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

NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases

 ZeroHedge asks:  What the hell are NASA Hiding?

The NASA site used to have a page titled “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?“. In 2010 this page said that the Sun is the major driver of Earth’s climate, that it controls all the major aspects, and we may be on the cusp of an ice age. Furthermore NASA Science said things like clouds, albedo and aerosol behaviour can have more powerful cooling effects that outdo the warming effect of CO2.

Today that page says Share the science and stay connected,  and “Access Denied”.

 

 Whatever you do, don’t tell the world that NASA says the Sun is more important than CO2.

The Wayback Machine captured the same NASA “Primary Climate Forcings” link in 2010.

NASA, Climate forcings, Sun, original page image.

Click to enlarge.

 

Here’s the text from the original page (my bolding).

NASA 2010: What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?

The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth’s climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world’s climate system and makes possible life as we know it.

Earth’s orbit around and orientation toward the Sun change over spans of many thousands of years. In turn, these changing “orbital mechanics” force climate to change because they change where and how much sunlight reaches Earth. (Please see for more details.) Thus, changing Earth’s exposure to sunlight forces climate to change. According to scientists’ models of Earth’s orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling — perhaps the next ice age.

However, a new force for change has arisen: humans. After the industrial revolution, humans introduced increasing amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and changed the surface of the landscape to an extent great enough to influence climate on local and global scales. By driving up carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere (by about 30 percent), humans have increased its capacity to trap warmth near the surface.

Other important forcings of Earth’s climate system include such “variables” as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth’s environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. For example, increased cloudiness would give more shade to the surface while reflecting more sunlight back to space. Increased airborne particles (or “aerosols”) would scatter and reflect more sunlight back to space, thereby cooling the surface. Major volcanic eruptions (such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in 1992) can inject so much aerosol into the atmosphere that, as it spreads around the globe, it reduces sunlight and cause Earth to cool. Likewise, increasing the surface area of highly reflective surface types, such as ice sheets, reflects greater amounts of sunlight back to space and causes Earth to cool.

Scientists are using NASA satellites to monitor all of the aforementioned forcings of Earth’s climate system to better understand how they are changing over time, and how any changes in them affect climate.

According to the Wayback Machine the text disappeared in early 2011 under Obama’s reign. Some people say Trump hides climate science, but Trump deletes propaganda, while Obama denies the Sun.

The Sun drives the climate on Earth

There are many mechanisms that the Sun can change the temperature of Earth (and not just through solar radiation). As we’ve discussed here many times, not only is there Henrik Svensmark’s theory about the solar magnetic effect on clouds through cosmic radiation, there are also potential effects (backed by observations) that magnetic fluxes, solar particle flow (the solar wind) and changes in the spectrum of of the UV and infra red may affect all kinds of climate markers on Earth. That includes atmospheric pressure, jet streams (Rossby waves), clouds, floods in Europe, rain in Asia, groundwater recharge in China, lightning over Japan, and wind and rain over Chile. The pervasive effect of the Sun even correlates surreally with human fertility, lifespan and jellyfish plagues.

h/t Frank W and Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge. Someone picked this up in tweet, but no one seems to know who. Thanks to them too.

I agree with NASA 2010. So call me a denier.

_______________________________

UPDATE: I’m happy to say the Tweeter was likely @JWSpry – Jamie Spry — who wrote it up on the Climatism blog last year. Doing phrase searches I also discovered Randall Hoven wrote an article on American Thinker way back in Dec 2010 pointing at the page. A month later the page was gone. NASA reading skeptics?

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (150 votes cast)
NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases, 9.8 out of 10 based on 150 ratings

541 comments to NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases

  • #

    Jo, this is a major “find”! Great work.

    803

    • #
      the adorable Gee Ayeeee

      I love how you got so many likes from people who didn’t notice “find”

      270

    • #
      ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

      I’d like to see them “disappear” all those science books (many from NASA or in concert with) that i read about the Solar System back in the 70′s. Don’t need Wayback Machine for those. How did they possibly think they could hide it this day and age..?

      Wow.

      341

      • #
        ivan

        How did they possibly think they could hide it this day and age..?

        It would appear they think people no longer read books but rely on the internet, after all we are dealing with the facebook generation and all things ‘social media’ related.

        170

        • #
          Dennis

          Probably their get out of gaol excuse that we did tell the truth, you just had to search harder.

          60

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Check out how Occasional Cortex ( a leftist youngster ) deals with criticism via what appears to be a tantrum ….

            https://explainlife.com/fiasco-ocasio-cortez-erupts-after-fact-check-doesnt-want-to-be-held-to-same-standards-as-trump-11919/?utm_source=Explainlife.com%20Newsletter&utm_medium=email

            “Self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist/New York freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lost it after she was fact-checked by numerous left-leaning news outlets and so called “fact-checkers.”

            The Daily Wire reports: The former bartender claimed on CBS News’ “60 Minutes” on Sunday that people were too focused on being “factually” accurate, and not focused enough on being morally right, which drew widespread criticism.

            That criticism carried over into news reports today from left-leaning publications, including The Washington Post and CNN, which published reports titled, “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s very bad defense of her falsehoods” and “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s very slippery slope on facts,” respectively.

            Ocasio-Cortez even received harsh criticism from far-left co-host of “The View,” Whoopi Goldberg, who advised the young politician to “sit still for a minute and learn the job .. .before you start pooping on people and what they’ve done….”

            70

      • #
        MudCrab

        Its called Wikipedia.

        I believe the terms used as ‘This page contains links to dubious sources’ which in Newspeak translates to ‘Someone please hurry up and edit this!!!’

        Unfortunately you can disappear a lot of things using the power of ebooks. Just wait long enough and Wilson Smith will be deranged Alt Right extremist trying to spoil the utopia. If you can then always go for the hard copy editions. You might be shocked by what you sometimes read because cultures evolve and change, but at least you know these cultural mindsets did exist. Denying the past gets you nowhere. Noddy had Gollywogs. Get over it.

        70

      • #
        Alfred (Cairns)

        Don’t need Wayback Machine for those. How did they possibly think they could hide it this day and age..?

        Try and find an original copy first edition of Richard Branson’s autobiography. I glanced through it many years ago at the departure lounge of Gatwick Airport. It had so many lies – he was in my class at Stowe for a while – and I was amazed by some of his claims about what it was supposed to be like at our school.

        Lots of people pay their PR goons to steal these things from libraries and to buy up any old stock.

        30

      • #
        sophocles

        How did they possibly think they could hide it this day and age..?

        Maybe this way, so it could be easier than you or I think …

        [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruj77zbqqQc : ["Culling the Population"; David Icke ]

        10

    • #
      Komrade Kuma

      Can you just imagine the relentess pressure on the people at NASA who wrote or contributed to the orgininal (2010) page and who might have been reluctant to scrap it? Everything from no more conferences for you to your fired.

      200

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        er….maybe those people wrote the new updated pages, where it says,

        “Forcings: The initial drivers of climate.

        1. Solar Irradiance. Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth.

        2…” etc…

        What I am haviong fun imagining, is just how completely bonkers “Komrade Kuma” is, to have believed this completely ridiculous blog-post.

        18

    • #
      Geoff

      Now that we know its all about the BIG YELLOW BALL not the BoM maybe its time to look at the consequences of a weakening magnetic field. Unlike global warming $ diversions a pole reversal may actually affect the climate.

      230

      • #
        Geoff

        Then there is the question about just what China is up to on the far side of the moon. Is Plan B being thought out? Normally I would think this is just paranoia but maybe not. If fact, I hope its just that, fear without fact. The Moon has zip mag field but what happens to Earth’s magnetic field if the moon’s trajectory or centre of gravity is suddenly changed by a sudden change in the centre of mass? If the moon gets a push towards the Earth will it start spinning? If so will this start up a lunar mag field?

        81

        • #
          ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

          The Moon’s already tidally locked and I doubt you could change its CG. The only way you could get it spinning is take it further away and start it spinning there. Please don’t do that, we’ll likely end up with some real AGW then as the Moon keeps our precession steady..

          160

          • #
            Geoff

            If we are facing an ELE catastrophe then BIG guv thinks up stuff. Gravity is a very weak force, it would take very little force to centre the Moon’s centre of gravity for a few seconds. As its velocity would be unchanged the force would cause it to spin without much change to its orbit. Gravity would slow this spin down but it would take many years to relock. A spinning moon may increase our net mag field. What is China doing on the far side of our moon?

            70

            • #
              ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

              What is China doing on the far side of our moon?

              Hopefully setting up a pile of solar panels, beaming the energy back to Earth and selling it at a premium to those that have the “I’m a greentard” box ticked on their census.

              In reality, we shouldn’t be asking “what are they doing” but “what are they accomplishing”. The answer is likely 3/5ths of f-all, buckleys and none.

              71

              • #
                Geoff

                I do hope so! Better that BIG guv does zip. Thats the best we can hope. Its when they do stuff that it all goes wrong.

                40

              • #
                el gordo

                They are on the far side of the moon to see the alien structures up close.

                10

              • #
                Geoff

                They will setting up their magnetic field measurement network. They will need accurate measurements to figure out where to put the explosive devices. About 20 MT will do it.

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                I heard over the blogosphere that the Americans had already nuked the offending structures.

                10

    • #

      I disagree.

      It’s good news that NASA
      blocked the 2010 page,
      because it was wrong.

      Of course NASA is just as wrong today.

      The truth is that no one knows
      exactly what causes “climate change”,
      other than a list of the usual suspects.

      The junk science is that many people falsely claim
      they know the cause, and falsely claim
      they can predict the future average temperature.

      For very long-term climate change,
      such as the 100,000 year cycles,
      there is a good theory involving
      planetary geometry.

      For the unimportant climate changes,
      minor variations of 1 or 2 degrees C.,
      over 100 to 200 years, the causes are
      a mystery.

      The popular theory used for climate models
      sort of works for back tests of the warming from
      1975 to 2003, because the models were designed
      to extrapolate that rate of warming into the future,
      as if that warming rate was permanent.

      But the warming stopped after 2003,
      per weather satellite data,
      or almost stopped, if you prefer the
      less accurate surface data.

      When backtested, the climate models
      “predicted” only ONE-THIRD of the warming
      that actually happened from 1916 to 1945.

      For the entire 1940 to 2018 period when
      lots of man made CO2 was added to the air,
      the climate models, on average, predicted
      TRIPLE the warming that actually happened.

      “Models” that “predict” ONE-THIRD, or TRIPLE,
      the actual warming, are not models of any
      climate change process on this planet !

