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


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (45 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 9.2 out of 10 based on 45 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yyco29ur

163 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Thoughts On The Meaning And Implications Of “Trapping Heat”
    Reed Coray
    “The Logic Of Science” (https://thelogicofscience.com) is an internet blog. Under the blog’s “About” drop-down menu heading, the blog’s author notes that his blog includes “…sections with specific arguments pertaining to evolution, global warming, GMOs, and vaccines/alternative medicines.” The author further explains that “Because of the vitriol and ad hominem assaults that tend to get hurled at people who take a public stand on these issues…” he is disinclined to give his name; and in lieu thereof uses the pseudonym Fallacy Man. As a result, in this document when referring to the author of the blog, I will use the pseudonym Fallacy Man.

    On January 1, 2015 Fallacy Man posted a discussion of the basics of global climate change—see https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/01/30/basics-of-global-climate-change-a-logical-proof-that-it-is-our-fault/. This document discusses that post.

    The referenced post starts with three premises; and based on those premises arrives at a conclusion. The three premises and Fallacy Man’s conclusion are given immediately below.

    Premise 1: CO2 traps heat and is largely responsible for the earth’s climate.
    Premise 2: We have greatly increased the CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Premise 3: When you increase something that traps heat, you trap more heat.
    Conclusion: Therefore, we are causing the climate to change.

    In this document I explain why I disagree with (a) Premises 1 and 3 and (b) Fallacy Man’s discussions of those premises. Because I lack the knowledge to either agree or disagree with Premise 2, I omit a discussion of Premise 2. If all three premises are required to prove Fallacy Man’s conclusion, then I argue that although Fallacy Man’s conclusion may be correct, his logic fails to make the case.

    Before beginning a detailed discussion of Premises 1 and 3, note that from a logic perspective if Premise 2 and the second part of Premise 1 are true, then by themselves they are sufficient to reach Fallacy Man’s conclusion. Specifically, the second part of Premise 1 states: “[CO2] is largely responsible for the earth’s climate.” If this and Premise 3 “We have greatly increased the CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere” are both true, then at a minimum we are largely responsible for the earth’s climate; and if the earth’s climate is changing, we are largely contributing to that change. The size of man’s contribution to climate change, which could be anything from negligible to catastrophic, cannot be determined from Fallacy Man’s premises.

    Analyses of Premise 1 and Fallacy Man’s Subsequent Discussion.

    Fallacy Man wrote:

    “Premise 1: CO2 traps heat and is largely responsible for the earth’s climate.

    “This is a simple scientific fact. Not even the 3% of scientists who disagree with climate change disagree with this premise. CO2 traps IR radiation, preventing it from leaving the earth. Without it, earth would be much colder. That is an irrefutable scientific fact.”

    I start by noting that I believe the fraction of scientists who disagree with ‘climate change’ is much smaller than 3%. The earth’s climate has been changing ever since the earth was formed. Therefore, I’d be surprised if 3% or more of scientists alive today believe climate change has stopped. I think a more appropriate description of the scientists in Fallacy Man’s 3% group (and by the way, that’s the AGW party line percentage, not mine) is that 3% of scientists alive today believe man’s contribution to climate change is either insignificant or unproven.

    Second, I note that since the earth’s atmosphere contains CO2, the battle to convince the general public that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels via mankind’s burning of fossil fuels will increase the earth’s temperature (and as a consequence measurably impact climate) is more than half won if the general public can be convinced that “CO2 traps heat.” Picture this. You’re at a company cocktail party with your boss, a few of your colleagues, and a couple of strangers. The conversation turns to global warming. The tenor of the conversation is that of course man is primarily responsible for global warming. Man is dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, and everyone knows CO2 is a “heat-trapping” greenhouse gas. 97% of scientists say so; and who are we to question such an overwhelming expert majority opinion?

    You meekly respond with: “I agree that we have global warming. I’m just not convinced it’s primarily man’s doing. I’ve been told that CO2 levels have been increasing for something like 50 years and the earth’s temperature ceased rising about 20 years ago. That seems to go against what is being said.”

    After the chuckling dies down, Fallacy Man, who happens to be one of the strangers at the party, chimes in with: “You must be joking. Let’s look at this thing logically. One, man is significantly adding to the level of atmospheric CO2. Two, CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. Why even the 3% of scientists who disagree with manmade global warming don’t dispute the fact that CO2 gas traps heat. Three, if you trap heat, surely you believe the temperature will rise; and the more heat you trap, the higher that increase will be. Which of these obvious points do you dispute?

    Sensing that everyone’s eyes are on you, you respond with a lie: “You’re right, I don’t really question manmade global warming. I just wanted to play devil’s advocate.” Everyone breathes a sigh of relief, and the party goes on.

    It is for this reason that AGW proponents like to use the phrase “CO2 traps heat.” The problem is that CO2 can’t and doesn’t trap heat for the simple reason that heat cannot be trapped. No material/substance known to man will prevent thermal energy (heat) from moving between objects at different temperatures. If a barrier of any material/substance including a vacuum is placed between two objects at different temperatures (including isolating a high-temperature object from a low-temperature object by completely surrounding the high-temperature object with the “barrier”), a portion of the thermal energy present in the higher-temperature object will always move to the lower-temperature object. The transfer of thermal energy (heat) between objects ceases only when the two objects have the same temperature. Thus, no known barrier, including CO2, will keep (i.e., “trap”) the high-temperature object’s internal thermal energy within the high temperature object.

    It’s true that as electromagnetic radiation at frequencies in some sub-bands of the IR band passes through gaseous CO2, some of the energy in the electromagnetic radiation will be converted into internal thermal energy of the gas. If IR radiation is treated as heat, then someone might argue that “CO2 traps heat.” However, gaseous CO2 also converts some of its internal thermal energy into IR sub-band radiation. If because gaseous CO2 converts incoming IR sub-band radiation into internal thermal energy, it’s fair to claim “CO2 traps heat”; then because gaseous CO2 converts internal thermal energy into outgoing IR sub-band radiation, it’s equally fair to claim “CO2 frees heat”. The former claim plays fast and loose with the verb “trap” {see endnote 1}, just as the latter claim plays fast and loose with the verb “free.” Gaseous CO2 and electromagnetic radiation at some IR sub-bands interact, but characterizing that interaction as either “trapping heat” or as “freeing heat” is to misrepresent the interaction. Below I discuss why these statements misrepresent the interaction between gaseous CO2 and radiation in sub-bands of the IR band. In addition, I give an example where it’s more appropriate to claim “CO2 frees heat” than it is to claim “CO2 traps heat.” But for now, I return to an analysis of Fallacy Man’s first premise and his associated discussion of that premise.

    [As an aside, in my opinion if “Global Cooling” was still in fashion, anthropogenic global cooling (AGC) advocates would be claiming that because “CO2 frees heat,” we should limit man’s fossil fuel use lest we create a frozen earth.]

    Premise 1 contains two declarative statements: (a) CO2 traps heat; and (b) [CO2] is largely responsible for the earth’s climate. Fallacy Man’s discussion of Premise 1 starts with the statement: “This is a simple scientific fact.” Since the premise contains two declarative statements, it’s not clear which statement is the “simple scientific fact.” Is it “CO2 traps heat;” or is it “[CO2] is largely responsible for the earth’s climate;” or is it both? The two declarative statements are not interchangeable. Furthermore, it’s not clear if the validity of each declarative statement stands alone (i.e., the validity of the statement CO2 traps heat is independent of the validity of the statement [CO2] is largely responsible for the earth’s climate, and vice-versa), or if the validity of one statement depends upon the validity of the other statement.

    In my opinion, anyone who accepts at face value the premise that a trace atmospheric gas is largely responsible for the earth’s climate is gullible to a point bordering on being a fool. Maybe it’s just me, but somehow I believe that one or more of the following: the sun, clouds, oceans/ocean-currents, mountain ranges, earth’s orbit, earth’s rotation, cosmic rays, lunar tides, just to name a few, plays a larger role and is “more responsible” for the earth’s climate than is a trace gas in the earth’s atmosphere. If reasons are given to justify the second part of Premise 1, then accepting it becomes less of a stretch. That is the primary reason why I believe that Fallacy Man intended the second part of Premise 1 to be in large degree dependent on the first part of Premise 1. My belief may be incorrect; but it explains why I devote so much of this document to the Premise “CO2 traps heat.”

    In his discussion of Premise 1, Fallacy Man writes: “CO2 traps IR radiation, preventing it from leaving the earth.” Note that Premise 1 states that heat is trapped; whereas the subsequent discussion states that IR radiation is trapped. Heat and IR radiation are not synonymous. IR radiation may be a form of heat, but heat is not limited to IR radiation. Heat also exists in the forms of conduction and convection, and in some sense “changes of state” like evaporation. So the two statements: CO2 traps heat and CO2 traps IR radiation are not equivalent.

    To illustrate how easily one can be misled by the phrase “CO2 traps heat,” let’s analyze a similar claim and ask a few questions as we discuss that claim. The reader’s answers to the questions may cause him/her to rethink the validity of Fallacy Man’s claims that “CO2 traps heat is a scientific fact” …and that “….not even the 3% of scientists who disagree with climate change disagree with the statement.”

    You are given (a) a box and (b) the premise that “the box traps heat.” You decide to perform an experiment using that box. In particular, you place inside the box an open battery/resistor circuit—an open circuit is one in which no current flows. You cool the box and the battery/resistor circuit to a temperature TR. You place the box and its contents in a large room whose walls by external means are maintained at the temperature TR. You close the battery/resistor circuit so that a current starts to flow through the circuit. A current flowing through a resistor dissipates heat at a rate of V^2/R, where V is the voltage of the battery and R is the resistance of the resistor. The heat being dissipated (generated) in the resistor will cause the resistor to warm (i.e., increase in temperature). The warming resistor will in turn cause the box and all contents within the box to warm. After a period of time you record the temperatures of the box and its contents and simultaneously open the battery/resistor circuit terminating the flow of current through the resistor.

    Question: Will the box and its contents (a) remain at their respective temperatures immediately prior to opening the battery/resistor circuit; or (b) will these temperatures start to decrease eventually reaching and holding at lower temperatures somewhere between their temperatures at the time the circuit was opened and TR; or (c) will the temperatures of the box and its contents eventually return to TR?

    If you answered (a) or (b), then the box has indeed trapped heat. However, since no substance known to man will prevent the temperatures of inactive objects (objects without an internal source of thermal energy) enclosed within a wall at a uniform temperature from reaching and stabilizing at the temperature of the wall, a whole gaggle of real scientists is going to want to inspect the box. If you answered (c), then the box hasn’t trapped any heat (thermal energy); and as such you reject the premise that the “box traps heat.”

    “Wait,” someone says, “once the heat source is turned off, the box doesn’t trap the heat that exists in the contents of the box at the time of heat input termination. You’re misconstruing what is meant by ‘trapping heat.’ What is meant by the phrase ‘trapping heat’ is that a non-zero fraction of the heat being generated by the heat source is trapped. That is, as long as the battery/resistor circuit generates heat, a fraction of the heat being generated is prevented from leaving the box.”

    In the discussion that follows, the value of the fraction of heat being generated that is “trapped” is unimportant as long as it’s not zero. Trapping a fraction of the heat being generated within the box will certainly cause the temperatures of the contents of the box to increase. But then you encounter a new problem. Because a portion of the heat being generated is trapped within the box, over time the amount of “trapped heat” grows without bound resulting in the temperatures of the box and its contents also growing without bound. These temperatures will continue to rise until one of two things happen: (a) the heat source is turned off, or (b) the box ceases to trap a fraction of the heat being generated. The former has nothing to do with the premise “the box traps heat,” and hence is irrelevant to a discussion of the box’s “heat trapping” properties. The latter will prevent unbounded temperature increases, but then the premise “the box traps heat” is misleading. A more accurate premise would be “the box traps heat until the box reaches a certain temperature at which point the box ceases to trap heat.” If you take this position, you can bet someone is going to ask you what makes the box cease to trap heat at some temperature, and what is that temperature? And if you don’t have satisfactory answers to those questions, you shouldn’t be surprised if the questioner decides the original premise is so much blather.

    To be fair, there is a possible explanation of why you might not observe unbounded temperature increases. Specifically, it might be that (a) the fraction of the heat being generated that is trapped is so small, or (b) the mass of the contents of the box is so large that the rates of temperature increase are too small to be detectable over time internals of interest to man. For example, it might be that the maximum rate of temperature increase is 300 degrees Kelvin (K) (the approximate temperature of the earth’s surface) every three billion years (a lower estimate of the age of the earth), which corresponds to a temperature rate increase of 1K every 10 million years. If true, the box may in fact trap a fraction of the heat being generated; but if so any threat to man or even any effect on man from that “heat trapping” is so small as to not warrant even a passing thought much less the expenditure of billions of dollars and the overturning of how mankind generates energy.

