 From the Atmosphere
    So how can the IPCC enlighten us on this issue?…
    The wording is complex, and it has taken me a year to understand the science well enough to ask the lead authors appropriate questions. Beyond the irreversible part (which needs no interpretation), “a large net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere over a sustained period” is the most compelling part of this statement. In Chapter 12 of the report the same concept is conveyed using the words “strong negative emissions.”
    What these statements mean is that we must begin to remove some of the accumulated carbon dioxide climate pollution we have emitted all of these years directly from our atmosphere. Emissions reductions alone are no longer enough. A “large net removal” and “strong negative emissions” mean that we must “largely,” or “strongly” remove more carbon dioxide than we emit every year.
    Whether this means we need to remove half again as much carbon dioxide as we emit every year or three or four times what we emit every year is not clear. When I asked IPCC authors about exactly how much carbon dioxide removal this means, I discovered a little-seen side of the IPCC.
    This is a rare policy statement. It is based on professional judgment. Normally, every single little statement in the IPCC’s reports comes with its own little army of academic researchers with footnotes and statistics piled in every corner. But this is not the case with this statement…
    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/32358-the-clean-power-plan-is-barely-better-than-kyoto-ippc-says-we-must-remove-co2-from-the-atmosphere#

    perhaps someone can excerpt the following:

    One-way ticket to energy hell
    The Australian-12 hours ago
    If you want to know what the lead-filled sock of fate has in store for us, look no further than Labor’s climate-change policies. With barely one per cent of global …

    20

  • #
    pat

    17 Aug: Daily Telegraph Editorial: 40,000 delegates in a carbon frenzy
    If the 2009 Copenhagen climate change conference is to be matched, by the time the curtain comes down on the $280 million World Climate Summit in Paris in November, at least 40,000-odd tonnes of carbon emissions will have been expended on the conference, ­ferrying tens of thousands of delegates, government big wigs and environmentalist from all corners of the globe to the French capital, housing them in fancy hotels, feeding them, and driving them around the city of love.
    That’s four months worth of carbon emissions, to the good folk of Vanuatu, or roughly 10 weeks of exhaling from the 12,000 hardworking sperm whales in our Southern Ocean. Such impact is unfortunate collateral damage, reasons Erwin Jackson, the deputy CEO of the Climate Institute. “It’s impossible to negotiate a treaty of such complexity unless everybody is in the same room.’’…
    The looming gabfest does nothing to reassure a dubious public that grant-funded climate scientists and grandstanding politicians are not merely feathering their own nests and enjoying Europe in late autumn…
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/delegates-in-a-carbon-frenzy/story-fni0cwl5-1227486123160

    behind paywall:

    17 Aug: Courier Mail: Rowan Dean: If Abbott is dumb, Shorten’s dumber
    The first was to commit to a carbon emissions reduction target …
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-labor-loses-crucial-game-of-political-chess-over-gay-marriage-and-climate-change/story-fnihsr9v-1227486324436

    17 Aug: Australian: Letters: Carbon alarmists should explain temperature stability
    1)Few question that the planet has warmed since the little ice age of the 17th century. However, the claim by John Chapman that carbon emissions are the culprit lacks direct evidence (Letters, 15/8).
    In the most recent edition of Science, US climatologist Kevin Trenberth explains how the variability of climate during the 20th century, on inter-annual to multi-decadal scales, can be attributed to changing ocean circulations. Unfortunately, data does not exist to test the connection on longer time-scales. The possibility that the meagre warming of the 20th century is part of a natural multi-century oscillation cannot be discounted…etc
    William Kininmonth, Kew, Vic

    2)Your correspondent John Chapman considers that his clues point to anthropomorphic global warming. But all these clues are also quite consistent with a planet warming naturally following the end of the little ice age. One issue is how much of this warming is natural and how much is caused by humans.
    Another issue is whether the planet is warmer now than during the Roman and medieval warming periods…
    Des Moore (Letters, 14/8) is quite right to suggest we should revisit the assumptions on which calls for climate change action are based…etc
    J. B. Anderson, Roseville, NSW
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/letters/carbon-alarmists-should-explaintemperature-stability/story-fn558imw-1227485869489

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Wait. What?

    theage: Ski season 2015: Good weather and snow for start of season but El Nino brewing

    BoM: “Overall, the winter outlook over the alpine regions indicates an increased chance of above-average overnight and daytime temperatures, and a marginally increased chance of below-average rainfall,” Catherine Ganter, a senior climatologist at the bureau, said.

    The ski industry’s Mr Brulisauer said 2014 was a record year for daily visits to the resorts and the sector remains hopeful of another bumper season.

    Bookings for the season are strong, Mr Brulisauer said, downplaying the El Niño influence.

    “No-one forecast 30cm of snow on Sunday night,” he said

    “There’s still a great deal of variability in our weather systems and a lot that forecasters can’t see.”
    ~ ~ ~
    Wait. What?

    ABC: Push to improve ski facilities at Ben Lomond as village enjoys one of best seasons in three decades

    More than a metre of snow has fallen on the mountain in the past month.
    . . .
    Footnote.
    (phys.org)Global warming means more snowstorms: scientists

    40

    • #
      tom0mason

      el gordo,

      “There’s still a great deal of variability in our weather systems and a lot that forecasters can’t see.”