      They are failed prototypes, obviously
      disproving the popular (wrong) theory
      that CO2 is the climate controller, with a
      TCS of +3.0 degrees C. per CO2 doubling.

      In real science, wrong predictions would
      falsify the climate models.

      In junk science, wrong predictions
      are made year after year,
      for over 30 years so far.

      And predictions of dangerous global warming
      began in the 1960s, so have been wrong
      for almost 60 years so far.

      The not very bright leftists
      just keep believing in a coming
      climate change crisis,
      reminding me of
      children who love to hear
      scary bedtime fairy tales
      again and again.

      Leftists do not seem to enjoy life
      unless they believe in
      a coming catastrophe
      that only they can prevent.

      A fake catastrophe, such as the
      fictional coming climate change crisis,
      is just as good as a real crisis, for them !

      My climate science blog:
      http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

      91

  • #

    Have you checked that they arn’t in the process of updating all their content? The current NASA sites look a lot different to that of 2010. Did you wayback to 2018?

    532

    • #

      and just to be clear the exact phrase “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?“ appears numerous times across NASA.gov and many of those articles replicate the information in both tone and balance as the wayback version.

      try googling (include quotes):

      “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?” site:nasa.gov

      529

      • #

        Gee Aye, I searched google with the exact phrase to see if NASA had moved the page. Apparently not. Then I looked for the original page and discovered it on the Wayback machine in 2010, then I trawled through each archived copy and discovered it was taken down between Nov 2010 and Feb 2011 (and said as much in the post, did you read my post?)

        434

        • #
          Curious George

          Oh, Obama at work.

          171

        • #

          Gee, did you follow your own “link” suggestion? The original NASA page was considered so important that it was probably linked from many other pages. Eg: See this page on GRACE, note the phrase appears in dot point form at the end.

          See Landsat 8.

          And in their textbooks there are repeat groups of Earth Science Questions. These appear to be central and standard repeated points. They were probably used in NASA grant requests and in educational material.

          322

          • #

            Here are some things you need for a convincing arguement.

            1. That this particular page was singled out. It looks to me that the whole site has been reconfigured and that all of the education pages have been reformatted and moved. The old links give error messages across the board.

            2. Show that this alteration is unusual and biased in the context of the broader internet. I’ve done a wayback on australian government, several research institutes and several independent lobby groups. It is rare to find an intact page with the same content and URL on any of them. None have the same look.

            3. Show that the information no longer exists in any form. Unfortunatley this one you can’t show. I’ve found every bit of information that the article discusses multiple times. All you’ve uncovered is that it is not packaged together with those precise words any more.

            318

            • #
              AndyG55

              1. This particular page has VANISHED, you are totally INCAPABLE of giving a direct link to it.

              2. Changing the goalposts.. roflmao

              3. You are unable to give a link to show this page exists.. PERIOD.

              Stop digging deeper and deeper into your own BS, geegee.

              143

            • #
              AndyG55

              “I’ve found every bit of information that the article discusses multiple times”

              Yet not one link. Funny about that

              We are all STILL waiting. ! :-)

              Keep running, little leaf.

              133

            • #

              Gee Aye, this bias by NASA really bothers you doesn’t it? So did you try your own suggestion? I did. The whole NASA site has been wiped clean of all the key points I raised in the headline.

              Google: “a new period of cooling” site:nasa.gov
              Returns: “no result found.”

              Likewise: “exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases ”

              Over to you. Go ahead and find this information, these memes anywhere on the NASA site now — apart from historic documents written in the 20th Century.

              Try the phrase “The Sun is the primary forcing” — the only result is a NASA History link.

              Gee, if you have found this information “all over their site” don’t hold back– Post those links.

              222

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                This blog does not appear to provide any useful information.

                NASA gives the appropriate information:

                “Forcings: The initial drivers of climate.

                1. Solar Irradiance. Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth.

                2. …”etc…

                https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

                Your suggestion that we “Google: “a new period of cooling”” makes no sense whatsoever – why would we google that?
                Your 15-year-long predicton of “global cooling”
                hasn’t happened
                isn’t happening
                and seems extremely unlikely to start to happen seeing as there is zero actual science or evidence to support it.

                Seeing as there is no relevant science underpinning your “global cooling” nonsense, of course NASA doesn’t have it on their website. Duh.

                311

              • #
                Joe

                CraigT, I am not sure that you are following the gist of the post. It has nothing to do with Jo’s “15-year-long prediction of “global cooling””, it is about NASA’s view. Jo points out that NASA’s 2010 view was that the sun was the primary driver of the earth’s climate system and that the following year, that view was no longer expressed anywhere on NASA’s site. The suggestion to look for “a new period of cooling” was simply because that phrase was used in the original article and GA had suggested that the original pages had merely been reorganized elsewhere on the NASA site. If it is as you suggest that NASA suddenly had a climatic epiphany in 2011 and the same authors switched to an opposite view, one would expect to at least see some mention of what changed their view so drastically. Would you not expect the same?

                91

              • #
                AndyG55

                Ct, like a naughty little child butting into a conversation he is clueless about…

                … and making a total d*** of himself, as usual.

                So funny. :-)

                The original page has been removed, and much less correct snippets have been put in to support their large AGW bias.

                Yes, the globe is starting to cool, unfortunately, and for good scientific reasons.

                Do at least try to keep up with the science.

                71

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                Ha ha, very funny Andy.
                NASA now tells us that the Sun is the primary driver:

                “Forcings: The initial drivers of climate.

                1. Solar Irradiance. Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth.

                2. …”etc…

                https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

                So this is “less correct” than telling us that the Sun is the primary driver?
                Must be scary being in your head.

                47

              • #

                Craig, just keep repeating the mantra that the sun is only a ball of light and that magnetism, solar wind and rapid shifts in the UV output don’t exist.

                People once thought NASA might tell them the whole truth.

                That’s what US citizens pay them for. Instead, NASA filters it’s pages to hide the more important bigger truths that the Sun’s effect vastly outdoes any minor contribution by CO2.

                “Heat” is not the same as “climate”. Doh.

                62

              • #
                AndyG55

                At least rinse before you repeat ct. Its still empty of fact.

                Now where is that link to the “disappeared” page.

                Or you could try presenting some empirical evidence for warming by increased atmospheric CO2. So far TOTALLY lacking

                CO2 does not re-radiate below 11km, there is no evidence it causes any warming.

                The page is erroneous non-science.

                And yes The Sun IS THE PRIMARY FORCING of Earth’s Climate system, as stated on the “disappeared” page

                It is the main source of energy by a long shot.

                CO2 can never be a source of energy and there is zero evidence it drives anything.

                In short, The Sun drives almost EVERY aspect of our world’s climate system and makes life possible as we know it.

                The other two things that make life possible are H2O and CO2

                40

          • #
            Lance

            FYI, Randall Hoven published a similar “reveal” 19 Jan 2011 regarding the exact same link at NASA.

            https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/nasas_muzzle_hustle.html

            Companion article 14 Dec 2010

            https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/climate_change_its_the_sun_stu.html

            Cheers.

            40

            • #

              Thanks Lance but the NASA page, linked in the article, that had some information is also gone. I suggest that Gavin Schmidt has cleaned up all references to the sun having an influence.

              60

              • #
                Lance

                Apparently so.

                My intent was to show that there has been an ongoing effort to obfuscate some rather important things.

                Ms. Gavin isn’t the first to do such. Certainly not the last.

                Cheers. :)

                11

              • #

                Lance, you are right thanks, I found those links myself after I posted, and added them to an update right at the bottom of the post. Your comment tells me that the update is not as obvious as I intended.

                The pages disappeared within weeks of skeptics starting to quote them.

                Yes, this history is interesting and the coincident timing suggests that NASA read skeptics blogs (even more thoroughly than skeptics). I didn’t notice this story in 2011.

                31

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                It would be interesting to have an insider’s view of Gavins bank account and graph it over time.

                Would account jumps lag or precede Gavins various public inputs to the debate.

                Very little in this world happens by chance, and sadly in 2019 that even applies to kindergarten.

                KK

                00

        • #
          Nick Werner

          Jo, my brief search suggests that maybe the earlier ‘bread and butter’ climate web page has been replaced with newer content that incorporates more unsettling phrases like “present a risk of runaway warming”. See this link:
          https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/

          The caption accompanying an image of the sun includes, “Solar radiation is a primary driver of climate”. So to your point… it looks like NASA has demoted the sun from *the* primary driver to *a* primary driver. So I guess whether the sun contributes more heat to earth’s climate than CO2 or soot is no longer obvious to NASA.

          This does little to help figure out when the earlier page was removed, but within the meta-data for the new page I see: content=’2019-02-05 12:56:08 -0800′; a couple weeks ago.

          50

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Apparently, you can’t read.

            The NASA website says, (and I will type this super-slow for you so you can follow):

            “Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth.”

            38

            • #
              Nick Werner

              Nope, I’m afraid that’s still too fast for me.

              To maximize the value we can get from your thoughts, I suggest that you type them so super-slow that the thread is closed to commenting before you click on ‘Post Comment’.

              71

            • #
              el gordo

              While you’re there CT, according to Law Dome there was no CO2 increase during the MWP or RWP, what do you make of it?

              71

          • #

            Thanks for the newer NASA link Nick. So NASA has carefully scripted a true-but-not-the-whole-truth page as a substitute.

            They no longer mention that an ice age will come.
            They no longer point out that clouds, particles and aerosols could be more powerful than the effect of CO2. (Except obliquely by inference in their paragraph on clouds).
            They limit all mention of the sun merely to total solar irradiance.

            What are the odds that NASA isn’t aware that solar weather could affect our weather? Eg Solar Wind, Magnetic fluxes, UV / IR shifts. NASA would be the ideal place to test those, but even NASA would rather not speak the politically awkward truth because:
            a/ fear of funding cuts? (CO2 gravy train > Solar weather gravy train?)
            b/ particular appointed “administrators” Eg Charles Bolden, by Obama 2009.
            c/ Brave smart guys got sacked and the B-grade obedient apostles are “doing their best” which isn’t very good.

            81

            • #

              breaking news… we are in an ice age

              12

              • #
                AndyG55

                We are at a cold point in an interglacial.

                Right near the very bottom of the temperature range for the last several interglacials.

                22

              • #

                facinating.

                Anyway, if NASA used to

                mention that an ice age will come

                I’m glad they have updated their education material to remove that nonsense and note the fact that we are in the ice age called the Quaternary.