    I now present a situation where it is more appropriate to say “CO2 frees heat” than it is to say “CO2 traps heat.” Consider a thermos bottle and in particular a vacuum thermos bottle. When matter at a temperature higher (or lower) than the ambient background temperature (often referred to as room temperature) is placed inside a thermos bottle, the goal of the thermos bottle is to maintain for as long as possible a temperature difference between the contents of the thermos bottle and the ambient background temperature.

    In its simplest form, a vacuum thermos bottle consists of two components: (a) a chamber into which material at a temperature different from room temperature is placed and (b) an enclosing outer wall. In a vacuum thermos bottle, the space between the outer surface of the chamber and the inner surface of the enclosing wall is a vacuum. To keep the chamber from coming into contact with the enclosing wall, in practice a rigid connector (or connectors) joins the two components. Thus, for real world vacuum thermos bottles the space between the chamber and the enclosing wall is to a large degree, but not everywhere, a vacuum.

    Assume the ambient background temperature (room temperature) is 288K–the approximate measured average earth surface temperature. (a) Place into the chamber a liquid at room temperature. (b) Immerse in the liquid an open battery/resistor circuit at room temperature. (c) Finally, immerse in the liquid a thermometer also at room temperature. Close the battery/resistor circuit. The closed battery/resistor circuit will generate heat at a constant rate. That heat will start to increase the temperature of the liquid. Eventually the temperature of the liquid will cease to increase. That is, the liquid will eventually stabilize at an energy-rate-equilibrium (ERE) temperature. [ERE is the state where the rate energy enters an object is equal to the rate energy leaves the object.] Record the value of the stabilized liquid temperature.

    [Note: In global warming discussions, I believe when people talk about earth temperature, they are referring to the temperature of the earth after all transient temperature changes have died out—i.e., they are referring to the earth’s ERE temperature.]

    Now keeping everything else the same, destroy the vacuum condition by injecting CO2 gas at the ERE temperature of the liquid into the space between the outer surface of the chamber and the inner surface of the enclosing wall. With the exception of the rigid material connecting the chamber to the enclosing wall, CO2 gas now surrounds the chamber and to the same degree surrounds the liquid. Wait for the liquid to reach ERE—i.e., wait for the temperature of the liquid to cease changing with time. If CO2 gas “traps heat,” the CO2 should trap within the liquid the heat (or at least a portion of the heat) being dissipated by the resistor and being transferred to the liquid; and as a result the temperature of the liquid should be higher when CO2 is present than it is for a vacuum. A related but rudimentary experiment {see endnote 2} indicates the opposite is true. Injecting CO2 gas into the vacuum space of a vacuum thermos bottle results in a temperature decrease, not a temperature increase, of the heated thermos bottle contents. Since the mass of liquid hasn’t changed and the temperature of the liquid has dropped, the amount of thermal energy present in the liquid has also decreased. That is, the CO2 has “freed heat from” not “trapped heat within” the liquid.”

    Although not a proof that injecting CO2 into the vacuum space of a vacuum thermos will decrease the temperature of a heated liquid placed in the thermos bottle’s chamber, it is worth noting that if via the “trapping of heat,” injecting CO2 into the vacuum space of a thermos bottle increases the time required for a heated liquid to reach room temperature, someone would manufacture such a thermos bottle. After all, if an inexpensive thermos bottle can be made that maintains a vacuum for a long period of time, it should be trivial to manufacture a thermos bottle that maintains a region of “trapped” CO2 gas for the same long period of time. [Note: There’s an example of what the word “trapped” means to the average person—specifically, that the “trapped” CO2 will never escape the region between the chamber’s outer surface and the surrounding wall.] Good luck finding such a thermos bottle; and even better luck finding one that outperforms its vacuum equivalent.

    Now that I’ve described a situation where it’s more appropriate to claim “CO2 frees heat” than it is to claim “CO2 traps heat,” I return to the importance of the statement “CO2 traps heat” when used in arguments to convince the general public that man’s fossil fuel use is scorching the earth. Imagine the following exchange between an AGW advocate (AGWA) and a member of the general public (GP).

    AGWA: “If we don’t decrease our fossil fuel energy production and switch to renewables, we’re going to scorch the earth.”

    GP: “How so? I don’t see the connection.”

    AGWA: “Well, mankind’s use of fossil fuels is dumping tons of CO2 gas into the atmosphere.”

    GP: “So what? I don’t see the problem. And by the way, isn’t CO2 plant food?

    AGWA: “You’re missing the point. ‘CO2 frees heat.’ So dumping CO2 into the atmosphere will increase temperatures and likely lead to catastrophic global warming.”

    GP: “Say again. How does the fact that ‘CO2 frees heat’ lead to fossil-fuel-use induced global warming?”

    AGWA: “In the words of our former Vice President: ‘It’s complicated’. You’ll just have to trust me.”

    Somehow it’s hard for me to believe such an exchange would convince the general public that atmospheric CO2 increases via man’s use of fossil fuels will produce a scorched earth. Did it convince you?

    Some people are going to ask: “Are you claiming that atmospheric CO2 will lower the earth’s temperature?” Other people are going to say: “Wait a minute. CO2 in a thermos bottle is nothing like CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere. The two systems are entirely different.” The answer to the question is: “No, I’m not claiming atmospheric CO2 will lower the earth’s temperature. The earth/earth-atmosphere system is extremely complex, and I’m not sure what effect adding CO2 to the earth’s atmosphere will have on the earth’s temperature.” My response to the comment is: “You’re right. The two systems are different. However, my argument never claimed they were the same. The objective of my argument was and is to refute the premise (claim) “CO2 traps heat”—a claim that as noted above I believe is a linchpin of Fallacy Man’s logic train.”

    I next address a claim Fallacy Man makes in his discussion of Premise 1—in particular, his claim that “Without it [CO2], earth would be much colder” is “…an irrefutable scientific fact.” The phrase “much colder” refers to the temperature difference between (a) the earth’s surface in the presence of the current levels of atmospheric CO2…and… (b) everything else being equal, the earth’s surface in the absence of that CO2. At best, the phrase “much colder” is a poor scientific characterization of a temperature difference. Because Fallacy Man’s statement is in part meant to impress the reader and Fallacy Man doesn’t quantify what temperature difference constitutes “much colder,” the reader is free to assign his/her own value to that temperature difference. My choice for the “much colder” temperature difference is the AGW community’s often bandied about value of 33K. Specifically, the AGW community (and others) often argues that the earth’s average surface temperature in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases would be approximately 33K (equivalently 33C or 59.4F) cooler than the earth’s average surface temperature in the presence of the current levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases. In this document, I refer to this model as the “33K-model.” Note that the “33K-model” uses the presence/absence of all atmospheric greenhouse gases–not as stated by Fallacy Man in his discussion of Premise 1 just the presence/absence of atmospheric CO2. So if Fallacy Man’s “much colder” claim corresponds to a 33K temperature difference, attributing that temperature difference solely to atmospheric CO2 excluding all other greenhouse gases is a deviation from the AGW party line. And if CO2 contributes only a small fraction, say 10%, to that temperature difference, characterizing a 3.3K change in temperature as being “much colder” is a stretch worthy of plastic man. This illustrates the problem that arises when you make supposedly meaningful claims using phrases like “much colder” instead of quantifying the temperature difference–or at least quantifying a range of temperature differences.

    I believe it’s instructive to analyze and discuss one derivation of the 33K temperature difference. The reasons such a discussion is instructive are that (a) with minimal justification the derivation attributes the temperature difference to the presence/absence of atmosphere greenhouse gases, and (b) the derivation is internally inconsistent. If there’s another derivation of the 33K temperature difference that avoids these issues, I’d appreciate seeing that derivation.

    One Derivation of the 33K “Much Cooler” Temperature Difference

    The average earth surface temperature difference of 33K is obtained by taking the difference of two temperatures: (a) the average earth surface temperature for the present levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases …and… (b) the average earth surface temperature in the absence of those greenhouse gases. The former can be determined by making direct temperature measurements; but the latter cannot be so determined. To make direct measurements of the earth’s surface temperature in the absence of atmospheric greenhouse gases, one must either (a) remove all greenhouse gases from the earth’s atmosphere or (b) construct a “controlled earth” that is identical to the real earth in all ways except for atmospheric greenhouse gases. Since neither option is feasible, the “33K-model” temperature difference is a model-dependent value.

    A frequently reported value of the earth’s average measured surface temperature in the presence of the current levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases is 15C (equivalently, 288K). At this time I do not dispute the 288K measured temperature number because I lack sufficient knowledge of the temperature measurement methodology. Therefore, for the purposes of this document I’ll assume 288K accurately represents the measured average earth surface temperature. A 288K measured average earth surface temperature in conjunction with a “33K-model” temperature difference (colder) implies a model earth surface temperature of 255K.

    The method used to derive a greenhouse-gasless model earth surface temperature of 255K applies the principle of energy-rate-equilibrium to the earth/earth-atmosphere system. Energy-Rate-Equilibrium (ERE) is the condition where the rate energy enters an object is equal to the rate energy leaves the object. Since the earth/earth-atmosphere system is surrounded by a vacuum, energy enters the earth/earth-atmosphere primarily via the absorption of radiation from the sun, and energy leaves the earth/earth-atmosphere system primarily via radiation from the earth’s surface and from atmospheric matter—particulates, water droplets and gases. [Note: The earth can acquire energy via means other than absorption of solar radiation (e.g., radioactive decay interior to the earth), and can lose energy via means other than outgoing radiation (e.g., loss of mass); but for this discussion I assume those means are negligible when compared, respectively, to absorption of solar radiation and earth outgoing radiation.]

    Thus, the model earth surface temperature of 255K is computed by balancing (i.e., equalizing) two energy rates: (a) the rate the earth/earth-atmosphere system acquires energy (absorption of incoming solar radiation), and (b) the rate the earth/earth-atmosphere system loses energy (outgoing radiation). Starting with the rate the earth/earth-atmosphere system absorbs solar energy, I now discuss these two rates.

    The power density of solar radiation at the earth’s distance from the sun (approximately 150,000,000 kilometers) is approximately 1,367 watts per square meter. At a distance of 150 million kilometers from the sun, for the purposes of computing the rate solar energy impinges on the earth the earth appears as and is routinely treated as a flat disk of radius approximately 6,370 kilometers oriented perpendicular to the direction of solar radiation propagation. That is, the earth presents a cross section of approximately 1.275×10^14 square meters to the incoming solar radiation. This means that the earth intercepts solar radiation at the approximate rate of 1.743×10^17 watts. Not all of the intercepted solar radiation is absorbed by the earth. In general radiation incident on a body can (a) be reflected, (b) be absorbed, or (c) pass through the body. The amount of intercepted solar energy that passes through the earth/earth-atmosphere system is negligible so that a fraction of the intercepted 1.743×10^17 watts is reflected back to space and the remainder absorbed by the earth/earth-atmosphere system. A commonly used value for the fraction (known as albedo) of incoming solar radiation that is reflected back to space is 3/10. Using this value, the rate the earth/earth-atmosphere system reflects solar energy back to space is 5.23×10^16 watts, and the rate the earth/earth-atmosphere system absorbs solar energy is 1.220×10^17 watts.

    To be in ERE, the earth/earth-atmosphere system must then radiate energy to space at a rate of 1.220×10^17 watts. The computation of the rate the earth/earth-atmosphere system radiates energy to space goes as follows. Instead of treating the earth as a disk of radius 6,370 kilometers as is done for the computation of the rate the earth/earth-system absorbs solar energy, for the computation of the rate the earth/earth-system radiates energy to space the earth is treated as a sphere of the same radius. The surface area, Ae, of the earth is approximately 5.099×10^14 square meters. The earth’s atmosphere is ignored, and the surface of the earth is treated as a “cavity radiator” (black body radiator) at a uniform temperature Te degrees Kelvin (K). The albedo of a black body is 0—i.e., a black body absorbs all incident radiation. A black body surface radiates energy at a rate proportional to the product of the surface temperature T (in Kelvin) to the fourth power …and… the surface area A. The proportionality constant is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant sigma (5.67×10^-8 watts per square meter per degree Kelvin to the fourth power). Thus, if the temperature of the earth’s surface is everywhere Te, the rate the earth’s surface radiates energy to space is given by sigma*(Ae)*(Te^4). Setting this rate equal to 1.220×10^17 watts and solving for Te gives Te = 254.87K or approximately 255K, which is 33K below the earth’s average measured surface temperature of 288K.

    Comments regarding the 255K model average earth surface temperature

    First, in thermodynamics unless a system has a uniform or nearly uniform temperature, the average temperature of the system has little relevance. For example, we live near the earth’s surface and get most of our energy from the sun. The average temperature of the earth’s surface and the sun’s surface is 2,903K—even higher if a weighted average (weighted by surface area) is used. The relevance of this average temperature to life on the earth is nil. If one based the existence of life on this average surface temperature, one would conclude life as we know it can’t exist. Furthermore, the earth’s surface temperature is not uniform so that employing a uniform surface temperature model is in itself suspect.

    Second, a large part of the AGW community attributes the difference between the measured average earth surface temperature (288K) and the modeled average earth surface temperature (255K) to the presence of atmospheric greenhouse gases. The only justification for this attribution that I’m aware of is: “What else could it be?” I don’t know what else it could be; but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be “something else.” If anyone can exclude all other possible sources of the temperature difference, I’d be interested in hearing what he/she has to say.