      So refreshing to see meteorologists’ spokesperson honestly admit they are unable to see all the variability in weather.
      It would be nice if the climate industry representatives would wholeheartedly say as much with each and every climate projection and statement they make.
      Something along the lines of –

      Due to natural variability we really don’t know what is happening, however are computer simulation projections (which are often wrong) indicate that some possible scenarios are …
      .. blah, blah, …starvation,
      blah .. loss of resources, … and
      blah … future generations to suffer …

      Mandatory Disclosure Statement –
      ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
      Please understand, although this may not be strictly accurate in the real world, we still have a 97% confidence for our modeled worlds.

      00

      • #
        tom0mason

        Oops,
        that is of course a reply to ‘handjive’ and not ‘el gordo’ …. more coffee please…

        00

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘…storms that are unparalleled since the winter of 1960-61.’

      Amazing, in the following winter of 1962-63 Europe shivered under ice age conditions.

      It was a half Gleissberg.

      10

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Flinders University vice-chancellor Colin Stirling will not prevent staff from collaborating with Bjorn Lomborg.’

    The Oz

    10

  • #
    RoHa

    Incidentally, I see Tasmania is getting a lot of Global Warming just now.

    151

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Careful, or you will invoke the wrath of Gee Aye.
      Apparently, cold weather and snow not seen since the sixties have no relationship with the ungodly global warming that we endured a scant 20 years ago.

      100

      • #

        (apologies if this reply is repeated but my first effort disappeared – at least I am briefer this time)

        My Wrath- Rod, feel free to reply or not with your killer evidence of a lack of snow events like this between 1970 and 2015 but I’ll save further comment for a future unthreaded.

        Here is some anecdotes from a weather guy quoted in the Mercury

        Today’s snowfall failed to match the volume of snow that fell in 1986, weather bureau forecaster Tristran Oakley said.

        “In 2005 there was snow down to sea level as well and so today is more comparable to that event.”

        Mr Oakley said that in 2005 snow fell in Tasmania’s west and south to sea-level over a few days.

        20

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          Sounds like a job for Jane.

          20

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          One thing you need to know about the news media in Tasmania is that EVERYTHING is caused by global warming. If the sun comes up, it’s AGW. If it goes down, it’s AGW. If it rains, it’s AGW. If it’s dry, it’s AGW. If the Greens are unhappy, it’s AGW. Quantities and values are never mentioned. There was a tiny skiff of snow in 1986.

          The Midland Highway at Peter’s Pass the other day looked a lot like this.

          10

          • #

            some photos of the skiff…

            Some say snowfall might close the Tasman Bridge, which was last closed because of snow on July 25, 1986.

            http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/snow-to-fall-in-city-roads-set-to-close/story-fnj4f7k1-1227464293442

            for anyone else who thinks that the newsmedia was all the way with AGW in 1986 just google this and choose the photos tab,

            tasmania snow photos 1986

            11

          • #

            btw Rod, you made the assertion of no snow similar to the recent falls since 1970 (or so) and you have still provided no evidence. See you on unthreaded

            10

            • #

              Forgive me for asking, but was this started on another thread and then moved over? It says “Unthreaded” at the top of my screen, so I’m confused.

              For those of us who do not live in Australia, could both of you be more specific about what area you are arguing over the snowfalls in? I looked at the video and other links, but I’m not sure what amounts of snow you’re talking about etc. It snowed in the Southern USA a few years back and shut everything down.

              I do find this interesting because it’s so very difficult to tell what weather changes are actually new and what are not and how many records of cold it takes before the warmists run out of places to measure warmer temperatures and hold that average up. (With the ocean available, I’m guessing they can go a long time. However, I’m sticking with land-based for now.)

              00

              • #
              • #

                and the video seemed to be from Canada. Tasmania has no recorded instances of metres deep snow as shown in that vid.

                I do find this interesting because it’s so very difficult to tell what weather changes are actually new and what are not and how many records of cold it takes before the warmists run out of places to measure warmer temperatures and hold that average up.

                the answer is they wont find a place to hide especially in the manner you suggest. If this winter in Tasmania is the start of a new pattern of sea level snow rather than being a rare event as recorded about once a decade, it will be the pattern not records that will be impossible to run away from.

                10

              • #

                and it got moved from the recent thread on wind energy for being off topic. The indignity!

                10

              • #

                Looks like I would have to chose Canada over Tasmania.

                I’m not sure the pattern can’t be ignored. Global warming advocates are very good at ignoring things and thus so are the faithful followers. I just keep wondering how all the cold records don’t affect the global average. There’s been snow in so many places in the last 5 years that have not seen snow in years. Sooner or later, there has to be an effect.

                Guess you’re lucky the mods moved it and didn’t just reject the comment. ;)

                00

          • #
  • #
    el gordo

    They got something right and its shaping up to be a game changer.

    ‘CSIRO principal research scientist Wenju Cai said the forecast El Nino was likely to be followed by a La Nina, bringing extreme wet weather in 2016.

    “This kind of extreme El Nino event normally lasts until April, May, and then we will see the system switch to conditions that are developing towards a La Nina in, say, next June, July, August,” Dr Cai said.

    “El Nino and La Nina both peak at our summer season and that’s why we will have floods in our summer (2016-2017).”

    Weatherzone

    10

  • #
  • #