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                sorry you haven’t a clue, geegee

                They had to hide the truth or the AGW scam fails.

                Do you have any links to that “disappeared” page yet, or are you finally ADMITTING you were wrong?

                Or links to sea creatures damaged by a mythical change in ocean pH from 8.2 to 8.1.? or are you finally going to ADMIT you were wrong.

                21

              • #

                8.2 to 8.1, that is very specific? I thought you were using an example to indicate a small change. Who claimed this specific thing just so I know there is at least some motivation for me finding a reference?

                11

              • #
                AndyG55

                roflmao.. That is the approximate claimed change since pre-industrial time, geegee

                Do at least TRY to keep up what the FAKE pH scare is all about !!

                11

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                True.

                But like everiting you say it’s conditional.

                Over the last two million years the obvious conclusion is that we are in an interglacial.

                To make your comment correct, the viewpoint has to be widened to, lets say, 50 Million years.

                KK

                00

            • #

              I can only suspect that NASA is doing the usual shill thing by diverting attention from the true nature of our present geological period without actually denying. “Ice age” is a loose term which might be applied to the whole of the Quaternary or it might be applied to those colder times between interglacials. People who like saying “ice age” without defining what they mean by it will also like saying “global warming” and “climate change”: they get an effect without being tied to any real sense.

              While the emergence from the last heavy glaciation was at times rapid (and also that from the depths of the Younger Dryas) NASA would have to be aware that one is not plunged suddenly back into glaciation. Global cooling tends to be slower than global warming. They would also have to be aware of the two best obscured facts about “global warming”: firstly, our present interglacial has not reached the peaks of warmth achieved by the preceding one; secondly, now is absolutely not the warmest part of our present interglacial.

              The end of the Holocene (ie a definite sharper decline despite warming blips) in a few millennia (but maybe sooner) is a very big prob. Humans have been tried through glaciations, complex civilisations have not been. Gobekli Tepe may have served a purpose in chilly times, but the earliest built towns like Jericho belong to our times, our warm epoch. If there were cities before the start of our epoch, nobody’s found them. Contrary to the way we have been conditioned to think about “ancient” peoples, we belong with those early builders of Catalhoyuk, Damascus, Byblos and Jericho and they belong with us. They were only our epoch’s morning, we’re only its afternoon.

              None of this is controversial, just unwelcome. Which is why the climatariat is always prompting us to look at climate either as a very recent effect or a very ancient one. If one stands too close or too far from a picture one misses the picture. By looking at the last few million years, the period which concerns humans, and at the last few thousand years, the epoch which concerns homo sapiens, we see the picture.

              And we must not be looking at that naughty picture. Bad skeps!

              30

            • #
              Nick Werner

              Where the earlier web page reads like something written in-house, the current version comes across as having been provided to NASA by outside experts from somewhere like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club. A few things raised my eyebrows, for example:

              - Presenting that tipping points are a category distinct from feedbacks… to my mind in physical sciences when there is nothing to dampen an unstable positive feedback, the outcome isn’t in doubt. The question is whether there is enough energy available to make the wheels come off, and if there is, how long it will take until they do. Tipping points are more of a soft and social science concept that facilitate speculating about positive feedbacks without dragging any serious math into the discussion to figure out whether any critical thresholds are likely to be crossed.

              - “The ice-albedo feedback is a very strong positive feedback.”… two issues here.
              One, the polar ice forms in winter where the sun spends all or most of its time below the horizon. How does NASA calculate the ice-albedo feedback of darkness? Two, icy areas are able to take on the temperature of the surrounding air while open water remains near or above freezing. Using S-B’s power of four and supposing that water temperature is 272K and nearby ice is 262K, I calculate that the open water will be radiating 16% more energy towards space than the nearby ice. That seems more like a negative feedback.

              10

    • #

      OK… on reflection I think this is a worse blog post than when I responded above.

      You have not established when it was taken down. Was is 9 years ago for instance? The NASA information and education pages have undergone large structural and aethetic changes since 2010. This would include catagorising and arranging educational information into different spaces and categories.

      Before you posting did you check for alternative explanations? Do you agree that the content from 2010 is readily available in multiple locations on nasa.gov as I demonstrated above?

      647

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        Gee Aye, didnt you read that it was published by Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge 15/02/2019!!! Jo just got it from Zero Hedge.

        320

      • #
        Peter C

        Do you agree that the content from 2010 is readily available in multiple locations on nasa.gov as I demonstrated above?

        How did you demonstrate that? I must have missed it.

        240

        • #
          the adorable Gee Ayeeee

          do the google and then get back to me

          229

          • #
            Peter C

            Are you expecting me to do your work for you?

            241

            • #
              Gee aye

              Your comment makes no sense. Are you saying that I claim to know all?

              224

              • #
                Peter C

                Your comment makes no sense. Are you saying that I claim to know all?

                Please explain?

                150

              • #
                Gee aye

                Apologies posted under the wrong comment.

                Heaps of links here. I won’t post them all as it would be spam

                try googling (include quotes):

                “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?” site:nasa.gov

                423

              • #
                Peter C

                . I won’t post them all as it would be spam

                Well how about posting just ONE. That is not a lot to ask.

                160

              • #
                AndyG55

                Still no link, geegee

                EMPTY !!! a dried husk of a leaf, zero substance.

                184

              • #
                MudCrab

                I did your little “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?” site:nasa.gov search experiment.

                You quickly get into pdf land with links to 200 page plus reports. While so are no doubt interesting (or at least the one I did a quick Ctrl F though seemed to be) I found no links to any webpages remotely similar to the one where ‘the sun is the primary…’ phrase or variations there of were used as the opening argument.

                The impression given here from this little search engine experiment is that Jo’s claims that the original post declaring It’s The Sun, Stupid, has been deep sixed without replacement is very believable and that NASA no longer publically supports the concept.

                Your claim by comparison that the site has simply been moved and we are simply not searching correctly I have found much harder to support.

                Summary?

                Jo is Right. Gee aye is Misled.

                73

              • #
                TedM

                “Are you saying that I claim to know all?”

                No but you said your minders did.

                20

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                Maybe you need to learn to use Google a bit better?

                Here is what it throws up for me when I try googling for NASA’s explanation of the orle of the Sun:
                https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/solar-system/sun/in-depth/
                “The connection and interactions between the Sun and Earth drive the seasons, ocean currents, weather, climate, radiation belts and auroras. ”

                https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/
                No. The Sun can influence the Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.

                One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of the Sun’s energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites and what they tell us is that there has been no upward trend in the amount of the Sun’s energy reaching Earth.

                A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface all the way up to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a build-up of heat-trapping gases near the surface of the Earth, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

                Good stuff from NASA.

                25

              • #
                el gordo

                Why the plateau in temperatures for close on two decades?

                Even with the assistance of three strong El Nino, its still as flat as a tack.

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                ” but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over the past few decades. ”
                Another load of non-science from CT

                Do you have any empirical evidence that it is anything BUT the sun?

                There is absolutely no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 has anything any affect whatsoever on temperature or climate.

                The warming over the last 40 years has come from one main El Nino event around 1998, and one El nino transient in 2015, 2016

                Apart from that there has been NO WARMING

                No warming from 1980-1997

                No warming from 2001-2015.

                There is absolutely no signature of ANY human influence whatsoever,

                (except of course in the fabricated surface temperature non-data.)

                51

              • #
                AndyG55

                There are NO “heat-trapping” gases except H2O

                You have been sold a propaganda pup, ct..

                and gullibly swallowed it hook, lie and non-thinker

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                Your “smoking gun” is, as always, firing blanks !

                41

              • #

                Craig Thomas: Thanks for those links. Yet again, NASA’s proof that the sun can’t cause the recent warming is solely based on the TSI — the measure of total energy.

                So is NASA now stupid about solar weather, or just being politically obedient?

                Does NASA really think the Sun is just a ball of light, or are there still smart guys there who know that a simple figure like Total solar irradiance hides all the changes in that irradiance — swinging from more IR to more UV? Maybe others even remember the sun has an enormous magnetic field shielding Earth which is changing dramatically in the last two cycles. Or solar activity peaked as Earth warmed or just before it? Perhaps some NASA staff still remember the idea of lags, and solar wind?

                71

      • #
        AndyG55

        Geegee, I think your post is YOUR worse blog post ever..

        … and this is saying something !!!!!

        It is all just bluster trying to hide and distract from the facts..

        … as are most of your posts.

        All these places you say it can be found.. but not one link ??? :-)

        284

        • #
          the adorable Gee Ayeeee

          I provided a perfectly clear avenue to links

          129

          • #
            AndyG55

            no links, geegee.

            204

            • #
              Gee aye

              I’m sure that any skeptic would have read this article and done the following

              try googling (include quotes):

              “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?” site:nasa.gov

              323

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Forcing.

                A political science term.

                What units does it have?

                160

              • #
                Gee aye

                Ask jo. It is her headline


                [Or, Read my post -- it's the NASA Headline. Really GA, you are having a terrible day. - J]

                426

              • #
                AndyG55

                STILL no link geegee.

                Having trouble finding them, I take it.

                184

              • #
                Gee aye

                This might upset you but I actually addressed my google comment to jo and could not give an f if you can’t be bothered following it. I was directing my critique to her. If you don’t want to background your media reading that’s your issue.

                426

              • #
                AndyG55

                [snip -- too much OK?]

                73

              • #
                mikewaite

                Gee Aye, I did as you said. googled with the exact quote Got back 3 pages . The exact phrase does indeed appear in all the NASA links,
                but mainly as part of a list of questions for projects,objectives in the lists of numerous national and international projects,
                and as one of the questions in NASA’s 30 + year road map.
                Only once did I see the question sort of answered in the currently available links and that was by publishing the usual type of Hansen chart of the relative forcings of CO2, aerosols, etc, dated from a Hansen paper of 2001, 18 years ago.

                120

              • #
                AndyG55

                “[snip -- too much OK?]“

                darn, snipped again, and I can’t even remember what I typed. ;-)

                That’s life on ‘the edge’ ;-)

                [I better send you an email then. OK? Remember the comments are better directed at ideas rather than individuals. -- jo]

                44

              • #

                J… I know it was a headline you were quoting. I was attributing my reason for using it to you as KK was questioning my use of the word.

                29

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Didn’t.

            40

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Considering that NASA education pages, from what I understand, were more “anaesthetic” than they were the adjective you used, it’s about time they were audited.

        KK

        161

      • #
        Komrade Kuma

        So when did the physiscs and chemmsistry of earth’s climate fundamentally shift?