    If the 33K temperature difference is what Fallacy Man means when he says “much colder,” then Fallacy Man isn’t attributing the 33K temperature difference to atmospheric greenhouse gases, but instead limits the attribution to atmospheric CO2. If there’s little justification for attributing a 33K temperature difference to atmospheric greenhouse gases, there’s almost no justification for attributing that temperature difference solely to atmospheric CO2—at least no justification is given by Fallacy Man.

    Third, the 33K model temperature difference described above uses an algorithm that is internally inconsistent. Specifically, when computing the rate the earth/earth atmosphere absorbs solar radiation an albedo of 0.3 is used; whereas when computing the rate the earth/earth-atmosphere system radiates energy to space an albedo of zero is used. If you want to use albedo as the means of characterizing radiative absorption/emission by a surface, it’s generally a good idea to be consistent and use the same value for both computations. Some people argue that the energy in the incoming solar radiation is dominated by radiation at frequencies that are reflected by clouds, and it’s this cloud cover that results in an absorption albedo of 0.3; whereas being at a much lower frequency, the outgoing radiation is not reflected by clouds so that the outgoing radiation is better represented by an albedo of zero. The problem with this argument is that (a) without atmospheric water vapor (the dominant atmospheric greenhouse gas), there would be no clouds, (b) without clouds there would be little if any reflection of incoming solar radiation, and (c) without cloud-based reflection of incoming solar radiation, the absorption albedo for the incoming radiation would be closer to zero than to 0.3. Bottom line, the use of an albedo of 0.3 to compute the rate the earth absorbs solar energy is inconsistent with a greenhouse gasless atmosphere.

    Now it’s true that if the same albedo is used for the computation of (a) the rate earth/earth-atmosphere system absorbs incoming solar radiation and (b) the rate the earth/earth-atmosphere system radiates energy to space, the model temperature of the earth’s surface would be 278.6K, which corresponds to a 9.4K temperature difference relative to the measured average earth surface temperature of 288K. Thus assuming the difference between the measured average earth surface temperature and the uniform-temperature modeled earth surface temperature has relevance, there’s still a 9.4K temperature difference to explain. Maybe this is what Fallacy Man meant by his “much colder” claim.

    Someone once commented to the effect that the 33K temperature difference is a “meaningless number improperly computed.” I agree.

    This completes my discussion of Fallacy Man’s Premise 1 and accompanying discussion. For the reasons given above, I conclude that Fallacy Man’s Premise that “CO2 traps heat”, and his claim that the Premise has attained the status where “…not even 3% of scientists who disagree with climate change disagree with this scientific fact” are nonsense. In many people’s opinion I may not be a scientist, but I do have a PhD degree in physics. So I guess I’m just one of the very few (dare I say, scientists) who disagrees both with the contention that man appreciably affects climate change, and with the premise “CO2 traps heat.”

    Discussion of Premise 3: When you increase something that traps heat, you trap more heat.

    According to Fallacy Man “This is thermodynamics 101 and should be intuitively obvious to everyone.” Well, I can’t recall its being mentioned in any thermodynamics class I attended; and it sure isn’t obvious to me. When you increase something that can store (not trap) internal thermal energy, you increase the capacity of the thermal energy that can be stored (not trapped), but you don’t necessarily store (not trap) more thermal energy. And even if you store (not trap) additional thermal energy, it doesn’t mean temperatures have to rise. By adding material you may increase the amount of stored (not trapped) thermal energy; but the only effect of that additional stored (not trapped) thermal energy might be to bring the temperature of the added material up to the temperature that existed before the material was added.

    Take the thermos bottle filled with liquid example. Injecting CO2 gas into the vacuum space of a vacuum thermos bottle with an internal source of heat results in a decreased ERE liquid temperature relative to the liquid’s ERE temperature in the vacuum thermos bottle case. Since the mass of the liquid remains unchanged, the thermal energy stored (not trapped) in the liquid decreases in the presence of CO2. It’s true that the CO2 gas now stores (not traps) thermal energy that wasn’t previously stored (not trapped) in the vacuum case. But it’s far from clear that the sum of the stored (not trapped) thermal energy in the liquid and the CO2 gas is greater than the stored (not trapped) liquid thermal energy in the vacuum case. Since (a) the mass of the liquid can be made to be much larger than the mass of the injected CO2 gas, and (b) the capacity of a substance to store (not trap) thermal energy increases with mass, it’s likely that the total stored (not trapped) thermal energy in the vacuum case can be made to be larger than the total stored (not trapped) thermal energy in the CO2 case. Thus, it may be that there’s been an increase in the amount of thermal energy stored (not trapped) in the CO2 gas; but it’s entirely possible that this increase is more than offset by the CO2-induced loss in thermal energy stored (not trapped) in the liquid. If true, the presence of CO2 results in a decrease, not an increase, of stored (not trapped) thermal energy—i.e., if anything, “CO2 has freed heat.”

    Next, if a small amount of CO2 results in a liquid temperature drop of say TS and a large amount of CO2 results in a liquid temperature drop of say TL where TL > TS, then it’s not clear that adding CO2 doesn’t induce a net decrease in the amount of thermal energy stored in the CO2 itself. You ask “How can that be?” Well, adding more CO2 is going to increase the thermal conductivity between the chamber’s outer surface and the outer wall’s inner surface, so that adding CO2 will lower the liquid temperature needed to establish ERE. If the liquid temperature is lowered, the temperature of the CO2 gas near the wall of the thermos bottle chamber will also be lowered. In fact, the CO2 temperature profile from just outside the outer surface of the chamber wall to just inside the inner surface of the outer wall will everywhere be lowered. For a fixed mass, a temperature decrease results in less stored thermal energy. For a fixed temperature, a mass increase results in more stored thermal energy. So adding CO2 induces opposing effects. More CO2 gas means lower CO2 temperature and a potential decrease of stored (not trapped) CO2 thermal energy. More CO2 gas means increased CO2 with a potential increase of stored (not trapped) CO2 thermal energy. Which effect dominates? I don’t know; but I wouldn’t bet against the former. Would you?

    Even if by increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 you store (not trap) additional thermal energy in the increased CO2, what about the stored (not trapped) thermal energy in the matter that chemically combined to produce the added CO2? Doesn’t that constitute a loss in stored (not trapped) thermal energy? If you’re going to discuss stored (not trapped) thermal energy in a combustion process, don’t just account for the stored (not trapped) thermal energy after combustion, account for the stored (not trapped) thermal energy before and after combustion.

    Finally, given an object that internally produces thermal energy at a near constant rate (e.g., radioactive decay), surrounding that object with additional (new) material that completely absorbs all radiation emitted by the object, not just absorbs emitted radiation in sub-bands of the IR band, does not guarantee an increase in the object’s temperature. The object’s temperature might even be lowered.

    In conclusion, as presented in Fallacy Man’s post the whole issue of storing (not trapping) additional thermal energy by increased atmospheric CO2 levels is so much fluff.

    Endnote 1: In the statement: “CO2 traps heat,” the word “trap” is a verb. Below I include an internet definition of the word “trap” when used as a verb.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=trap&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS545US701&oq=trap&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0l4.3399j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Note that of the five usages (see below) of “trap” as a verb, usages c), d), and e) don’t apply to heat and the earth/earth-atmosphere system. This leaves the a) and b) usages. Usage a) specifically contains the word “prevent” as in “prevent from escaping from a place.” To me the implication is clear. If CO2 “traps” heat, then CO2 prevents heat from escaping; and in the case of atmospheric CO2, this means CO2 prevents heat from leaving the earth/earth-atmosphere system. Usage b) implies whatever is trapped “cannot move or be freed” so that if CO2 traps heat, the trapped heat cannot be freed. Since a) and b) are in conflict with the AGW community’s use of “trap” as a verb, I suggest another “special use” category be added to the two existing “special use” categories of (d) BASEBALL, AMERICAN FOOTBALL, and (e) SOCCER. In particular, I propose we add

    f) GLOBAL WARMING

    ANYTHING you want it to mean provided your “meaning” supports the position that man is destroying the environment.

    Trap/

    verb

    verb: trap; 3rd person present: traps; past tense: trapped; past participle: trapped; gerund or present participle: trapping.

    1. catch (an animal) in a trap.
    Synonyms: confine, cut off, corner, shut in, pen in, hem in, imprison, hold captive
    “a rat trapped in a barn”

    a) prevent (someone) from escaping from a place.”
    “twenty workers were trapped by flames”
    Synonyms: snare, entrap, ensnare, lay a trap for

    b) have (something, typically a part of the body) held tightly by something so that it cannot move or be freed.
    “he had trapped his finger in a spring-loaded hinge”

    c) induce (someone), by means of trickery or deception, to do something they would not otherwise want to do.
    “I hoped to trap him into an admission”
    Synonyms: trick, dupe, deceive, lure, inveigle, beguile, fool, hoodwink

    d) BASEBALL, AMERICAN FOOTBALL
    catch (the ball) after it has briefly touched the ground.

    e) SOCCER
    bring (the ball) under control with the feet or other part of the body on receiving it.

    Endnote 2: In 2015, Peter C (who like Fallacy Man is disinclined to give his full name) and I collaborated on an experiment–Peter C did the work, I just made a few suggestions and helped with the data reduction. [See http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/weekend-unloaded/#comments The experiment involved vacuum thermos bottles. However, instead of placing a heat source inside the thermos bottle and measuring the resulting ERE temperature, Peter placed preheated liquid into the thermos bottle and measured the times required for the temperature of that liquid to return to room temperature in the presence/absence of CO2. In all cases, the times required for the liquid to reach room temperature were much shorter in the presence of CO2 than for the vacuum.

    153

    • #
      Lionell Griffith

      Fallacy Man’s primary logical fallacy is equivocation on the terms: climate change, heat, traps, and causes. Each term as a proper and clear scientific meaning, a common fuzzy inaccurate vernacular meaning, and his fuzzy somewhere in between meaning that changes depending upon context. All without notice or explicit definition.
      For example, his primary use of the term Climate Change is that portion of climate variation that is caused by man. This is the logical fallacy of Begging the question. Meaning his premise contains his conclusion without his actually specifying it does.

      Now here is the real trap. If you say, using his meaning of the term, that climate change is not happening, he can say you are a denier of climate change because the climate always changes. If you agree that man is causing some climate change, he will demand you stop using fossil fuels and pay for absolution of your crimes against the earth. Notice the switch of context changes his meaning of the term. A similar trap will happen with each of the other terms. It is heads he wins, tails you lose by his way of thinking.

      Notice also it has been impossible to pin down the green blob to an explicit, verifiable, scientifically consistent definition of terms. It is nothing but equivocation, begging the question, and double bind traps from top to bottom, inside out, and from side to side. They use rhetorical slight of hand to hide the fact that they intend to rob you blind and turn you into a slave to their whim. As in “the science is settled” but we need more money and to dictate public policy to make sure we can save the earth.

      You can do two things about it, learn the explicit reality based meaning and proper use of each of those terms in detail and stop feeding them. It does no good to “prove” to them that their theories are cracked pots of crap. They know that already. They are that way by design on the presumption that you are too stupid to know any better. Honesty, honor, and allegiance to truth is seen by them as a weakness because they believe such things don’t exist and if they do, they cannot be known. Their intent is to use your highest virtues against you.

      Have a good day.

      160

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Lionell,
        “Now here is the real trap. If you say, using his meaning of the term, that climate change is not happening, he can say you are a denier of climate change because the climate always changes.”

        1.) His claim and your acceptance of such are both logical fallacies! The very notion of the word ‘climate’ implies variance of many many measurable physical phenomena no mater how you formally define ‘climate’. The least significant of these ‘variables’ is local temperature, all though that local variance is in the tens of kelvins; such remains cyclic by day, month, year, and the relative positions of all solar system objects of mass. Accordingly the only possible ‘change in climate’ would be a measurable change in some or all climate variance. Such has never been observed, but does give falsification to the concept of some ‘global average temperature’ can possibly have meaning over any spatial-temporal interval. Climate Clown ‘average’ is always a SCAM!
        All the best!-will-

        26

        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          The bottom line is that you make my point. However, I will accept I made an error. I thought I had made my point quite clear from the fact of the context of my post was the impact of the logical fallacy of equivocation. Apparently, it was not clear to you.

          I suggest you investigate the logical fallacy of equivocation because that is how the “trap” works. Both the attacker and the attacked are committing the same logical error. That is the nature of equivocation traps. Define and use your terms with valid scientifically accurate precision. You can thereby avoid either side of the equivocation trap.

          Sadly, had this been done from the get-go, we could have avoided the very expensive exercise of the past 30 years. Yet, nearly everyone on all seventeen (estimated) sides of the argument fell head first into this trap. Largely because hardly anyone knew what he was talking about but in spite of that continued to talk…talk…talk endlessly on.

          10

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            Lionell,
            I agree!
            “In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a word in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.”

            The scammers use equivocation as a substitute for logic. It is the acceptance of such nonsense by fence sitters, lukewarmers, and even skeptics that identifies the truly gullible. The technique of getting you to refute the very properties of ‘climate’ in ‘any definition, is something quite different– I have no name except deliberate scam, fraud!
            I even accepted some measurable temperature trend until the claim that ‘atmospheric CO2 traps heat’. Heat is the thermodynamic noun for ‘the accumulation of power by mass as is measured by temperature increase’(definition). There is simply not enough CO2 mass in the atmosphere to increase the atmospheric temperature in any measurable way. ‘CO2 trapping heat’ is the scam, and certainly equivocation, as multiple meanings are not only implied but actually stated in the sales pitch!
            All the best!-will-

            15

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            OK Konrad,
            I now gots more red thumbs than you can dream of!
            I will still buy the first round when we can get together and discuss your ‘selective absorption’. :-)

            00

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Looks good, Reed, but for future reference, I don’t read comments that are longer than 3 or 4 screens. Your new record of 32 precluded me from doing more than skim past the latter part, which I’m sure is wonderful, but not THAT sure.

      50

      • #
        Reed Coray

        jorgekafkazar, I sympathize with you and anyone else who decides because of length to forego reading my comment. Didn’t someone once tell a scientist who was writing a book for general consumption something to the effect that: “Each equation you put in the book will halve the number of people who buy your book?” Your comment has merit. In fact, unless I have beaucoup time I use a similar rule-of-thumb to decide which comments to read. In this case, however, I knowingly broke my own rule. I couldn’t come up with a shorter way to say everything I wanted to say about Fallacy Man’s post. I gave some thought to dividing the material into several comments; but by so doing, I believed my thoughts would lose continuity.

        I wasn’t aware that I broke a record so now I can add that dubious honor to my list of other dubious honors.

        60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Make an effort Jorge. It is worth reading in detail.

        50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I think Reed has given us a useful resource, in terms of influencing informal social discussions about science in general, and Climate Change(TM) in particular. Thank you.

      Having said that, I fully agree with the points that Lionell makes, in terms of equipping, and arming, ourselves to formally and unambiguously make our points, in any discussion on climate change that involves people who have been instructed in how to present the political and societal arguments.

      In combination, they have the potential to be very powerful. To use a military concept: You don’t just want to win the “battle”, you also need to respond to any “counter offensive”.

      90

      • #
        Reed Coray

        LG and RW, you’re correct–”…equipping, and arming, ourselves to formally and unambiguously make our point…” is preferable to limiting the discussion to showing errors in most informal AGW arguments. My reason for writing the above comment might be of interest. For a long time I have held the opinion that many of the arguments used by AGW advocates to convince the general public that the AGW position is correct are wrong. I also believe that because the issue has become more political than scientific, important decisions affecting all of us will be made by people (politicians) who are influenced more by the general public’s opinions that by scientific reasoning. If true, it behooves us to present valid counter arguments that resonate with the general public. Finally, I believe the majority of the general public is incapable of grasping the nuances of most scientific arguments. This is not to disparage the general public. There are thousands of arguments in thousands of scientific fields that I am incapable of comprehending in detail. It’s just that most of those arguments haven’t risen to the level where tens of billions of public dollars are at stake and actions are being recommended (e.g., the western world’s hell-bent desire to switch from fossil fuel energy generation to “renewable” energy generation, whatever that is) that are both costly and have the potential to disrupt civilization as we know it.

        Fallacy Man’s post contained several of the “general public” arguments that I believe are wrong; and as such, provided me with an opportunity to summarize some of my concerns in a single paper. As several readers have pointed out, the length of my comment bordered on or reached the point of diminishing return. It’s difficult to anticipate all thoughtful counter arguments to what I wrote, much less anticipate all inane counter arguments. To do so even at a minimal level would have made by comment much longer. There’s no doubt that a skillful writer could have improved my comment. However, then it wouldn’t have been mine. In any event, it is what it is–a portion of my contribution to the fight against AGW madness.

        00

    • #
      Rollo

      That was a long read, but worthwhile. Thanks Reed.

      You have given me a great idea for a room heater consisting of a small box with an array of thermocouples on the outside charging a small internal battery (18650 Elon cell?). Once charged the battery will be discharged via a resistor on the outside of the box, thereby heating the room. A couple of these units in every room will replace the need for other heating. Caution:Too many units will cross a tipping point and burn your house down.

      10

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        “A couple of these units in every room will replace the need for other heating. Caution:Too many units will cross a tipping point and burn your house down.”

        All kneel and pray to the Perpetuum mobile; A synonym for GOD! :-)

        07

    • #
      Annie

      I’m yet to read it but intend to when I have some uninterrupted time. My husband has read it and thought it good.

      20

    • #
      Robber

      Thanks Reed for an interesting exploration of some of the fallacies of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). As an aside, I saw another use for the acronym CAGW – Citizens Against Government Waste – that seems very appropriate.
      Some thoughts and suggestions:
      – It would be useful to turn the content into 12 or so slides that concisely summarize and illustrate the argument.
      – While you have started with Fallacy Man’s premise “CO2 traps heat”, a more widely stated premise is “CO2 is a greenhouse gas”. Then follows: “More CO2 makes the greenhouse (our atmosphere and oceans) hotter”. And “Living in a hotter greenhouse will be catastrophic for everything on earth”.
      – The second part of Fallacy Man’s first premise is that “CO2 is largely responsible for the earth’s climate”. This seems to be an even bigger stretch – not the sun, or the oceans, or plants? If I restate the premise as ” Humans are largely responsible for the earth’s climate” the absurdity becomes evident.
      – Another premise seems to be that current global temperatures are “just right”, neither too hot nor too cold, although some of the IPCC work seems to imply that pre-industrial temperatures are the benchmark and 2 degrees above that will be catastrophic. And as we have warmed about 1 degree since then, we are approaching armageddon.
      – Fallacy man’s conclusion “Therefore we are causing the climate to change” is a rather mild conclusion. Two questions must be asked: How much change? Is that change good or bad? On both fronts the warmistas declare it is catastrophic.

      No one denies that the earth’s climate has changed over the millennia. Humans have undoubtedly changed at least the micro climate through acid rain, deforestation, dams, etc, so we should never try to deny climate change, both man-made and natural.
      So what is our conclusion? “There is no evidence that human CO2 emissions have caused or are likely to cause catastrophic changes to the earth’s climate.” (I guess that makes me a denier, but only of imminent catastrophic climate change caused by humans). But I feel better than being a gullible grasping greenie or a pathetic, pandering, pompous, puffed up politician.

      40

  • #

    This last week’s Base Load Data showed up some interesting things. I was asked to add an image which shows what the Base Load looks like when compared to actual consumption, rather than just referencing a set of numbers, so I found a typical Winter Load Curve for power consumption and coloured it in to show the contribution from coal fired power. I added the image to this week’s Post, and also to the main Introductory Post as well, which has a more detailed explanation of what the colouring means. (if you just want to look at the image only it is at this link)

    I have also added figures for the evening Peak time at 6PM to the analysis, showing that as consumption rises, so too does the power generation from coal fired power, as it follows the Load.

    Again, each day, that Base Load was either a tiny amount lower than (two days and less than half a percent each day) or above that 18000MW mark for minimum power consumption at that 4AM time, the lowest power consumption of any day. On the Friday, a really cold morning in four of the States, that Base Load at 4AM was up to 19540MW. Interestingly, on that same Friday, the morning peak at 8AM was higher than the evening peak at 6PM, showing that people either already had the heaters on, or turned them on as soon as they got up in the morning, and then later at work and school, they also turned up the heaters as well.

    On three of the seven days, wind power generated very large amounts of power at both 4AM, and then throughout the whole 24 hour period of the day, for three consecutive days, all of them up and beyond 2500MW, with peaks as high as 3200MW at times, something I have not seen from wind here in Australia on that sustained basis. Then, on the Saturday, it was also up at 2800MW, but unlike the other days where it was relatively constant, this day it rose to that high amount from a low base from ten hours earlier.

    It was interesting to watch, because I had the idea that with wind generating so much for those sustained periods, I sort of expected coal fired power to be reined back. That did not happen at all, as for all three of those ‘big wind’ days, coal fired power generated and delivered its same level of constant power it has always been delivering, not just at that 4AM snapshot in time, but across the whole day as generation from coal fired power matched the same shape as the Load Curve for consumption.

    When you compare those days with the ‘big wind’ with coal fired power, it would seem to me that large amounts of wind power only means that they don’t need to operate as many of those Natural gas fired plants, as those coal fired plants just hum along, supplying what they always do, and grid controllers, knowing that, need only watch the wind power to see when they need to bring on those Natural gas fired plants to ‘top up’ the grid as required on a shorter basis, also showing that coal fired power is cheaper than Natural Gas fired power, with the cost of gas so high at the moment.

    The full analysis is at the following link, and that has a link back to the Introductory Post for a better explanation of the Base Load Image.

    Australian Base Load Electrical Power – Week Ending 22nd July 2017

    Tony.

    183

  • #
    Mark M

    Driverless car makers are discovering a unique problem as they begin to test the vehicles in Australia.

    It turns out the unusual way that kangaroos move completely throws off the car’s animal detection system

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-24/driverless-cars-in-australia-face-challenge-of-roo-problem/8574816

    Ya gotta love Oz.

    120

    • #
      Dennis

      I would think an Old Man Emu running out onto a road travelling at 45 degrees away from a vehicle and suddenly turning to race back to his family would be a serious computer programming problem.

      100

      • #
        bobl

        Actually Galahs would be much harder to program for. However their follow the leader behaviour does make trajectories predictable IF you keep a camera on the flock leader.

        40

        • #
          Sceptical Sam

          They’d be the green galahs that I see on the way home of a Friday night, peddling their bikes down the middle of Salvado Rd looking for salvation?

          51

      • #
        PeterS

        Most drivers would not cope either. Only those who have had lots of experience in such matters would avoid a collision, or pure luck.

        30

        • #

          In the uk some 40000 deer a year are killed on our roads and are involved in some 70000 accidents.

          Several people a year on average get killed. Interesting to see what a remote controlled vehicle would make of that

          I had a friend once whose triumph stag was written off when it collided with…a stag. I understand there were some very confusing telephone calls with his insurers.

          Tonyb

          90

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          The exact reason bull bars were invented…namely because oz wildlife *is* inherently unpredictable….and heavy…

          Its a pretty easy equation – safety of family vs one dead 6′ rodent….easy maths….

          30

          • #
            Annie

            At night we use our car with the bull-bar and drive more slowly. However, one of our neighbours wrote off her car in a collision with a large grey kangaroo at 10.30am, just up the road from here.

            20

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              You need a couple of mounted “Shoo-Roo”s, a bullbar and an iron tyre lever Annie.

              10

              • #
              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Although the constabulary get a bit excited if you dispatch an injured one using a firearm….not sure why…

                Friends used to have big 100 watt driving lights angled at 45 degrees to the road so they could see the roos coming in and avoid if possible. The bull bar was there for the more determined ones.

                Coming through Bredbo on night after a 5 hour drive up from Lakes Entrance, one determined roo jumped out from the side of the road, and my left mirror and bottom left of my windscreen collected its head, didnt do anything for my sense of humour though….couldnt find it to finish it off….suspect it had a king size headache for some time, or became a bonnet mascot for a B double….

                10

              • #
                Annie

                There are locals who have tried the whistling type deterrents but responses have been mixed. Are these Shuroos something different or what they were using?

                Driving back from the airport in the middle of the night is a nightmare as we have no way of avoiding wild and other livestock. Every route for us has windy narrow pot-holey roads.

                00

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Dennis,
        All fixed with one deceased Emu!

        00

  • #
    David Wood

    How hard is it to understand the difference between energy and heat. It’s simple really, heat only happens when energy crosses a boundary. A body never contains heat, but when more energy is added to the body heat is said to flow to that body.

    Consider two bodies near each other but at different temperatures, in a vacuum to make things simple and avoid the complications of convective and conductive heat transfer, . Each body radiates energy but at different rates. Each body sends some energy to the other but the hotter body sends more energy to the cold body than the cold body sends to the hot body. The difference in the flows is from the hot body to the colder one and this net flow of energy is called the heat which is transferred to the colder body.
    Of course the colder body radiates some energy to the hotter body but the net flow is always from the hotter to the cooler. The net flow of energy continues until a state of equilibrium is reached at which time the two bodies have the same temperature.

    There can be no net ‘backflow’ of energy since it is impossible for heat to flow from a cold body to a hotter one.

    This simple statement totally demolishes the radiative greenhouse theory, which requires that the nett flow of energy (heat) is from the colder body to the hotter.

    106

    • #
      Rick Will

      The heat flow is only from hot to cold – end of story. No net flow just one way.