        62

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Never get between a junket and its funding source….

    190

  • #
    Michael262

    Some former astronauts have come out saying the Sun is a fabrication.

    154

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    I dont totally agree with the ‘hidden’ page either. The Sun (and ALL the planets orbits) is the TOTAL driving force of the climate, probably for small unknown, un-measured effects, amount from the planet’s interior. The statements are still wrong in essence, ‘reflecting sunlight (IR we presume they mean) back into space cooling the atmosphere’ NO increasing the albedo so there is LESS heating if the IR flux is less AT the surface. Venus has only a small amount of Sun’s energy reaching the surface from the huge albedo of the clouds. BUT it is still 450C due to the gas laws.
    Not sure when that page was written, as it mentions an ‘Ice Age’ coming maybe originated from the 70s Ice-Age pre-warming scare.
    I dont like the term ‘forcings’ either, very un physical.

    150

    • #
      AndyG55

      They got the SUN part correct, then when off into science fantasy land with the CO2 garbage.

      “However, a new force has arisen….

      Must have been watching reruns of “Return of the Jedi” when they dreamt that one up. :-)

      243

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        CO2…I am your father…….( sound of wheezing….)

        120

        • #
          dinn, rob

          “primary forcings Earth” at nasa.gov returned this:
          https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/135642main_balance_trifold21.pdf
          and in midpage this: To explain Earth’s actual energy balance, we must include the influence of various forcings—Earth-system characteristics that cause the energy budget to shift away from its balanced state. In fact, it turns out that just a small percentage change in any one forcing could have a significant impact on Earth’s energy bal- ance. Furthermore, changes in any one forcing could impact the other forcings. Sometimes a change in one Earth system char- acteristic causes another characteristic of the system to change, which in turn enhances the change in the original characteris- tic—scientist’s call these feedback loops as one change “feeds” off the other [see Figure 3].

          Also, are there units in “forcing”? Here’s a source: In accordance with the basic laws of thermodynamics, as Earth absorbs energy from the sun, it must eventually emit an equal amount of energy to space. The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planet’s radiative forcing (RF). In the same way as applying a pushing force to a physical object will cause it to become unbalanced and move, a climate forcing factor will change the climate system. When forcings result in incoming energy being greater than outgoing energy, the planet will warm (positive RF). Conversely, if outgoing energy is greater than incoming energy, the planet will cool.
          Chart of Radiative Forcing from 1750-2011
          Prior to 1750, before the Industrial Revolution, Earth’s average RF remained relatively stable. To document how the atmosphere has changed since then, scientists calculate current RF levels as if it were zero in 1750. Source: IPCC AR5 WG1 Figure SPM.5. https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing

          30

          • #
            AndyG55

            A lot of energy is used up on the surface.

            Erosion, ocean movement of sand. etc etc

            54

          • #
            crakar24

            One would assume the cycle of night and day would fall into the category of forcing, on the other hand you cant tax the sun can you.

            30

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Rob

            The use of the term forcing is there to cover over stuff.

            Just look at your second paragraph.

            See if you can identify the scientific error in the sentence; as Earth absorbs energy from ,,,,,

            See the error?

            Was that really from NASA?

            Check it out.

            KK

            10

            • #
              rob dinn

              Keith:
              from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing
              Typically, radiative forcing is quantified at the tropopause or at the top of the atmosphere (often accounting for rapid adjustments in temperature) in units of watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface….

              In simple terms, radiative forcing is “…the rate of energy change per unit area of the globe as measured at the top of the atmosphere.”[5]Rockström, Johan; Steffen, Will; Noone, Kevin; Persson, Asa; Chapin, F. Stuart; Lambin, Eric F.; Lenton, Timothy F.; Scheffer, M; et al. (23 September 2009). “A safe operating space for humanity”. Nature. 461 (7263): 472–475. Bibcode:2009Natur.461..472R. doi:10.1038/461472a. PMID 19779433.
              ……………………………………………………………………..
              Feb. 2016 Dr. Happer is a physicist who has specialized in the interactions of radiation with matter, a key issue in greenhouse warming and optics. Happer, Princeton physics professor emeritus, invented the sodium laser guide star used by astronomers and the military to reduce atmospheric distortion of light and was a co-author of an early book on global warming, The Long-Term Impacts of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels (MacDonald 1981). https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/01/the-great-climate-change-debate-william-happer-v-david-karoly-part-a/
              ………………………………
              Dr. Happer stated in the Feb. 2016 debate:
              “The troposphere — the first 11 km of air — is quite different from the stratosphere. Close to the earth’s surface, much of the heat transfer is by convection of moist air and not by radiation, where more CO2 could make a direct difference. More CO2 will probably warm the troposphere and the earth’s surface. But the magnitude of the warming is very poorly known. My educated guess is that doubling CO2 concentrations will warm the surface by about 1° C and will warm the middle troposphere by about 1.2° C. These are numbers that you calculate from the direct effects of more CO2. The much higher “equilibrium climate sensitivities” quoted by the IPCC, say 3° C for doubling CO2, come from assuming that the relatively small direct temperature increase from more CO2 is greatly amplified by the changes in the properties of water vapor and clouds. There is less observational support with each passing year for this “positive feedback” on the direct warming from CO2….
              “Above the tropopause, in the stratosphere, the air no longer cools with increasing altitude. Starting at about 20 km, it begins to warm substantially, and the temperature peaks at about 0° C around 50 km altitude, where the absorption of ultraviolet solar radiation by ozone (O3) causes the maximum temperature rise. The heat from the absorbed ultraviolet light is dumped to space and to the earth below as infrared radiation emitted by greenhouse molecules, mainly CO2, but with some contribution from O3. More CO2 will cool the stratosphere, since more infrared-active molecules are available to radiate away energy….
              “Some small fraction of the 1° C warming during the past two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a greenhouse gas. In equilibrium, the temperature increase should have been ΔT=S log2 (400 ppm/280 ppm), where S is the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Without feedback, the theoretical sensitivity can be calculated to be very nearly S = 1° C, and the base-two logarithm is log2 (400/280) = 0.51. So, the feedback-free warming should have been ΔT = 0.51° C, or about half of the observed warming. The other half of the warming would have been due to natural causes, perhaps related to the recovery of the earth from the ‘Little Ice Age,’ which we will discuss a bit more below.” https://thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/william-happer-interview/

              00

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                I notice that the top reference has a Will Steffen as coauthor.

                My asking for the units of the term forcing was more of a rhetorical question because any so called forcing should be describable in terms of the basic mechanisms that are claimed to be at work.

                As to Will Steffen. I once looked up his U.S. qualifications.

                KK

                00

          • #
            Bobl

            This is Wrong, the outgoing energy must be strictly less than the incoming energy. Equal makes the earth an impossible perpetual motion machine, NASA aught to know there is no free lunch with energy. Up to 3Watts per square metre for example is absorbed in converting water and CO2 to carbohydrates and oxygen in plants, energy converted from heat to wind and waves is expended in opposing the earth’s rotation. These energies sourced from incoming solar radiation are not emitted back to space.

            Repeat after me, there are ALWAYS losses.

            60

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              That’s the one.

              Repeat after me: NASA Science, Moronic.

              Just amazing, sciency sounding verbiage.

              KK

              11

            • #
              AndyG55

              So true, bobl

              Large amounts of energy are expended on the Earth’s surface, a lot of that energy will not be radiated back out.

              22

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      Good point.

      There’s no such thing as a “forcing” in science.

      It’s a political term used by those who never bothered to learn science.

      KK

      162

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Just an excerpt:
        The radiation balance is altered by such factors as the intensity of solar energy, reflectivity of clouds or gases, absorption by various greenhouse gases or surfaces and heat emission by various materials. Any such alteration is a radiative forcing, and changes the balance.

        This is a derivation from the standard physical definition of force

        A good bedrock document is this one:

        http://danida.vnu.edu.vn/cpis/files/Papers_on_CC/CC/The%20physical%20concept%20of%20climate%20forcing.pdf

        421

        • #
          AndyG55

          “and changes the balance.”

          There is NO empirical evidence that is the case.

          The atmosphere is regulated by the gravity based thermal/pressure gradient, the tiny absorption and thermalisation of CO2 is insignificant next to the forces of convection and conduction.

          It cannot change the “balance” unless it changes the lapse rate.

          Only H2O can do that. CO2 has absolutely zero effect.

          That is why you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of producing any empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 affects temperature or climate in any way whatsoever.

          275

          • #
            • #
              ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

              Fitz, you’re deflecting the issue to something that’s been proven to be a falsehood AND avoiding the real core issue which has been proven true many times – AGW is a scam and you’re fully backing it. I’ll have your lies carved on your tombstone, where it’ll be nicely locked away until you need it. Then that will be your legacy for all to see. How embarrassment.

              263

            • #
              AndyG55

              ROFLMAO.

              You get more hilarious with every anti-science post , pfutz.

              “The role of radiative forcings and climate feedbacks on global cooling over the last millennium is quantified in the CMIP5–PMIP3 transient climate model simulations.”

              “Recent comparisons of feedbacks produced by climate models under climate change ”


              models, models, models

              MODELS ARE NOT EVIDENCE, especially not climate models.

              The atmosphere is regulated by the gravity based thermal/pressure gradient, the tiny absorption and thermalisation of CO2 is insignificant next to the forces of convection and conduction.

              It cannot change the “balance” unless it changes the lapse rate.

              Only H2O can do that. CO2 has absolutely zero effect.

              That is why you are totally incapable of producing any empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 affects temperature or climate in any way whatsoever.

              Lets see yet another pathetic attempt as avoiding the issue, hey pfutz.

              You are making a total JOKE of yourself, little boy.

              254

            • #
              AndyG55

              CO2 does NOT produce any temperature or any other change in climate indicators, therefore there can be no feedback mechanism.

              You have shown that with your abject inability to present even the tiniest real scientific evidence.

              Its a MYTH, Nothing but an assumption driven model FABRICATION and FANTASY.

              194

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                For feedback to work it requires an amplifier Eout > Ein, that is energy input or there is NO gain. Theres no feedback in passive systems.

                90

              • #
                AndyG55

                true RE.. there is no amplification system, either.

                no CO2 signal, and no amplifier.

                very difficult to get feedback.

                (ps. at another period of my life, I was an audio technician working in as a hobby in studios and with live bands in pubs etc. so I know LOTS about feedback ;-) )

                84

              • #
                Bobl

                Real universe, I have brought this up before, bodes positive feedback requires an amplifying element (a transistor). Where is the active element in the climate. Bode also requires things are broadly linear and invariant which the climate is not. And there needs to be an energy source to power it.

                Finally the climate models are scalar models (like a zero frequency DC analysis in electronics) but we know that anything non linear with delays (like climate) actually needs an AC analysis using complex number math. A sine wave for example has an average of zero but is almost never actually at zero.

                Climate models based on bode feedback are invalid

                10

            • #
              sophocles

              Try these for an explanation of how the lapse rate works:

              Really pFitz. I’m now wondering if you can actually read at all.

              Didn’t you read the papers? Didn’t you check them? Didn’t you ensure they met your criteria? Didn’t you make certain they actually did what you have claimed they did?

              No, you didn’t. You just assumed that because it has lots of math in it that it “must be fine, it has “ lapse rate in it, somewhere, so it must be fine.”

              No, I asked the wrong question: Didn’t you understand the papers?

              I now know that even if you can read, you cannot comprehend.

              Let’s choose a paper at random, say, the first one. It mentions “lapse rate” a whole three (3) times, and then as a “feedback” each time, as in “lapse rate feedback” It’s a long and abstruse discussion about a climate model. Any explanation of lapse rate and lapse rate feedback has gone missing. Absent, not there, missing. is assumed to be unnecessary: any climate modeller must know what it is and how it works.

              You obviously don’t. So you put it forward. You poor pathetic little prat. If you were a commercial representative, you would find yourself out of a job and subject to several law suits and prosecutions for misrepresentations, false pretences, deceptive practices, deceits and even malfeasance. But that all is in the finest tradition of warmists and trolls in never letting facts or the truth get in the way.

              I called you a Space Cadet, twice. Congratulations: you’ve gone for the big award, as a waste of space and time, for the third time.
              Thank you for proving it.

              If I could prosecute you for false pretences, ie: non-provision of what you claim to provide, I would. Any “explanation of how the lapse rate works” is not present nor is there any explanation of lapse rate feedback.
              Do the world a favour by following Billy Connelly’s injunction and go play the fool somewhere else. Now.

              151

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                Yes you can write software to calculate anything. Garbage in = garbage out.

                120

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                you really should change your handle . – there are 24 references to lapse rate and 20 to lapse rate feedback.

                27

              • #
                sophocles

                To give you the benefit of the doubt, I downloaded the pdf a second time, and recounted.
                There were 18 occurrences of lapse rate which included lapse rate feedback.

                I ensured I checked each occurrence … no explanations.

                My first count was on an incomplete file. However, it doesn’t matter what the count was (three or eighteen) your lack of comprehension pFitz shows.
                You counted and got more, So what?

                Did you check each occurrence to see if it was a part of an explanation of what lapse rate was about?
                Did you heck! Your kindergarten level comprehension says oh! the count is wrong which means You didn’t understand what I said:

                Any explanation of lapse rate and lapse rate feedback has gone missing. Absent, not there,

                So I will say it again:
                There is no explanation of lapse rate or lapse rate feedback at all in the sampled file.

                Apart from the count being 18 not 3, the whole rest of my post stands.

                You are a Space Cadet!

                41

          • #
            Craig Thomas

            Jo has previously said that “nobody denies the greenhouse effect”.

            Apparently, some people are actually nuts, and do deny it.

            Could Jo possibly simply delete comments that deny basic physics like some of the above nonsense does?

            26

            • #
              AndyG55

              Its just misnamed is all, ct

              … its the gravity thermal/pressure effect.

              Do you have any empirical evidence that increased atmospheric CO2 has any affect whatsoever on the climate ?

              You seem to be DENYING basic science and physics, and making up stuff that doesn’t exist…

              … probably because you don’t have a clue in that area.

              41

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘Jo has previously said that “nobody denies the greenhouse effect”.

              Its a question of ‘sensitivity’, the lukewarm position allows us flexibility, because nobody knows if CO2 causes a little bit of warming. The mooted strong La Nina in 2020-21 gives us a chance to settle the issue.

              20

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Could Jo possibly simply delete comments that deny basic physics like some of the above nonsense does”

              Yours would be the first to go, ct.

              41

            • #
              AndyG55

              You do know that the so-called “greenhouse effect” ie atmospheric warming from increased CO2,

              has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet.

              So who is the science denier, ct ????

              Do you have any measured evidence of warming or any other affect on climate by increased atmospheric CO2?

              Tell us what we DENY that you can present actual empirical scientific evidence for.

              60

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a gas that has strong absorption bands in the infrared spectrum where the Earth’s surface emits thermal radiation, Increasing absorption by CO2 increases the atmospheric temperature and raises the effective radiative emission height. CO2 is, hence, a potent GHG.’

          I can’t accept that, CO2 is only 4% of the greenhouse gas, while the biggest greenhouse gas (H2O) is 95%. Water vapour is the most potent GHG.

          140

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Sorry, el gordo:

            I don’t accept that figure.
            at the Equator where the absorption of sunlight is most apparent, the CO2 content is 0.042%? whereas water vapour is around 4%. That makes CO2 more like 1% of GHG’s.
            Then there is the question of the spectra; water vapour has broad bands of absorption (including several of those by CO2) and only one band where CO2 has primacy.
            All that depends on complete absorption of incoming IR by the atmosphere, and by the almost complete absorption of any outgoing IR by the atmosphere. Any effect of CO2 must be small, and doesn’t allow for conduction and convection.

            180

            • #
              el gordo

              OK thanks, found this while wandering about.

              ‘Wallace Broecker, a geochemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, today reported new evidence that moisture levels in earth’s atmosphere in the tropics dropped substantially during the last ice age, along with average temperatures in the region.

              ‘Water vapor is a more powerful heat-trapping greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, he noted, and reductions in earth’s atmosphere could cause a reverse greenhouse effect that cools the planet.’

              Columbia edu 1996

              150

              • #
                ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N

                This is primarily why the climate gets drier during ice ages. There’s not enough energy to create much evaporation so atmospheric moisture gets trapped on cold surfaces and freezes, locking it up in ice. From there it can only either ablate or evaporate when things warm up again.

                This is also why you can fry in a desert during the day and freeze to death at night as there’s limited water vapour. No such thing can happen in the tropics.

                170

              • #
                theRealUniverse

                Water vapour shouldnt really be called a GHG either. It is greatly responsible for adiabatic heat transfer in the atmosphere.
                The term GHG is a misnomer for ALL gases.
                True remark REVOLUTION.

                151

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Good comment Revolution.

                KK

                40

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Good outline Graeme and to add more weight to that, human origin CO2 is only about 4% of total atmospheric CO2.

              This means that we humans couldn’t do anything to warm the planet even if the “trapping” mechanism was real.

              KK

              60

          • #
            AndyG55

            “Atmospheric carbon dioxide is a gas that has strong absorption bands”

            CO2 has a two thin and weak absorption bands.

            153

          • #
            AndyG55

            H2O has multiple bands and totally swaps any possible effect of CO2 absorption.

            Particularly as CO2 cannot re-emit in the lower atmosphere and thermalises to the rest of the atmosphere to be dealt with by normal convective processes.

            153

            • #
              AndyG55

              swaps => swamps

              83

              • #
                Craig Thomas

                Don’t bother trying to correct all your mistakes Andy, or you’ll be here for the next 100 years.

                25

              • #
                Environent Skeptic

                Time to bring some balance in.
                It is clear from many of the terse etc comments here today that many of you are not taking into account Lunar Forcing.
                For example, we have a full moon at the moment and this is causing Lunar Forcing.

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                Now there’s the pathetic ct we all laugh at.

                31

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Luna forcing.

                Brings out the best in some people.

                And sometimes that’s not very much.

                Certainly not as bright as the Sun.

                Or maybe even a 25 watt incandescent light bulb.

                KK

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Luna forcing.”

                Is there a correlation between lunar peaks and ct’s bot-like appearances!

                41

          • #
            Kneel

            “Water vapour is the most potent GHG.”

            Any forcing from GHGs is dwarfed by convection and advection, which are dwarfed by latent heat of water.
            1 calorie is the amount of heat required to heat 1 litre of water 1C. It takes 7 calories to change 1 litre of water to water vapor without any temperature change. When water vapor rises and reaches dew point, that same amount of heat is dumped 1km or more further up the atmosphere.
            Cloud albedo is first order estimate about 30% – that’s a lot water up there… it never stays up there very long, and is rapidly replaced after it falls. Lot’s of heat transport happening there, hope we are accounting for any changes in that…

            110

            • #
              dadgervais

              Perhaps nit-picking, but, not the way I learned it in U.S. high school in the mid 1960s.

              1 calorie is the amount of heat required to heat 1 gram of water (1 mililiter) by 1C degree (from 19.5C to 20.5C).

              To similarly heat a liter of water requires 1000 calories.

              Your definition is for one Calorie (dietary) and is distinguished by the capitaliztion.

              30

  • #
    AndyG55

    Image captured, will use whenever appropriate. :-)

    92

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    NASAA in 2011 was saying something very simple and very obvious.

    The SUN is the Primary source of energy arriving on the Earth.

    NO SUN = NO Energy = Deep Freezed Earth = No Life

    191

  • #
    Stevem

    Strange it gets a security error rather tha a page does not exist error. I checked and a non-existent page gets the correct error.

    171

    • #
      Gee aye

      Why is that strange. How do their systems operate?

      214

      • #
        Stevem

        It’s just the management of file systems. As time goes by you end up with more and more junk files floating around – no doubt you’ve found that with your own PCs. These all get in the way and slow things down and take up expensive(ish) space. Deleting or archiving a file gets rid of it quickly and easily. Leaving it in place requires setting up security rules which also adds to the clutter and overhead as well as requiring more work from security administrators and then the auditors will get involved…

        Setting up security rules has many disadvantages but very few advantages. I see no great conspiracy involved, its just an odd way of doing things.

        11

  • #

    Funny the way “forcings” are portrayed as tag-teamers jumping into the wrestling ring.

    The particulates were holding solar forcings down but the GHGs jumped into the ring and got the best of the particulates. Orbits should be winning it for the particulate team but those cheating GHGs are just too much for their bulkier opponents. But wait? What side is cloud on?

    It’s bunk, okay? And NASA should go back to performing miracles with curtain rods, cardboard, plywood, canvas, art paper, warped metal sheeting and sticky tape.

    120

  • #
    tom0mason

    Also of note is NASA does not show any recent the data from the O-C-O satellite.
    The raw satellite data that embarrassingly shows that wetlands and forests, both in the temperate and tropical regions, are a major source of CO2 venting.