      11

      • #
        Lucky

        Imagine, two radiating objects at different temperatures, radiation focused only to the other.
        If there is only hotter to colder heat flow, then where and how does
        computing the difference occur? That is, how do each know the temperature of
        the other before deciding if and how much to radiate?
        It is easier to explain by saying both radiate to the other.
        Each outflow depends only on that object’s absolute temperature.
        It is a forth power law (?), so
        Net heat flow = function t1^4 – function t2^4
        (not function (t1 – t2) ^ 4
        That’s how I see it, glad to be shown if wrong.

        40

        • #

          On a macroscopic scale, radiation from the colder body is not absorbed by the hotter body. They “communicate” by being able to absorb the other’s radiation or not.

          28

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            IE differential radiance at each wavelength and in each direction. This is but Gustav Kirchhoff’s Law of thermal EMR.

            10

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “then where and how does computing the difference occur? That is, how do each know the temperature of the other before deciding if and how much to radiate?”

          What total brain washing! The physical that we observe needs no knowledge or understanding. This ‘is’ must always be limited by what can be measured by those deciding such ‘is’! All else of “reality” must be ‘fantasy or belief’. Our Sun transfers measured power, at each wavelength in the direction of lower radiance at that wavelength. Our Sun ‘receives’, but not necessarily absorbs such power from any direction of higher ‘radiance’ at that wavelength.
          If you have more complete knowledge of ‘is’ vs ‘fantasy’ please post that here!
          All the best!-will-

          07

        • #
          Dirk

          You are right, Lucky. The two objects radiate to each other and all radiation is absorbed if the objects are black. When equilibrium is reached there is no net flow of energy but the objects still radiate.

          40

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            “You are right, Lucky. The two objects radiate to each other and all radiation is absorbed if the objects are black. When equilibrium is reached there is no net flow of energy but the objects still radiate.”

            What total brainwashing! All masses have a maximum spontaneous spectral radiance in W/(m² x sr x cm) at every wavelength as given by Planck’s equation. such is not radiation as in any power transfer but only a potential for such transfer. Any EMR power transfer is always limited by any opposing ‘radiance’ at that wavelength! If an object has less than 100% emissivity at each wavelength, than additional radiance of the surround may need considering. This summation of emissivity, transmissivity, and reflectivity reduces the EMR emission of any radiator of higher radiance at each direction and each wavelength by precisely that amount; in all cases, polarization, and independent of the source of that radiance whether thermal or electrically generated. This is all carefully documented in Maxwell’s 22 equations and John Poynting’s explanation thereof. The field of Thermodynamics it totally incapable of handling power transfer between masses via any EMR!
            All the best!-will-

            15

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “It is easier to explain by saying both radiate to the other.
          Each outflow depends only on that object’s absolute temperature.”

          It is easier to snow the students by ignorant professors teaching the falsehood “both radiate to the other.”

          “Each outflow depends only on that object’s absolute temperature.”

          Such ‘outflow has never been demonstrated by anyone anywhere!

          15

    • #
      TdeF

      You do have to exclude kinetic energy and potential energy in that explanation.

      Energy takes three major forms, kinetic, potential and thermal.

      Heat means an increase in temperature of the body. That takes a certain type of energy.
      If you lift the body, it gains potential energy but does not get hotter.
      If you push it so that it gains momentum, it gains kinetic energy and again not hotter.

      50

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        “You do have to exclude kinetic energy and potential energy in that explanation.”

        Spacecraft have kinetic power (mv), but no potential gravitational power. (in orbit). Earth’s atmosphere is the same for different reasons.

        “Energy takes three major forms, kinetic, potential and thermal.”

        Indeed but all are transformable in the sense of power transfer (dQ/dt)! The trivial remains the EMR power transfer whether thermal or powered “in free space” where the other two do not exist! (maybe collisions).

        “Heat means an increase in temperature of the body. That takes a certain type of energy. If you lift the body, it gains potential energy but does not get hotter. If you push it so that it gains momentum, it gains kinetic energy and again not hotter.”

        Indeed; but Energy (Joules) as (power storage) always distinct from work (Joules) as in force x distance. Work has the distinct characteristic of ‘entropy’ where (Joules out) must always be less than (Joules in). There is never conservation of energy, only clever book keeping to identify the power lost doing work. (efficiency)!

        14

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      And we managed to have a conversation on Thermodynamics, without anybody citing Flanders and Swann. That has to be a first.

      50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        The first law of thermodynamics
        Heat is work and work is heat (x 2)
        Very good

        The second law of thermodynamics
        Heat cannot of itself pass from one body to a hotter body (x 2)
        Heat won’t pass from a cooler to a hotter (x 2)
        You can try it if you like but you far better notter (x 2)
        ‘Cause the cold in the cooler will be hotter as a ruler (x 2)
        Because the hotter body’s heat will pass through the cooler

        Heat is work and work is heat
        And work is heat and heat is work
        Heat will pass by conduction (x 2)
        And heat will pass by convection (x 2)
        And heat will pass by radiation (x 2)
        And that’s a physical law

        Heat is work and work’s a curse
        And all the heat in the universe
        It’s gonna cool down as it can’t increase
        Then there’ll be no more work
        And they’ll be perfect peace
        Really?
        Yeah, that’s entropy, man!
        And all because of the second law of thermodynamics, which lays down

        etc.

        30

        • #
          Annie

          Gee, thanks! It’s been stuck in my brain all day after reading RW’s comment earlier. Now it’s reinforced! :)

          00

      • #
        Another Ian

        RW

        Re Flanders and Swan

        Showing your age!

        10

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      “How hard is it to understand the difference between energy and heat. It’s simple really, heat only happens when energy crosses a boundary. A body never contains heat, but when more energy is added to the body heat is said to flow to that body.”

      What total post normal nonsense! That is the verb definition ‘heating’, never the noun heat; which is the accumulation of ‘power’ by mass in the form of ‘sensible heat’. Sensible heat is a function of both the “specific heat” of that (type of mass) x (amount of that mass) x (amount of power accumulated or transfered of that mass). such transfer of ‘power’ is linear and called a change of “temperature” of that mass. The noun ‘temperature’ and its value have no other meaning!
      Your attempt to change the meaning of ‘words’ is but denial of obvious ‘entropy’. Stuff it!

      06

  • #

    If global warming is real, why is it so cold in Winter?

    93

    • #
      Dennis

      Too many LED lights and no globes?

      53

    • #
      John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

      I am in Bali enjoying Indonesia’s climate and getting away form Perth’s winter. The water is warmer and no need of a wetsuit. But thank God for Will Carrier.

      50

    • #
      Yonniestone

      “IF” is the big cluebat here to your question.

      30

      • #

        But, but, but, we keep getting told it’s real. I might have to change the LEDs back to halogens for Winter. Now what will that do to the electricity bill?

        40

        • #
          Yonniestone

          It won’t matter as long as we’re paying a renamed carbon tax that does nothing but inflates the cost of power consumption and lines the pockets of globalists.

          60

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          It is real, it is just real somewhere other than where you are.
          It was in the back of my garage for a time, but when it frosted the seed potatoes, we sent it packing.

          10

  • #
    GregS

    Is there anything to what Tarek Niazi says in this lecture regarding the relationship between the earth’s magnetic field, the ice cap locations, and the climate in general?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YZhWicqEcg

    20

  • #
    Rocky

    NO takers for my poster concept?

    21

  • #
    Rocky

    NO takers for my poster concept?

    11

  • #
    Rocky

    Any update on the Solar Notch Theory?

    40

  • #
    alwaysBskeptical

    Here is a link to all Piers Akerman articles in the Telegraph

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/piers-akerman

    10

    • #
      alwaysBskeptical

      Sorry, that does not seem to work properly.
      Just put “Piers Akerman” into google.

      10

  • #
    pat

    PICS: 23 Jul: Stuff NZ: Lewis Taylor: Massive snow dumps overwhelm Roundhill and Mount Dobson ski fields
    South Canterbury’s ski fields will be primed for the rest of the 2017 season, with both Roundhill and Mount Dobson receiving more than one metre of snowfall over the weekend.
    Mount Dobson Ski Field marketing manager Mike Smith said snow fell for about 36 hours, starting Friday morning and not ending until 5pm Saturday…
    The ski field received between 1.3 and 1.5m of snow over Friday and Saturday, Smith said.

    Although Mount Dobson was closed Sunday due to the heavy snow, Smith was optimistic his team would have the ski field ready by Monday.
    “We’re getting stuck into some shovelling this morning…
    Roundhill Ski Field manager Simon Murrell said snowfalls at Roundhill had been enormous.
    “We got a massive amount of snow, up to 1.5m,” he said.
    “Our base is over a metre of compacted snow.”…
    Roundhill was also closed Sunday, with snow clearance works being conducted…

    PIC: Totally buried at Mt Dobson on Sunday

    “Anything on the lee side of the southerly got buried.
    “There was up to three metres of snow on the roofs.”…
    “This year, we’ve had five closed days (at Roundhill) due to snow events.”…

    MetService meteorologist Angus Hines said no further snow was anticipated for the ski fields in coming days, with the Tekapo area being too warm for snowfall.
    Thursday was the earliest anticipated point for more snow, Hines said
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/snow/95018753/Massive-snow-dumps-overwhelm-Roundhill-and-Mount-Dobson-ski-fields

    22 Jul: IceAgeNow: Moscow hit by snow, rain and hail
    https://www.iceagenow.info/moscow-hit-bt-snow-rain-hail/

    10

  • #
    John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

    Fair point, but sometimes I think Climate Science is considered a religion. Cheers.

    31

    • #
      PeterS

      A religion can be defined as the pursuit or interest of something with great devotion. There are many such pursuits that are worthwhile, honorable and beneficial to mankind. So climate Science wrt AGW is not a religion, it’s a scam.

      61

      • #
        RAH

        Personally I think the true believers that think they have skin in the game but really don’t are more like cultists. In the fashionable sense of the word. When the scam dies they will hold on to some belief but will profess to believe whatever new fabricated crisis their current political masters foist upon them.

        107

      • #
        Will Janoschka

        Agreed on both counts!

        15

  • #
    pat

    the desal plant doesn’t get a mention til the end:

    23 Jul: ABC: Melbourne water supply could be under threat within a decade, water authority says
    By Stephanie Chalkley-Rhoden
    Melbourne Water analysed the effect of greater consumption caused by population growth, and the possibility of worsening droughts due to climate change.
    It found, at worst, demand could outstrip supply by 2028, with the best case scenario seeing the city facing a water crisis within 50 years.
    With Melbourne’s population expected to double by 2065, the report said the community could expect to see more apartments and smaller blocks…

    Environment Victoria’s Nicholas Aberle said Victoria must not ignore the warning.
    “We’ve got a bit of time before this really gets difficult but if we sit on our hands for the next 10 years and just hope that it’d all going to get better, and assume that climate change won’t be as bad ***as we probably know it’s going to be, if we don’t use that time wisely, this will become a crisis,” he said…

    But the report outlined the aims of Melbourne’s future water strategy to help combat those changes.
    The city’s four water retailers — City West Water, South East Water, Yarra Valley Water and Melbourne Water — have responded by suggesting digital water meters be installed in all homes and businesses.
    They said this would allow better monitoring of water usage and to identify and fix leaks faster.
    They also suggested the city consider sourcing more water from alternative supplies such as recycled water, and treated stormwater and groundwater…

    Victoria’s controversial desalination plant at Wonthaggi was switched on for the first time over summer, pushing up water bills.
    The plant appeared to be a key part of the city’s water supply in the report. It said the order process would be reviewed to keep it in line (with?) future planning and customer needs
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-23/melbourne-water-supply-could-be-under-threat-within-a-decade/8735400

    10

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Didn’t they have a pipeline from the Goulburn river to the Thompson dam ? I wonder what happened to all that infrastructure?

      31

      • #
        TdeF

        Turned off. From the Goulburn to Sugarloaf, a Northern dam in the Melbourne system. It was used only to dump excess water into the Goulburn in the middle of the flood, making it far worse. When asked why, the answer was that the water had been booked six months before. Since then, nothing. A complete waste of $800Million, but what’s that when you believe the drought will never end, thanks to Tim (said Hanrahan) Flannery?

        30

        • #
          Mark

          Funny, the north-south pipeline had to be dug up and replaced around Dickson’s creek. It looked pretty rusted out to me.

          10

  • #
    pat

    u have to laugh:

    22 Jul: Toronto Sun: Al Gore says Trudeau ‘a real breath of fresh air’ on climate change
    by Lauren La Rose
    “I’ll tell you, for me, Justin Trudeau has been a real breath of fresh air, and Canadians should know that he and his team made a huge difference in the Paris negotiations in helping the world come together,” Gore said in an interview Friday. “He’s really provided outstanding leadership.

    “I don’t agree with everything he’s doing, but I admire his leadership and the vision and the speeches and what he’s been doing and saying, and what he’s been doing has really made a huge difference.”
    When asked about his specific areas of disagreement, he pointed to the ***“continued heavy use of fossil fuels,” such as Trudeau’s support of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion…

    Jeff Skoll, the Canadian-born producer of “An Inconvenient Sequel,” said that they had a recent screening of the film in Washington, D.C., a few nights ago for individuals from the U.S. House of Representatives, the Senate and “other Washington insiders.” He said the Trudeau introduction to Gore elicited an overwhelming response.

    “Literally everyone in the theatre burst into applause at that moment, really in recognition that Canada has been showing the way and the courage to tackle these environmental issues,” said the Montreal-born, Toronto-raised Skoll…
    http://www.torontosun.com/2017/07/22/al-gore-says-trudeau-a-real-breath-of-fresh-air-on-climate-change

    00

    • #
      James.

      Justina Trudeau, use to teach Drama at high school, now practices drama on the house of the Canadian Parliament!

      20

    • #
      Mickey Reno

      If you want to see Al Gore’s new sequel movie, I hope you plan to sneak in without paying or see it in a multiplex while buying a ticket to a different movie. We don’t want ManBearPig receiving any extra money. That’s right, we should go all Saul Alinsky or Abbie Hoffman (author of “Steal This Book”) on his ass.

      00

  • #
    el gordo

    NH global cooling signal.

    ‘While we were celebrating our Independence Day on July 4th, Summit Station in Greenland may have experienced the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at -33°C (-27.4°F). Much of Greenland has been colder-than-normal for the year so far and has had record or near record levels of accumulated snow and ice since the fall of last year.

    ‘The first week of this month was especially brutal in Greenland resulting in the record low July temperature and it also contributed to an uptick in snow and ice extent – despite the fact that it is now well into their summer season.’

    Venture Weather

    61

  • #
    pat

    still trying to grab the baby boombers’ money – the only generation ever to have accumulated any.
    and, if they get it, there will never be a generation allowed to accumulate money again.
    once the “millennials” understand this grab for their parents’ & ultimately their inheritances, they’ll fast become the biggest CAGW sceptics ever:

    23 Jul: BusinessInsider: Kevin Loria: Baby Boomers could irreversibly ruin the planet for Millennials — and the clock is ticking
    Twenty-nine years ago, James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies, told the US Senate that the question of the day — whether climate change was happening — was no longer in doubt…
    The question Hanson’s testimony raised was what would be done about that threat…
    But the answer to that question, nearly 30 years later, is pretty much nothing…

    Hansen is still sounding alarms — in a study published this week, he calculated that future generations could be forced to spend more than $US530 trillion cleaning C02 out of the atmosphere (something we don’t yet know how to do)…
    That’s quite a burden to leave the children of the future…

    “On any issue, it takes an enormous amount of effort to overcome the status quo,” environmentalist and author Bill McKibben told Business Insider
    But the biggest barrier to action hasn’t been cooperation, nor a lack of information.
    “It turned out that we were not engaged in an argument for which more evidence and data was the cure — we’d won the argument long ago,” McKibben said. “It was a fight, and it was about money and power … And that one we were losing.”…

    In the early 2000s, groups connected to energy billionaires like the Koch brothers also started funding efforts to discredit climate science…

    “The irony of all this is that it’s been entirely clear from the beginning what we need to do,” McKibben said. “It has to look like the very rapid conversion to 100% renewable energy.”…

    As older leaders continue to stall, millions of individuals in younger generations are now pushing for policies and investments that could avert the worst effects of climate change.
    “It became clear, we’ve got to organise for some power of our own,” said McKibben — a Boomer who’s devoted his career to this cause…
    McKibben’s organisation 350.org, is filled with young activists leading initiatives to fight projects like the Keystone Pipeline and other new oil, coal, and gas developments.

    Climate-related lawsuits are on the rise around the world as well. In the US, a group of 21 kids, aged 9 to 21, are currently suing the federal government…
    “Paris was a success, though you have to squint a little bit to see it — at least everyone agreed there was a problem,” McKibben said…
    “Huge swaths of the world will be living in places that by the end of the century will have heat waves so deep that people won’t be able to deal with them, you have sea level rising dramatically, to the point that most of the world’s cities are drowning, the ocean turning into a hot, sour, breathless soup as it acidifies and warms,” McKibben said…
    https://www.businessinsider.com.au/baby-boomers-millennials-climate-change-generations-2017-7?r=US&IR=T

    10

  • #
    pat

    21 Jul: IFL Science: Robin Andrews: Africa Set To “Leapfrog” Over Coal And Choose Renewable Energy Instead
    When it comes to the African continent, however, something rather interesting is happening: Many of its countries are set to leapfrog over coal and head straight for clean energy electricity sources.

    As reported by ***Axios (LINK), the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, has this to say on the subject: “When it comes to Africa, I think we will see something for the first time: Namely, Africa will bring electricity to people by mainly using renewable energy and natural gas.”…

    Although coal is still fairly cheap, the cost effectiveness and availability of renewables is looking to be far more tempting for many. For most of the continent, solar power will prove to be the most popular choice.
    Birol’s prediction isn’t just based on hope alone – a wealth of studies seem to agree that this is the direction that Africa in general is heading in. A key paper from 2016 looked at energy trends across the continent and found that in 21 countries, renewable energy sources could outstrip the nations’ electricity demands by 2030, all for a cost comparable to fossil fuels.

    A small caveat at this point. Natural gas will feature heavily in Africa’s near future, but this is almost unavoidable – it’s incredibly cheap and abundantly available…
    If this prediction is validated, however, then it will be a game-changing advancement. Taking into account population trends, by 2030, this could mean that an extra billion people choose to use clean energy rather than coal.
    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/africa-leapfrog-coal-choose-renewable-energy-instead/

    from the Axios link – small item down the page:

    Amy’s notebook: Africa could leapfrog over coal
    Axios’ Amy Harder (EX WSJ) has this dispatch from an interview she did Tuesday with Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, shortly before his flight out of town. Take it away…
    Quoted: “When it comes to Africa, I think we will see something for the first time,” Birol said. “Namely, Africa will bring electricity to people by mainly using renewable energy and natural gas. That would be the first time that would happen, and it’s extremely important.”…
    (at bottom) The headline was updated to clarify the continent is poised to leapfrog over coal, not coal and natural gas.

    lol.

    btw a ***Koch reference re Axios, plus an Aussie/ABC/Fairfax connection:

    Wikipedia: Axios
    Axios is an American news and information website founded in 2016 by Politico co-founder Jim VandeHei, Politico’s former Chief White House correspondent Mike Allen, and former Politico Chief Revenue Officer Roy Schwartz…
    In the summer of 2016, it secured $10 million in a round of financing led by Lerer Hippeau Ventures. Backers include NBC News, Emerson Collective, Greycroft Partners, and David and Katherine Bradley, owners of Atlantic Media…
    Axios’ initial launch partners are JP Morgan & Chase Co., PhRma, Boeing, BP, Bank of America, ***Koch Industries, S&P Global, United Health Group, Walmart, PepsiCo and Cooley LLP…
    A July 2017 overview on the use of unnamed sources in US political reporting highlighted Axios (alongside Politico) as a publication that is “targeted at political junkies” and “in particular often float[s] ‘scoops’ predicting that something will happen that never does”.

    Wikipedia: Jonathan Swan
    Jonathan Swan is an Australian journalist, currently serving as a national political reporter for Axios, the new media company launched by Politico founders Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei. Swan covers the Trump presidency and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill…
    Before moving to the United States, Swan was a national political reporter based in Canberra for Fairfax Media and political correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald…
    Swan joined The Hill on 24 August 2015 in Washington D.C. as part of their campaign team…
    Swan is the son of (ABC) journalist and radio producer Norman Swan…
    —–

    btw Jonathan Swan has been getting the credit for some of the White House leaks, correct or otherwise.

    30

    • #
      pat

      Koch-connected Axios footnote:

      just a quick sample of their CAGW zealotry:

      Where climate change will hit the U.S. hardest – Axios
      Jun 29, 2017
      Left unmitigated, rising temperatures from climate change will increase inequality and mortality rates in the U.S. by the end of the 21st century…

      Wall Street is starting to care about climate change – Axios
      26 Jun, 2017
      “Investment risk is increasing, and investors care -

      Only 10% of Americans think climate change is not happening – Axios
      Jun 20, 2017 – And less than 33% of Americans support Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris deal.

      Climate change is here to stay, so deal with it – Axios
      Jun 5, 2017
      In 2013, as mayor of the city, Michael Bloomberg announced a $20 billion plan to adapt to climate change

      30

  • #
    pat

    ugly…

    2 pages: 22 Jul: IFL Science: Robin Andrews: Washington Governor On Donald Trump: “Only Smallpox Has Done More To Unite Scientists”
    When we sat down for a chat with the Governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, we expected that he would be as pro-science as he is anti-Trump – but we weren’t expecting him to combine both facets with such ease into single sentences.
    “I think there’s only one person in the world that’s done more to inspire climate activism, and to inspire scientists to speak out more than Al Gore, and that’s Donald Trump,” Inslee tells IFLScience.

    “His rejection of Paris was a bell in the night; it has inspired so many people to come out and stand up.”
    Then, rather mischievously, he adds: “Except for the eradication of smallpox, there hasn’t been anything that humanity has been so united on.”…

    Comparing the President to one of the most dangerous diseases in human history is something most American politicians would shy away from – but it’s not a disingenuous comparison at all.

    When the President announced that he was to pull the country out of the Paris agreement, the entire world certainly reacted in dismay. Democrats, Republicans, scientists, academics, figureheads, prime ministers, chancellors, and presidents made their protestations very clear very quickly. Even North Korea gave Trump a bit of a ribbing…READ ON IF U MUST
    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/washington-governor-donald-trump-only-smallpox-more-unite-scientists/

    re IFL Science:

    IFL writer, Robin Andrews:

    Uni of Otago NZ, Dept of Geology: Robin Andrews (PhD completed 2015)
    http://www.otago.ac.nz/geology/staff/postgraduate-students/robin-andrews.html

    Wikipedia: Elise Andrew (CEO & founder of IFL Science)
    Andrew graduated from the University of Sheffield in 2012 with a Bachelor of Science in biology.[3] Her undergraduate degree covered subjects such as ecology, animal sciences and evolution…
    September 2012, several of Andrew’s articles were included in that month’s issue of The Scientist, a magazine that is owned by her employer, LabX Media Group…
    Andrew lives and works in Midland, Ontario, Canada…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elise_Andrew

    read all:

    19 Jul: IFL Science: The Kids Suing Trump Just Got A Helping Hand From “Grandfather” Of Climate Change
    Dr James Hansen – a former NASA scientist, a climatologist at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, and someone who is considered to be the “grandfather” of climate change awareness – has just released a new study entitled “Young People’s Burden”…

    ***However, the study’s true purpose is something rather more ambitious: It aims to convince federal judges that the Trump administration’s inaction on the issue is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal…

    “Federal government does not want to put the science on trial,” Philip Gregory, lead co-counsel in the Our Children’s Trust lawsuit, told IFLScience. “Science is based on facts, and this government survives on alternative facts. In the courtroom, alternative facts equals perjury.”…

    The science within the paper, written in a noticeably more accessible way than most academic tomes, is certainly frightening on a visceral level. Sophie Kivlehan, one of the co-plaintiffs in the court case and Hansen’s granddaughter, seemed to suggest to IFLScience that this isn’t a bad thing.

    “Making a skeptic think of the problem as personal – and maybe scaring them a little bit” is the best way to convince them that action needs to be taken, she posits, rather than framing it as an “abstract problem”…
    http://www.iflscience.com/environment/the-kids-suing-trump-just-got-a-helping-hand-from-grandfather-of-climate-change/all/

    10

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Beware the despots in sheeps clothing who use “think of the children” to peddle their ugly stock-in-trade….

      00

  • #
    pat

    Caitlin’s big finale:

    22 Jul: SMH: Caitlin Fitzsimmons: Take the long view in judging superannuation funds
    One thing worth looking for as a predictor of longer term performance is how well your super fund is prepared for the investment risk of climate change. This is not about politics, it’s about prudent financial management. Major regulators, including the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), warn climate change is a serious financial risk.

    The younger you are, the more important this is.

    Looking at a sustainable investment option – with the right underlying investment mix for your risk profile – is one approach.

    But you can also look at how the fund as a whole is managing the risk of climate change. The Asset Owners Disclosure Project ranks the 500 biggest asset owners in the world, mostly superannuation or pension funds, but also insurers and sovereign wealth funds, for how well they’re engaging with the issue of climate change, managing risk, and investing in low-carbon alternatives.

    The 2017 report ranked Australian industry fund Local Government Super best in the world for this, while First State Super, the fund for NSW government employees, has improved from 12th in the world to third.
    However, massive multi-industry fund AustralianSuper has slipped from seventh last year to 18th this year, losing its AAA rating. BT Financial Group has fallen seven places to 31st.

    Again, it’s the long term that counts.
    http://www.smh.com.au/money/super-and-funds/take-the-long-view-in-judging-superannuation-funds-20170721-gxg2xg.html

    10

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    I recently bought a plumbing fitting from China and was concerned about the thread size. It so turns out that all of the world uses 1/2″ BSP for fittings such as toilet cisterns, shower heads and kitchen taps (faucets) with the exception of the USA that uses 1/2″ NPT which I think is one thread per inch different. This even applies to long-established metric places such as countries in Europe as far as I can tell. Please correct me if I’m wrong. I am not sure about Canada. Also, since metrification in Australia, 1/2″ fittings have been referred to as 15mm when they are in fact closer to 13mm. Does anyone know why?