    141

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Lets get it straight.
    I start with this
    “In the Irkutsk region, on the evening of 2 February, the air cooled to -48°C, in the Novosibirsk region to -44°C, Kemerovo to -42°C, and Tomsk to -45°, in Evenkia to -53°C.
    In northern Siberia, frost has hit new record. In Salekhard, February 1 was -47.1°C, the previous record of -45.3°C was set in 1967.”
    Meanwhile in Australia , somewhere south of Siberia I think, it has been on the POSITIVE side of those temps.
    That is now if Im not wrong about 95C DIFFERENCE. AT the same time!
    You CANNOT average the earths temperature. So a so called (fake) global increase of 2C is relevant???

    291

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      This would have to be the most inane comment of the day, congratulations!

      230

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        It wasnt meant for kindergarten age trolls.

        210

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Well if you are happy with it, so be it.

          222

          • #
            el gordo

            Hot off the press at the Conversation, they have blocking highs as a global warming signal. Do you think that is accurate?

            ‘There does seem to be a plausible link between human-induced warming, slowing of jet streams, blocking highs, and extreme weather around the world. The recent Tasman Sea blocking high can be added to that list, along with other blocking highs that caused unprecedented wildfires in California and an extreme heatwave in Europe last year.’

            81

      • #
        AndyG55

        It had infinitely more content and substance than any of your posts ever do, pfutz.

        Heck you can’t even defend the biggest LIE of the AGW farce. !!

        72

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        This is what Dr Faynman would say about the subject. (excerpt taken from “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”.

        Finally I come to a book that says, “Mathematics is used in science in many ways. We will give you an example from astronomy, which is the science of stars.” I turn the page, and it says, “Red stars have a temperature of four thousand degrees, yellow stars have a temperature of five thousand degrees . . .” –so far, so good. It continues: “Green stars have a temperature of seven thousand degrees, blue stars have a temperature of ten thousand degrees, and violet stars have a temperature of . . . (some big number).” There are no green or violet stars, but the figures for the others are roughly correct. It’s vaguely right–but already, trouble! That’s the way everything was: Everything was written by somebody who didn’t know what the hell he was talking about, so it was a little bit wrong, always! And how we are going to teach well by using books written by people who don’t quite understand what they’re talking about, I cannot understand. I don’t know why, but the books are lousy; UNIVERSALLY LOUSY!

        Anyway, I’m happy with this book, because it’s the first example of applying arithmetic to science. I’m a bit unhappy when I read about the stars’ temperatures, but I’m not very unhappy because it’s more or less right–it’s just an example of error. Then cdtnes the list of problems. It says, “John and his father go out to look at the stars. John sees two blue stars and a red star. His father sees a green star, a violet star, and two yellow stars. What is the total temperature of the stars seen by John and his father?”–and I would explode in horror.

        30

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      It’s freezing also in ‘sunny’ California as well. !!
      I think these cold folk want some more of that ‘Ole time global warming’ to come back as well.

      Some folks say “Ahh it’s just weather, not climate” . But frankly it looks to me like that freezing weather is trumping the global warming. https://www.iceagenow.info/california-snow-too-deep-to-plow/

      102

  • #
    Richard Hill

    What has happened to notch-delay theory?
    Surely this is very much on-topic.

    90

    • #
    • #
      Skeptikal

      What has happened to notch-delay theory?

      It’s still there.

      Using his notch-delay theory, David has predicted that global cooling will commence between 2017 and 2021… with around 0.3ºC of cooling happening during the 2020s.

      http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html

      We’re only half way through David’s commencement window, so we’ll probably have to wait a few more years to see any real cooling.

      110

      • #

        Richard, Skeptikal,
        David has kept working. Producing a book, has taken things so far now in development we are making bigger and different plans to release it.

        He prefers to keep a low profile to get things done. I know it’s been a long time, but when you see just how much he has added to it, it will make sense. I can’t expand much now (which is frustrating me) but there is a lot to explain. Sorry to be non-descriptive, but rest assured — he is adding layers to the onion so to speak.

        250

  • #
    StephenP

    Interesting paper from another blog comment about extreme weather and how trends need to be properly considered before setting climate policy.

    http://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-since-1900-an-enduring-conundrum-for-wise-policy-advice-2167-0587-1000155php?aid=69558

    20

  • #
    King Geo

    Fletcher Reede, a lawyer played by Jim Carrey in the hilarious movie “Liar Liar (1997)”, just could not lie.

    If only NASA and their “Warmist pals” NOAA, IPCC, UK Met Office, BOM etc could be like Fletcher, ie not lie.

    But they are not like Fletcher and so they feed the MSM the same “Warmist Nonsense” 24/7.

    And NASA Science, currently omitting its 2010 scientific opinion that the Sun is the main driver of Earth’s Climate, is a very good example of that.

    90

  • #
    Mark M

    CSIRO, 1997, by Dr Neville Nicholls:

    We have to start with the sun.
    The driving force of the climate is energy received from the sun.
    More energy is received in equatorial regions than at the poles.
    The oceans and atmosphere work to redistribute the energy imbalance.
    If it were not for the transport of heat from the equator to the poles, most of the earth’s surface would be uninhabitable, because it would be either too hot or too cold.
    On a non-rotating earth warm, tropical air would rise, travel toward the poles at a high altitude, descend as it cools, and then return towards the equator as a surface wind.
    This simple arrangement would transport the excess energy from the tropics to higher latitudes, reducing the imbalance of energy received from the sun.

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/elnino/story.htm

    100

  • #
    Dave

    Why the HUGE reaction to this post from Gee Eye?

    Must have hit a nerve?

    Massive Double Face Palm, he even changed his name?

    142

    • #
      AndyG55

      geegee ALWAYS faceplants. That is his very nature.

      Notice after all that. Still no links. DOH !!

      92

      • #
        Peter C

        Yes .

        Gee Aye (aka the adorable gee aye) did not give any links, nor prove his assertions in any way.
        Not so strange. Gee Aye is a TROLL

        121

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          From Gee Aye’s post:

          try googling (include quotes):

          “What are the primary forcings of the Earth system?” site:nasa.gov

          looks linky to me.

          you could even cut and paste it.
          If you do, you will see that it returns 49 hits.

          /sarc off

          319

          • #
            AndyG55

            NO LINKS from you either, Snip..

            And NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2 either.

            Just another EMPTY comment from you, Snip.

            (Stop mangling his name!) CTS

            161

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Link link link
            To eyes that are
            Bright and shining like
            ,, ,,,

            May those lips that are red and sweet
            Tonight with joy
            My own lips meet.

            Link link
            May love ever last
            ,,,,

            Yes Links.

            10

        • #
          theRealUniverse

          Geegee might be a gov worker?? yes no?

          140

    • #
      Gee aye

      Simply because this is clearly wrong. No one has verified any problem and no one has excluded more parsimonious and mundane explanations.

      Are you hoping that I am not just some chick writing alone and are actually the front aperachic of some secret global movement?

      216

      • #
        AndyG55

        No links from geegee, yet.

        Maybe he is just TROLLING to try to match pfutz’s empty mess.

        112

      • #
        Bobl

        However I have written many comments outlining why the consensus science is absolutely wrong (violating the law of conservation of energy at the surface for example). How about you test the theory for yourself.

        For example take the earth at two average temperatures 3.3 degrees apart 15C and 18.3C and use the Stefan Boltzmann equation to calculate the energy emission at those temperature, to compare with 3.7 watts per square meter that doubling Co2 is supposed to develop.

        For extra credit calculate the temperature rise at which the earth will emit all the 3.7 WATTS per square meter for a doubling of CO2 back to space.

        20

    • #
      Gee aye

      And yeah why the huge response to my post.?

      You know I’m right

      314

      • #
        Peter C

        Of Course,
        I have not bothered to do the Google Search. But You Peter Fitzroy might have done so. You say 49 returns.

        If you did in fact Google, could you please enlighten us with a short summary of just one of the Google returns.

        111

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Sorry, I’m using my spoon at the moment. Try to feed yourself.

          414

          • #
            AndyG55

            Still NO LINKS

            Still NO EVIDENCE of CO2 warming

            How long can you two remain in that EMPTY sack together? !

            112

            • #
              Gee aye

              I gave a summary right at the top. And I provided a search that helps you examine the data itself.

              If I quoted the structure of DNA in some debate and said google Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
              J. D. WATSON & F. H. C. CRICK
              Naturevolume 171, pages737–738 (1953)

              I assume, if you were interested in the debate that you’d get on and find the paper using the excellent information I gave and read it before commenting. Instead you complain that I don’t assist you with your inadequate ability to do research

              417

              • #
                AndyG55

                Quite bizarre. !

                You say there are all these links to the “missing” page,

                yet you are totally INCAPABLE of posting a direct link.

                Do you realise how DUMB that makes you look !!

                If they really do exist, why not just post a direct link, instead of all the petty distractions, the whining and whinging, and the slithering about like a demented eel..

                We are all WAITING . !!

                162

            • #
              tom0mason

              AndyG55,
              Peter Fitzroy appears to enjoys lording over all waving a PhD as if it means something. Obviously he’s used to not giving full reference as that appears to be common with modern science (no, just google it) endeavors. Just make wild assertions, add computer model(s) and insist everyone believe in their veracity. Believe despite the empirical observations that do not concur with the irrationalities of those computer models.
              When skeptics question his (or any other) ‘authority’ he follow-up with lots of irrational hand-waving, pompous huffing and puffing, and zero verifiable evidence. No discourse, no answers, no real explanations, no proper argument — just worthless sneering.
              Obviously he doesn’t know or understand, else he could properly explain, and as he does no know, understand or explain I say he’s a faker just pedaling more BS.

              What a waste of public money miseducating these non-skeptical and incurious people, instead of having them find a job and earn a living.

              112

              • #
                AndyG55

                pfutz doesn’t have a PhD.

                iirc Arts degree with some “arts” level science and some minor biology non-learning.

                102

              • #
                AndyG55

                that’s what he said, anyway, iirc. (not sure I even believe that.)

                It must have been a bare pass in that arts/science, because he know basically nothing about anything.

                Doubt he could even make it as a barista, where many “arts” students end up.

                102

              • #
                AndyG55

                And please, don’t disparage PhD’s ,

                They are a lot of hard work, and some are actually quite useful in narrow niche applications.

                72

              • #

                Keep in mind that he doesn’t take any of us here seriously, because we use screen names, evidently.

                Tony.

                112

              • #
                AndyG55

                And certainly nobody here takes pfutz seriously, except maybe geegee.

                pfutz has shown himself to be nothing but an empty blowhard AGW wannabee.

                Even his trolling is pointless and meaningless, just childish attention-seeking and failed attempts at self-gratification.

                52

      • #
        MrGrimNasty

        Quite the reverse.

        Although I would suspect deluded, or climate troll posting a storm of chaff.

        60

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        We thought you were Left?

        10

  • #
    pat

    Jennifer Marohasy segment begins 40min51sec to 51min48 plus 2 brief callers plus Smith comment to 53min47sec:

    AUDIO: 18 Feb: 2GB: Chris Smith: Interview with Jennifer
    https://www.2gb.com/podcast/the-chris-smith-show-full-show-podcast-18th-feb-2019/

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    We are supposed to think that CO2 dramatically changes the earth’s climates, but every day the sun comes up and the place warms up quickly. The difference is quite remarkable. What that means is that greenhouse gases have little effect in the short term, that the strength of the sun is enough to change the temperature by 10-20C in a few hours and CO2 levels have little effect.

    While that does not mean green house gases (other than water) do not have any effect in the long term but that the strength of the sun is the essential driving force. Variations in sun intensity, known cycles in solar stength are the major concern for us.

    The De Vries cycle mainly and the induced PDO, the oscillation which when added to De Vries accurately maps global temperatures for the last 2500 years.

    So I could care less what NASA, the UN, EU and the socialist mafia think. We are utterly dependent for survival on the strength of sunshine and on the behaviour of the oceans on which all life depends. Too bad neither of them matter much to the Church of Climate Scientology or their fake computer models. We really need to be spending on mastering fusion, not building more useless windmills.

    271

    • #
      Gee aye

      Off topic. Go away

      229

      • #
        Dave

        WOW!

        Again!

        Anger Aye?

        :) :)

        171

      • #
        AndyG55

        Very much ON TOPIC.. the SUN !

        stop trying to keep up with pfutz’s manly-mess.

        It makes you look all the more twerpish.

        You KNOW neither of you is capable of providing any empirical proof that CO2 has anything to do with temperature or climate.

        Your FAKE bravado is hilarious, geegee. !

        132

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          From a failed rapper, quite the riposte

          114

          • #
            AndyG55

            You are more like an EMPTY wet paper wrapper, pfutz, scumbled up and thrown in the trash bin.

            Your childish TROLLING attempts are getting more and more ridiculously petty.

            You KNOW neither of you is capable of providing any empirical proof that CO2 has anything to do with temperature or climate.

            142

          • #
            el gordo

            Peter I have had trouble finding a paper that can show empirical evidence, perhaps you could help out?

            This is a genuine request because it looks like they have taken the ‘precautionary principle’ and run with it, without any scientific foundation.

            70

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              el gordo, one thing I’ve learn on this site is that 99.99% of any links I post are immediately discarded. I think the problem is that we only have 1 earth to play with. If we had lots of earths (uninhabited by humans) we could do those empirical climate experiments. With only one earth we are left with laboratory scale experiments, weather stations, and remote sensing (satelites mostly).

              /trigger warning - Model
              From Google scholar, there are 1,600,000 returns for the phrase empirical climate experiments , but because of the one earth problem, 99.99% will be using modeling, and that is unacceptable on this site.
              /trigger warning off

              So no I will not even try, as there is no methodology which would satisfy the commentators on this site.

              28

              • #
                AndyG55

                “are immediately discarded.”

                That’s because they are nonsense/garbage propaganda link containing zero science, or some other totally irrelevant garbage.

                You know you are totally INCAPABLE of supplying any empirical evidence of either warming or any other climate effects by increased atmospheric CO2.

                You have now basically ADMITTED that fact.

                MODELS ARE NEVER EVIDENCE.. got it !!

                91

              • #
                AndyG55

                “weather stations, and remote sensing “

                Which before “adjustment” and “borging” show absolutely zero problem.

                World biosphere is expanding due to the increase plant-life gas, why is that a problem?

                There is no evidence that plant-life gas has any non-beneficial effect on the planet at all.

                51

              • #
                el gordo

                Okay, I’m still wearing my lukewarm coat so …

                https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. .”

                WOW, so they are saying that using infrared between scientific instruments heats up the atmosphere.

                WOW. !! don’t use your tv remote !!! roflmao

                “There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response”

                What a load of anti-science zero-evidence BS. !!!

                “Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels”

                No, CO2 levels respond to temperature.. ANOTHER LIE

                “This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming”

                Ancient data does not have sufficient resolution to make that comparison. ANOTHER LIE.

                ” a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.”

                There is no evidence that is the case. ANOTHER LIE

                Seriously El G, you don’t really fall for this propaganda rubbish, do you ??

                61

              • #
                el gordo

                No but I like the graph, you can see how CO2 levels are unprecedented. The authorities felt obliged to introduce the precautionary principle without confirming that CO2 actually causes warming.

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yep, they use the “precautionary principle” without using any moral principles.

                As a crutch to hang their anti-CO2 agenda on.

                They KNEW they couldn’t back it up with any actual science.

                The whole AGW agenda APPEARS TO BE A LIE from the ground up,

                … … and that ground is quicksand.

                61

              • #
                el gordo

                Its the cornerstone of our argument to the Royal Commission, there is no empirical evidence to link CO2 to the recent warming. I suppose we should thank Tim Ball for enlightening Malcolm Roberts.

                The plateau in temperatures for close on two decades has falsified the CAGW arguments, a string of strong El Nino kept us up here and not CO2.

                Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005

                “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

                Speaking on behalf of the lukewarm faction, we demand more time to test our theory in a convective atmosphere and the strong La Nina expected in 2020-21 offers the perfect opportunity.

                If temperatures don’t fall sharply then the lukewarmers win the debate.

                40

              • #
                Serp

                But el gordo 400,000 years is only the last tenth of the earth’s age; why does NASA leave out ninety percent of earth’s history in its carbon dioxide chart?

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                Serp do you know of a time when CO2 was this high over the past 2 million years? It would help our case convincing the masses that its not unusual.

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                I have this problem, why doesn’t the MWP and RWP show a CO2 spike at Law Dome?

                https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ghgs-lawdome-2000yr-CO2-asof2010.svg

                20

              • #
                Serp

                Actually I was three orders of magnitude astray of the target and should have written that the NASA chart shows only one thousandth of ten percent of the earth’s history which is estimated at roughly four thousand million years; it’s just silly to say the carbon dioxide level in the last four hundred thousand years has not been exceeded in the entire four billion year history of the earth but, alas, el gordo I am unable to cite an actual time and level.

                30

              • #
                el gordo

                The new Law Dome dig is expected to go back 1.5 million years, this might be the limit.

                10

              • #
                Serp

                I struggle to understand how ice cores from 1875 go back 1.5 million years; are there several Law Dome projects?

                10

              • #
              • #
                Serp

                Yes indeed el gordo, a much more interesting story.

                10

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Huh.

        Gee Aye actually said something that wasn’t to do with faulty punctuation or grammar.

        This thread is changing people’s lives and bringing them closer to reality.

        Amazant

        71

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Je t’ne quitte pas.

        20

  • #
    Dave

    Same poster
    3 different tags?

    1 the adorable Gee Ayeeee
    2 Gee Aye
    3 Gee aye

    Why the uncertainty Gee eye?
    Anger Fingers maybe!

    80

  • #
    pat

    Obama-dreaming:

    14 Feb: Bloomberg: Wall Street Is More Than Willing to Fund the Green New Deal
    Investing in the environment is already a $12 trillion market. Now markets are just looking for guidance from Congress.
    By Katia Dmitrieva and Emily Chasan
    The plan’s greatest flaw, critics say, is that it would be too costly. Ocasio-Cortez advocates deficit spending, and she’s floated a 70 percent marginal tax rate for high earners that would generate some of the necessary revenue. But those worried about where the rest of the money will come from are forgetting one major, surprisingly enthusiastic player: Wall Street.

    Investors are more than willing to put up the capital to fund GND goals—which include switching to 100 percent renewable or clean power in 10 years, building a nationwide energy grid, and renovating existing buildings for energy efficiency—provided they get clarity from Congress, says Jon Powers, president of financial technology company CleanCapital and former federal chief sustainability officer under President Obama. “The thing that holds up capital the most is uncertainty,” he says. “Once you have certainty in that policy, then that capital will know where to go.”…READ ON
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-14/wall-street-is-more-than-willing-to-fund-the-green-new-deal

    report on the event with Britain’s AOC – Rebecca Long-Bailey:

    15 Feb: BrightGreen.org: 6 things we learned at “Building a Green New Deal for the Many”
    by Chris Saltmarsh
    (Chris Saltmarsh is a socialist and climate justice organiser based in Oxford. He is Co-Director: Climate Change Campaigns at student activist network People & Planet, where he manages the fossil fuel divestment and fossil free finance campaigns. He is also a member of direct-action network Reclaim the Power and of the Labour Party)

    The Green New Deal has taken US politics by storm, propelled into the mainstream by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Sunrise Movement. Inspired by its transatlantic traction, members of the British climate and labour movements came together to discuss what building a Green New Deal through the UK Labour party might look like (LINK)…
    Organised by Labour Energy Forum and co-hosted by Momentum and Imperial College Labour Students, this is what we learned.
    1. Climate change is a class issue…

    2. Only structural solutions will do
    Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, began by lambasting those who suggest climate change is caused by individuals buying the wrong sort of tomato…

    4. Only Labour can deliver a Green New Deal
    Representatives from Unite the Union, representing workers across the economy including the energy sector, made it clear that their priority is to put Labour into government. Labour is the only UK political party capable of meeting the challenges of the climate crisis by delivering a Green New Deal.

    Not only does electoral arithmetic make other progressive parties irrelevant, but Labour is politically best placed to address the crisis. Its historic and institutional bond with trade unions and the organised working class means Labour’s climate policy will be accountable to the workers who the established environmental movement regularly treat as an afterthought…

    5. Even progressive politicians need pressure from below…
    If we want Labour to adopt more ambitious climate policy, its our responsibility to create the political conditions for the party leadership be as radical as they want to be.

    Zak Exley, founder of Justice Democrats and co-author of Rules for Revolutionaries, echoed this with lessons from President Obama’s eminently disappointing administration. As a Senator, Obama often spoke about the need for a green WWII-scale economic mobilisation. Without pressure from below, Obama was just one man in a system and culture that said no to such bold policies. Exley argued that more than Obama failing,“we let him down”. The grassroots were so enamoured by the historical significance of his election, they didn’t have a plan for pushing him to take action.