    32

    • #
      Robert Rosicka

      Last I looked David it was 12mm that was used , 12 and 18mm being the most common size in copper pipe anyway but that was 20 odd years ago .
      When it comes to threads and types of threads you’re on your own .

      20

    • #
      Dave

      It’s just slang NOW, 1/2″ 3/4″ ETC

      Chinese made fittings coming into AUS are as follows

      In accordance with AS1432:2000
      Nominal Dia Dn (mm) Actual I.D.(mm)
      15 10.88
      18 13.84
      20 17.01
      25 22.96
      32 29.31
      40 35.66
      50 48.36

      Plumbers now use Nominal diameter (on the left) and also same with pressure pipe
      Bit whole new set of ND & ID tables!

      Then the problem grows, pressure pipe, pvc, dwv, irrigation, rural etc!

      But most Aussie store like Bunnings, Reece, NCP, Plumbtrade, Tradelink etc do follow these standards!

      If you ask for 1/2″ you’ll get 10.88 Internal Diameter in mm!

      If you ask Tim Flannery what causes water to flow into rivers, streams and dams?

      You’ll get an answer that is 100% wrong!

      52

      • #
        Robert Rosicka

        Try buying rural poly fittings at Bunnings , our store don’t sell them anymore only the InTown stuff .

        30

    • #
      Len

      With the Whitworth and Unified National Course (UNC)(USA) , the threads are basically the same. For the half inch, UNC is 13 tpi (threads per inch)whereas Whitworth is 12 tpi. That is the only difference. The 9/16″ are both 12 tpi. Pommies were superstitious concerning the number 13. The pipe threads are only nominal. You can put a 9/16″ rod inside of a 1/2″ pipe.

      20

    • #
      Another Ian

      David

      !/2″ – pipe, both are 14 tpi

      Bolts 1/2 W 12 tpi, 1/2 NC 13 tpi. Trap for the unwary

      15mm vs 13mm – sounds to me like internal and external dimensions of the pipe

      Like rifle dimensions – can talk the diameter of the bore before rifling or of bullet size after rifling e.g. 0.30″ bore usually uses a 0.308″ bullet. So a .30-06 rifle uses the same size bullets as a .308W

      20

      • #
        Len

        The case for the .308 Wincester (76.62 mm Nato) is the same case as used for the 30-06 Springfield but shortened (Not Bill). The 30-06 Springfield case is used in .35 Remington, .270 Winchester, 257 Roberts and one of the .22 High powered rounds. The 06 in the 30-06 is the year 1906.

        30

    • #
      James.

      Pipe thread fittings are sized on the bases of the internal diameter. That is why they are hard to work out what you need to buy. A half inch NPT thread will have an od closer to 3/4″ than half inch.

      Some of the threads per inch are the same. Some are not. BSP uses a whitworth thread form, so the angles are different. If the tpi are the same, then with a lot of sealant, you can make them work.

      Here is a link which explains this all in detail

      http://pipeandhose.com/?q=node/2

      40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The SI standards were a UN thing ages ago. Except for the US.

      Because China is a major supplier to the US, the Chinese have opted to tread a middle path, so their pipe fittings don’t quite fit either standard, as well as they might. Other countries in Asia may also relax their conformance with the SI standards as well, in order to compete with China.

      I have a Chinese manufactured, high pressure water pump, and it is prone to spitting out hose connections at critical times.

      p.s. Thanks for the link James.

      30

      • #
        Curious George

        U.S. has two types of fittings, a “hose thread” and a “pipe thread”. You can match a hose thread to a pipe thread, with the result that you describe.

        10

  • #
  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 24mins44secs: 22 Jul: Daily Caller: Ginni Thomas: Scott Pruitt ready to help Trump give America better environmental outcomes, economic growth
    The former attorney general for Oklahoma says in this exclusive interview for The Daily Caller News Foundation, “When you’re spending a million dollars for gym memberships, you have room to contract.”…
    TheDCNF interviewed Pruitt during the week his EPA “killed” a power-grabbing Obama 2015 water rule that caused paralysis and confusion for landowners. A revised rule, expected later this year, he promised, will have objective clarity and be more tethered to the statute.
    Pruitt applauds Trump’s leadership in pulling America out of the Paris climate accord…
    Videographer Sean Moody is credited with the video work for this piece.
    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/22/scott-pruitt-ready-to-help-trump-give-america-better-environmental-outcomes-economic-growth-video/

    10

  • #
    ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

    Tourists Shun Scottish Regions Hit By Wind Turbine ‘Blight’

    More than half of tourists to Scotland would rather not visit scenic areas dominated by man-made structures such as wind farms, a YouGov poll suggests.

    A survey carried out on behalf of the John Muir Trust (JMT) found that 55% of respondents were “less likely” to venture into areas of the countryside industrialised by giant turbines, electricity pylons and super-quarries.

    Just 3% said they were “more likely” to visit such areas, while 26% said such large-scale developments would make “no difference”.

    The poll has rekindled calls for Scottish ministers to increase protection for wild and scenic areas that, it is argued, will protect rural tourism businesses.

    It follows a recent decision to approve the 22-turbine Creag Riabhach wind farm in Altnaharra, the first to win consent within a designated wild land area. Each turbine will stand 125m high.

    “As schools across England break up for the summer this week and many families flock to Scotland, we must remember that, for many, it’s the ability to enjoy being outdoors in Scotland’s unique, unspoilt natural landscapes that brings them north,” said Andrew Bachell, JMT’s chief executive.

    “When a clear majority of people say they’d be put off visiting wild and scenic areas by the existence of large-scale wind farms, giant pylons, super-quarries and other developments, policymakers have to pay attention, before it’s too late.”

    SOURCE

    60

    • #
      Mary E

      After all the whining about Trump’s golf course ruining the wild lands and views, now they put up windmills? Silly geese.

      10

  • #
    Don B

    Have there been any updates on Dr. Evans’ solar model articles/book? What is the status of that?

    20

  • #
    Dave in the States

    In conversations with people about the issue of CAGW, I find that one of the biggest stumbling blocks among the scientifically less educated is the -deliberate- conflation of co2 emissions and urban air pollution. The confusion is then almost always compounded by additional conflation of science claims with supposed moral or religious articles of faith.

    81

  • #
  • #
    David Maddison

    Get this:

    There is a particular brand of oscilloscope on the market sold as 50 and more expensive 100 MHz models.

    The two models are precisely the same physically.

    The only difference is the software which activates a switch in the hardware to make it one model or the other. The physical hardware is identical.

    Hackers have worked a way around the software lock.

    20

  • #
    Richard111

    Just to stir things up a bit… a cooler body radiating at a warmer body does to some extent slow the rate of heat loss from the warmer body. :-)

    30

    • #
      ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

      Depends on the definition of “extent”. But it’s true in most circumstances depending on the temperature, reflectivity, distance, and insulative properties of the cooler object.

      00

  • #
    clipe

    @Pat, on an earlier thread you asked about a particular online newspaper article.

    Our Changing News Climate

    10

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Tesla battery, subsidy and sustainability fantasies”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/tesla-battery-subsidy-and-sustainability-fantasies/

    Un-weatherill reading?

    20

  • #
    Another Ian

    “What are the prospects for the HONEST Act?”

    “A recent National Public Radio program re-broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission (or Alinsky Brainwashing Committee, depending on your level of scepticism) discussed the Trump Administrations’ new HONEST Act, or Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. The climate alarmists interviewed by NPR were railing near-hysterically against this proposed new law, desperately twisting reality to find some illusory moral high ground from which to condemn it. The torment evident in their voices sent this sceptic straight to the internet to find out why they’re so frightened.”

    More at

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/what-are-the-prospects-for-the-honest-act/

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    There are moves to institute fixed four year terms for Federal Parliament. This might sound reasonable in principle but we have to consider the current crop of mostly useless, incompetent and anti-Australian idiots we have. The strategy must be that of harm reduction. How can we minimise the harm done to Australia and Australians by politicians? The answer comes from politicians themselves on the few occasions they aren’t lying. They say that longer fixed terms will enable them to achieve their “objectives”. Since their objectives are mostly harmful, let’s keep the current arrangement.

    70

  • #
    Another Ian

    “The new study does NOT revise recent sea level rise upward, as is suggested by the Nature headline quoted above.”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/23/study-sea-level-rise-revised-downward/

    10

  • #
    Raven

    Richard Di Natale, with the loss of two senators, enters . .
    The Greenlight Zone

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***claims? suggests? we know how Attenborough feels about population, but…

    23 Jul: UK Mirror: Anna Slater: “Get ready to die”: Shocking footage of wildlife TV producer colleague of David Attenborough in road rage row with family
    Beeley also threatens to perform a citizen’s arrest on a family – including an 11-year-old boy inside the car – in a hysterical and aggressive verbal attack
    Horrifying footage shows Beeley – who ***claims he worked with the legendary environmentalist on top BBC series like Planet Earth: The Future – leaning into a parked car and aggressively shouting obscenities…

    Beeley’s Linkedin profile ***suggests he and David Attenborough have been working together for over 25 years.
    They have also worked together on the Planet Earth: The Future documentary shows.
    The BBC have been approached for comment.
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-attenboroughs-producer-fergus-beeley-10858115

    Wikipedia: Planet Earth: The programmes are narrated by Simon Poland and the series producer was Fergus Beeley…
    DVD & Book: The editors are Rosamund Kidman-Cox and Fergus Beeley, and Jonathon Porritt wrote the foreword.

    Wikipedia: Jonathon Porritt is a patron of the population concern charity Population Matters, (formerly known as the Optimum Population Trust). Porritt has stated that population growth is a serious threat to the global environment and that family planning, including both birth control and abortion, is a part of the answer to global warming…

    00

    • #
      pat

      a little CAGW hypocrisy:

      12 Jul: WesternJournalism: V. Saxena: Despite Climate Change Activism, Johnny Depp Owns 14 Homes And Private Jet
      Depp has reportedly chosen to own and maintain 14 residences, including a château in France and a chain of four islands in the Bahamas, as well as a steam-powered, 156-foot yacht and a private jet. It remains unclear if his homes, yacht and jet were built to conform to green energy specifications.
      These revelations came to light in a cross-complaint filed against Depp by his former business managers two months ago in response to the actor’s attempts to blame his current financial woes on their mismanagement of his money…

      Many critics especially dislike how Depp and others like him call out those who question the existence of climate change using scientific facts, despite acting like “hypocrites” in their own personal lives.
      “So if you live off the grid, never fly in an airplane and don’t eat, then you can call me a denier,” opined Julie Kelly in a column for The Hill January. “For the rest of you, please zip it. You deny climate change by your actions because you contribute daily to the very greenhouse gases you contend are destroying the planet. I’d rather be a denier than a hypocrite any day.”…
      http://www.westernjournalism.com/despite-climate-change-activism-johnny-depp-owns-14-homes-private-jet/

      20 Jul: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: Clinton Campaign Never Bought ‘Carbon Offsets’ To Atone For Hillary’s Private Jet Rides
      The Clinton campaign promised nearly two years ago to go carbon neutral after the former top diplomat was caught flying a private jet the same day she gave a speech on the dangers of man-made global warming…
      That promise remains unkept, a Daily Caller News Foundation review of federal election filings found…
      http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/20/clinton-campaign-never-bought-carbon-offsets-to-atone-for-hillarys-private-jet-rides/

      40

  • #
    Robert Rosicka

    Their ABC just ran a promotion for a new windfarm but this one is a floating windfarm off the coast of Scotland .
    Given the massive seas and storms they get makes me wonder when not if but when the first big storm hits how many of them get wrecked .
    They also said it was an important step in preventing climate change .

    20

  • #
    pat

    23 Jul: Courier Mail: Opinion: Climate change scaremongering based on ‘minuscule’ sea level rises
    by Rowan Dean
    THIS weekend on Sky News, Connie Fierravanti-Wells, the Liberal minister for International Development and the Pacific, having just returned from a junket handing out vast sums of our money to beautiful Pacific Islands to “combat climate change”, said: “It’s interesting to see that, according to real data, the changes to (sea) levels are actually very, very minuscule.”

    That’s right. Very, very minuscule. Or, perhaps what she really meant to say was “non-existent”. The whole climate-change hype about rising sea levels, as being touted by the likes of Al Gore and his new horror flick – er sorry, “documentary” – about climate change, simply doesn’t tally with reality…READ ON
    http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/opinion-climate-change-scaremongering-based-on-minuscule-sea-level-rises/news-story/db74db4ed916828a5f9837158e5f88f7

    btw a comment on FreeRepublic forum today:

    “I was forced to sit thru a crappy movie trailer on the new global warming film when I went to see Dunkirk. Unhappy about that.”

    wonder if the trailer being shown in cinemas is widespread?

    20

  • #
    pat

    23 Jul: NYT: A Comic Strip Mirrors the Ravages of Climate Change
    By GEORGE GENE GUSTINES
    CARTOON CAPTION: The cast of “Arctic Circle,” by the cartoonist Alex Hallatt, includes three penguins, a polar bear, a lemming and a bunny.

    The newspaper comic strip “Arctic Circle,” by the environmentally minded cartoonist Alex Hallatt, is about talking penguins and their fellow creatures living in the north. Starting Monday, under a caption that says “An Inconvenient Truth,” the menagerie will find their world shrinking and their conversations will be about global warming.

    Readers will see the drawings diminish to nothing by Friday as a snow bunny muses, “Climate change will lead to habitat loss and the extinction of many species.”
    Miss Hallatt created the strips to observe the arrival of the documentary “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” in theaters on Friday…

    Tackling environmental issues is nothing new for Miss Hallatt, a former biochemist…
    ***“It’s not a political stance,” she said. “Climate change is about science. People see it as a partisan issue, but it is a science issue.”…

    Peter Broelman, a cartoonist and a member of the Australian Cartoonists Association, said, “‘Arctic Circle’ takes the lead in openly discussing one of the main challenges to the planet and effectively uses humor to get across Alex’s concerns.” The association runs the Stanley Awards, and “Arctic Circle” has been nominated three times for one of the awards…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/business/media/a-comic-strip-mirrors-the-ravages-of-climate-change.html

    ***it’s not political…Hallatt Trump cartoons:

    http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/subject/The-Donald+Trump-Comics-and-Cartoons-by-Arctic+Circle.php

    ***it’s not political:

    8 Jun: WaPo: On World Oceans Day, ‘Arctic Circle’ artist explains how her comic takes on climate change
    By Michael Cavna
    ALEX HALLATT wasn’t always so political…
    “It is a shame that the environment has become a partisan issue,” Hallatt says, “when it is a matter of fact, not opinion.”…
    President Trump’s political base, she says, “has been ill-informed by media outlets like Fox News, who still act as if there is debate to be had about climate change.”
    “The science is settled,” she continues. “The climate is changing and increased carbon emissions are responsible for it. The evidence is in front of our very eyes.”…
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2017/06/08/on-world-oceans-day-the-arctic-circle-artist-explains-how-her-comic-takes-on-climate-change/?utm_term=.7c42b46792c2

    00

  • #
    pat

    surely Fairfax isn’t shilling for another desal plant in Vic?

    23 Jul: Age: Water shortage fears: No plans for second Victorian desal plant, says Andrews
    AAP and Adam Carey
    The Victorian government will not build a second desalination plant, with Premier Daniel Andrews saying he has confidence in the state’s water system.
    Fairfax Media revealed on Sunday that climate change and strong population growth could see Melbourne facing chronic water shortages in the next 10 years, even if the Wonthaggi desalination plant runs at full capacity…
    However, Mr Andrews said on Sunday he’s been advised Victoria does not need another plant…

    A state government order for 50 gigalitres from the plant was delayed after power issues in December.
    And it will continue to operate through winter to deliver 15 gigalitres for the 2017-18 period.

    Victoria also experienced the driest June since records began in 1900 and July rainfall has been below average.
    The plant, estimated to cost between $3.5 billion and $5.7 billion, was left unused by the previous coalition government after being commissioned by the Bracks/Brumby Labor government…
    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/water-shortage-fears-no-plans-for-second-victorian-desal-plant-says-andrews-20170723-gxgy0e.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    97% didn’t work…so move on:

    23 Jul: EurekaAlert: Campaigning on climate science consensus may backfire, warn scholars
    by Taylor & Francis Group
    Climate change campaigns that focus on correcting public beliefs about scientific consensus are likely to backfire and undermine policy efforts, according to an expert commentary published today in Environmental Communication.

    The six authors of the commentary argue campaigns which emphasize variations on messages such as, “97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening,” hold several serious drawbacks.

    Firstly, the difficulties involved in statistically quantifying consensus and what is included in the climate science literature have generated intense disagreement. The messaging strategy has also promoted confusion over whether consensus extends to various impacts such as extreme weather events. Rather than ending conflict over the reality of human-caused climate change, these efforts have fueled further debate.
    Secondly, the studies evaluating the impact of consensus messaging on public attitudes have been published by a relatively small group of affiliated researchers and challenged by other social scientists, resulting in an uncertain evidence-base around which to invest funding on behalf of expensive communication campaigns.
    Thirdly, past scholarship suggests that acceptance of scientific consensus is not needed for the public to support solutions to environmental problems…

    Co-author, Reiner Grundmann, from the School of Sociology and Social Policy at University of Nottingham in the UK, commented: “The ’97% consensus’ has become a popular slogan for climate campaigners, but the strategy is self-defeating. There is a danger of overreach in that numbers like the 97% consensus are implicitly extended to all areas of climate science, and used to close down debate over complex topics like extreme weather events. This approach also makes the implausible assumption that publics will follow the correct policy path once given the relevant scientific information, and that acceptance of scientific consensus is needed to support specific solutions.”
    https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-07/tfg-coc071917.php

    23 Jul: Taylor&FrancisOnline: COMMENTARY: Beyond Counting Climate Consensus
    Warren Pearce, Reiner Grundmann, Mike Hulme, Sujatha Raman, Eleanor Hadley Kershaw & Judith Tsouvalis
    Abstract…
    More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role. Mobilizing expertise in policy debates calls for judgment, context and attention to diversity, rather than deferring to formal quantifications of narrowly scientific claims…
    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965

    00

  • #
    pat

    24 Jul: AFR: Phillip Coorey: Victorious Tony Abbott shifts his sights to killing the RET, clean energy target
    Mr Abbott travelled to Gladstone, Queensland, on Monday to tour an aluminium smelter, advocate the construction of a coal fired power station and rail against energy policy which seeks to reduce carbon emissions.
    In the clearest signal yet he plans to blow up attempts by the government to adopt a clean energy target, as recommended by chief scientist Alan Finkel and supported by business and industry, Mr Abbott said policy must focus on providing power, not curbing emissions.
    “We’ve been going in the wrong direction for far too long, for the best part of a decade,” he told radio 2GB, a reference to the RET.

    He said Australia needs “need a jobs first power policy, not a policy that obsesses about reducing emissions”…
    But in an appeal to fellow conservatives who are sceptical about climate change, Mr Abbott said the nation “doesn’t need any more subsidised, intermittent power” and “we need a new coal-fired power station”.
    He claimed the situation this summer looked “perilous”, something earlier denied by the Australian Energy Market Operator…ETC
    http://www.afr.com/news/politics/victorious-tony-abbott-shifts-his-sights-to-killing-the-ret-clean-energy-target-20170723-gxh6a9

    30

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks Pat,
      That’s great news. I thought he’d given up on any public statement. But I hope he can produce a convincing message.
      Unfortunately the link is behind a paywall to me.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      10

  • #
    pat

    lengthy, read all. India backing off Paris?
    (1 crore rupees equals US$148,237? would someone check the figure Rs 56,700 crore, please)

    24 Jul: Scroll.India: India diverts Rs 56,700 crore from the fight against climate change to Goods and Service Tax regime
    Unused money in the National Clean Energy and Environment Fund have been diverted to compensate states for loss of tax revenue.
    by Kumar Sambhav Shrivastava
    India’s biggest domestic source of public funds to push renewable energy and protect the environment has become a victim of the Goods and Services Tax.

    In April, the government included the tax collected on production and import of coal to the GST schedule. With this move, the tax, which was funelled into the National Clean Energy and Environment Fund, was diverted to compensating the states that stand to lose revenue as a consequence of the GST.
    Now, the finance ministry’s responses to Scroll.in’s queries under the Right To Information Act, 2005, show even the unspent funds lying in the National Clean Energy and Environment Fund have been diverted.
    The unspent funds amount to Rs 56,700 crore…

    A steady stream of funds for clean energy, amounting to more than Rs 1 lakh crore over next five years will also dry up from next financial year. Indeed, from next year, India will not have the National Clean Energy and Environment Fund.

    “Basically, the fund is now dead wood,” a senior finance ministry official said. “The concept of non-lapsable pool is a misnomer in the Indian system. We have several such funds with dedicated purposes. But there are so many demands on our limited resources and a reassessment of priorities is done each year. The money collected so far in the clean energy fund and remaining unspent will go towards compensating states.” The official did not want to be identified…

    The resulting hit to the Indian impetus towards a greener economy will be huge. Apart from the Rs 56,700 crore already collected but not spent, Rs 29,700 crore was expected to be collected through cess in 2017-’18. That is more than double the budget of the Narendra Modi government’s flagship Skill India Mission…

    When the BJP-led government took office, it raised the cess from Rs 50 to Rs 100 per tonne in 2014. The rate was doubled to Rs 200 per tonne in 2015 and to Rs 400 in 2016. This won the government praise from environmentalists globally and helped it claim pole position at the Paris climate change negotiations as well. Naturally, the clean energy fund kitty swelled rapidly with the eight-fold increase in cess over just three years. By the beginning of this financial year, the government had collected a humongous Rs 56,740 crore. That’s more than 20 times the current budget of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change…

    With the US reneging on its commitments, the clean energy fund would have come in handy when India starts to meet its targets under the agreement in 2020. But in the implementation of the GST, the country’s fight against climate change has become collateral damage.
    https://scroll.in/article/844528/india-diverts-rs-56700-crore-from-the-fight-against-climate-change-to-goods-and-service-tax-regime

    00

    • #
      pat

      more background info.
      first, it’s worth noting scroll.in is left-of-center & has big, continuing funding from eBay’s Pierre Omidyar:

      2014: Digital daily Scroll.in gets funding from Omidyar, Media Development Investment Fund
      By Sainul K Abudheen
      US-based digital publishing company Scroll Media Inc, which runs a digital daily under the name Scroll.in, has raised an undisclosed amount in funding from Omidyar Network, the philanthropic VC firm set up by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, with participation from New York-based Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF). Scroll.in is an independent news, information, and entertainment venture.
      “We cannot disclose the deal size,” Samir Patil, CEO of Scroll, told VCCircle…
      Scroll was founded in 2012 by Samir Patil (CEO), an alumnus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology…
      In the past, he had also worked at McKinsey as associate principal.
      Mumbai-based Khaitan & Co advised Omidyar on the latest deal…
      https://www.vccircle.com/digital-daily-scrollin-gets-funding-omidyar-media-development-investment/

      that said, there’s lots more background info on the site re the clean energy fund, which is a huge story, given India is seen as the renewable energy prize:

      4 Jul: Scroll.India: How the Ganga and GST are hijacking India’s clean energy fund
      The National Clean Energy and Environment Fund is being used to finance the government’s pet projects even as mining-hit Adivasi communities are neglected.
      by Aruna Chandrasekhar
      To say India has an unhealthy appetite for coal would be an understatement. Last year, coal production in India peaked at over 600 million tonnes and imports brought in an additional 200 million tonnes to the country’s shores. But even as the Indian government lobbies for climate finance and justice internationally, its own schemes of incentivising research and innovation in clean energy are threatened by its policies.

      One such scheme is the Clean Energy Cess on Coal (renamed the Clean Environment Cess in 2017) and the National Clean Energy Fund (renamed the National Clean Energy and Environment Fund in 2017) born out of it…

      With these hikes and coal production at an all-time high, the fund has grown to become a staggeringly well-funded corpus. However, the utilisation of funds towards clean energy initiatives remains abysmal. Of Rs 54,336 crore collected as part of the coal cess since its inception in 2010, less than half has been transferred to the National Clean Energy Fund so far, while only 16% has gone towards financing any projects…

      Questions regarding this large quantum of unspent funds went unanswered by the Ministry of Finance’s Department of Expenditure at the time of publishing.
      These questions have also been raised by the Comptroller And Accountant General of India in successive financial audits of the Union Government’s accounts in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. It found that “no perceptible action has been taken.” …
      So where is this money going and to what end?…
      https://scroll.in/article/841910/how-the-ganga-and-gst-are-hijacking-indias-clean-energy-fund

      10

  • #
    Will Janoschka

    Reed,
    You start off with fallacies (sci-en-terrific junk)

    “Premise 1: CO2 traps heat and is largely responsible for the earth’s climate.”

    Has anyone anywhere demonstrated any heat trapping (power absorption) of even a single molecule of atmospheric CO2, or the method of such absorption?

    “Premise 2: We have greatly increased the CO2 in the atmosphere.”

    What you mean ‘we’ white man? Atmospheric CO2 always increases with increasing ocean temperature no-matter the source of such temperature increase.

    “Premise 3: When you increase something that traps heat, you trap more heat.”:

    Falsehood based on fantasy!

    Conclusion: Therefore, we are causing the climate to change.

    See my reply to premise 2.

    You exemplify but the “carnival talk” SCAM! “It walks it talks it crawls on its belly like a reptile.”

    Absolute ridicule is required, not definition of words, as Lionel suggests nor further discussion with SCAMMERS!

    04

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      Not even one of the academic climate clowns can show any evidence of education or experience in the field of electromagnetic field theory, or the generation and propagation of thermal EMR in any media except vacuum. More ridicule!

      15