    We can’t let this history repeat itself with a socialist Labour government. While in opposition, we must build organising capacity to push a Corbyn-led government to be as radical as possible on climate when in power…

    6. There’s no Green New Deal without trade unions…
    https://bright-green.org/2019/02/15/6-things-we-learned-at-building-a-green-new-deal-for-the-many/

    30

    • #
      Gee aye

      I think that the afl pre season is lame

      27

    • #
      pat

      17 Feb: The National Scotland: Calls to streamline complaints of UK Government Green Deal scheme
      By National Newsdesk
      SNP MSP Clare Haughey is leading calls for the UK Government to streamline the complaints process for their flagship energy-saving scheme, the Green Deal, following a scathing report by Citizens Advice Scotland.

      Dubbed the “biggest home improvement programme since the Second World War” when it was launched by the coalition government in 2013, the Green Deal scheme provided homeowners with energy-efficiency products like solar panels, insulation and new boilers, with no up-front cost.
      More than 4260 (HOMES, PRESUMABLY?) across the UK – including 3050 in Scotland – have HELMS Green Deal finance for solar panels that were supposed to cut their power bills, but ended up costing them instead.

      A study last November by Citizens Advice Scotland entitled “Bad Company” accused HELMS of involvement in “pressure selling, providing misleading information about repayment, returns on investment, and financing, and selling to people in vulnerable situation”.
      It found the complaints process to be long and drawn out, with a number still pursuing complaints about measures typically installed four years ago in 2014.
      Citizens Advice Scotland is now calling on the UK Government to set up a dedicated scheme to resolve this issue by fast tracking complaints, providing satisfactory compensation and bespoke solutions for specific problems.

      Haughey, whose Rutherglen constituency has been heavily affected by the issue, said she would be urging the UK Government to take urgent action on complaints. One Blantyre street she represents has had over 20 homes with Green Deal packages installed by HELMS.
      “The Green Deal scheme has allowed vulnerable households across the UK to fall into deep debt with rocketing energy bills,” she said. “I’ve spoken with people whose homes have been left damaged by poor workmanship and others who have been left without appropriate building warrants.
      “Not only that, but as the loan is attached to the home rather than the person, many are now left unable to sell their homes. It’s utterly shameful that HELMS were able to do this, more so that it was under an approved UK Government scheme.”…
      https://www.thenational.scot/news/17438397.calls-to-streamline-complaints-of-uk-government-green-deal-scheme/

      40

  • #
    Dave

    This is a 1st

    28 posts in under 5 hours

    Most very angry too!

    Never seen this level of angst before?

    Must be the article that has set it off, even though there isn’t one thread or link of proof!

    Almost a derailed person?

    Are you OK GA?

    100

    • #
      AndyG55

      No-one is angry.

      Just laughing at the poor unfortunate little mite !

      Almost a derailed person?

      geegee may be loco, but he has never been on the rails.

      92

  • #
    pat

    17 Feb: UK Independent: Massive restoration of world’s forests would cancel out a decade of CO2 emissions, analysis suggests
    New findings suggest trees are ‘our most powerful weapon in the fight against climate change’, says scientist
    by Josh Gabbatiss
    Replenishing the world’s forests on a grand scale would suck enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to cancel out a decade of human emissions, according to an ambitious new study.
    Scientists have established there is room for an additional 1.2 trillion trees to grow in parks, woods and abandoned land across the planet.
    If such a goal were accomplished, ecologist Dr Thomas Crowther said it would outstrip every other method for tackling climate change – from building wind turbines to vegetarian diets…

    Lack of accurate information meant for years experts severely underestimated the number of trees on Earth.
    Combining data from ground-based surveys and satellites, Dr Crowther and his colleagues arrived at a figure of three trillion – over seven times more than a previous Nasa estimate…

    The same approach, using machine learning and AI to analyse the enormous data set, allowed the researchers to predict the number of trees that could feasibly be planted in empty patches around the world…
    Dr Crowther discussed his findings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Washington DC…

    The United Nations initially ran a project known as the Billion Tree Campaign, but in light of Dr Crowther’s findings this has been renamed the Trillion Tree Campaign…READ ALL
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/forests-climate-change-co2-greenhouse-gases-trillion-trees-global-warming-a8782071.html

    but what if the following is true?

    23 Jan: JoNova: Save the world and raze some forests
    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/save-the-world-and-raze-some-forests/#comments

    40

    • #
      david a anderson

      “The plan’s greatest flaw, critics say, is that it would be too costly.”

      That is, at best, only one third of the primary criticism. Too costly, require statism, and in regard to GAT, be completely ineffective.

      20

    • #
      TdeF

      A comment on CO2, oceans and trees. Apart from the suggestion that the 50% increase in CO2 since 1900 is due entirely to fossil fuels. Dating the CO2 using radio carbon dating, about 2% is fossil fuel.

      However there is another fallacy, a denial of simple science here.
      The proposition that we humans can actually change CO2 levels is quite amazing, borderline preposterous.

      In fact the low fossil fuel CO2 levels are proof that we cannot. We also see the relaxation time in the atom bomb C14 decay curve showing a half life of around 14 years.

      So all this business about planting trees is just lunacy, science fantasy.

      In Chemistry, there are two basic concepts for equations. First stoichiometry, that with conservation of mass, the left must balance the right. Atoms are neither destroyed or created. The second essential concept is equilibrium. There is no reason to think that the CO2 levels in the air are fixed when it is agreed by everyone that 98%, 50x as much CO2 is dissolved in the vast oceans which outweigh the atmosphere 340:1.

      I would suggest increased CO2 reflects a slight heating of the ocean surface over the last 100 years. That fits with the common knowledge that warm beer goes flat. However the proponents of man made Global Warming would have you believe that warm beer absorbs CO2. That’s the third strike against science.

      So can we please stop growing trees to save the planet and go back to growing grasses which we can eat? Or even fruit trees? With 7.5Billion people on the planet, having enough trees is not the problem.

      60

      • #
        TdeF

        And the equilibrium obey’s Henry’s law for gas across a phase boundary. For constant pressure, the only variable is temperature. Increase the temperature of the water surface and CO2 comes out.

        The way the one report in the IPCC covers this is to argue that the CO2 is trapped in deep ocean current and would take thousands of years to get to the surface. That is rubbish. Made up science. CO2 comes from the bottom of the ocean all the time. Ask any geologist looking for carbon footprints in the hunt for oil.

        So water warming increases CO2. The panic pushers would have us believe that the reverse is true.

        60

      • #
        Mardler

        The only radio carbon analyses I have seen put the fossil fuel burned figure around 12 to 15ppm which is considerably more than 2% of the near 400ppm at the time of the tests but still irrelevant in CAGW terms.

        Do you have a link to the 2% research and results?

        10

        • #
          TdeF

          This an old one from the time Radio Carbon dating was invented in the mid 1950s. In fact 1957. It’s from the Proceedings of the Royal Society, before they became a political body. The figure here is 2.03% +/- 0.15% over the period 1860 to 1954, half way through the 20th century. Long before Wikipedia started inventing new meanings for the Suess effect.

          30

          • #
            TdeF

            At the time Dr. Suess (San Diego university) was of the opinion that CO2 half life in the air was 5 years. Thanks to the doubling of C14 in 1965 with the atom bomb blasts, we know that C14 half life before absorption into the oceans is 14 years. This is really rapid exchange of gases in a continuing equilibrium with the 98% of CO2 already in the oceans. However it fits very well with the fact that fish breathe.

            No one can challenge these facts. CO2 is in continuous equilibrium and there is nothing mankind can do to set CO2 levels. Warmer surface water means more CO2 and more CO2 means more life, more plants on earth. Every living thing on earth is a carbon lifeform. Wiping out CO2 is just insanity. Trying to control CO2 is as silly as King Canute ordering the tide to go out.

            All this is real science. What I read is science free fantasy from the new psycho-ecologists like Cook and Lewandowsky. And the opportunists.

            30

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              CO2 is recycled in the Living Planet.

              Any human origin CO2 is absorbed by The System in 7 years or less according to several studies.

              What this means is that the entire stock of accumulated human origin CO2 in the atmosphere would be disparu after 7 years OF all humans ceased to exist and stopped making things, like those stupid electric cars.

              KK

              20

        • #
          TdeF

          Also I would accept a figure under 5%. 15/400 is 4.2%. If the CO2 stayed in the air, the figure would be more like 40%, which is why IPCC say that the CO2 hangs around for thousands of years. The official IPCC half life is 80 years. This figure is used for rating all greenhouse gases. It is in fact wrong.

          30

  • #
    Penguin

    Sorry if this is in the wrong place. I have a question. We say that warming oceans release CO2 so CO2 lags behind warming. AGW says that this can’t be right because ocean pH is falling, indicating that oceans are taking in CO2, not releasing it. What is the answer?

    40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Ocean pH is not falling.

      Here is a compendium of ocean surface pH reading taken since 1900 Note the zero trend.

      Furthermore, it is totally impossible for anyone to have detected a “whole of ocean” change in pH since pre-industrial times, there just isn’t the data available.

      The “change” they pretend to have detected (0.1pH value since pre-industrial), was done via “models”. It is meaningless.

      What is quite possible is that ocean plant life increases on and near the ocean surface, which are apparently quite substantial, are taking in more atmospheric CO2 as the carbon cycle that provides for all life on Earth expands.

      But as they feed more fish, and everything eventually gets eaten or dies, they eventually give back that CO2.

      That is why its called a “cycle”

      123

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      It’s in equilibrium

      Some goes in.

      Some comes out.

      70

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Big lie here Penguin , Andy is spot on and no the ocean ph has not turned acidic at all and if you doubt it in anyway just look at what the ph is at anytime and you’ll see how [wrong] the statement that “the oceans are becoming more acidic ” really is .
      You could possibly say-
      Less caustic
      Less basic
      Less Alkaline
      But that doesn’t sound scary enough .

      92

      • #
        AndyG55

        “You could possibly say-
        Less caustic
        Less basic
        Less Alkaline”

        Except there is no real evidence of that, either.

        82

        • #
          robert rosicka

          You’re right there is no evidence that ocean ph is changing but if the Alkalinity was to go down by one point it’s not becoming more acidic , no matter what our trolls say .

          61

          • #
            AndyG55

            Yep, oceans are around a nice alkaline pH 8.1-8.2 +/- some in places.

            They will not change from a tiny change in atmospheric CO2.

            They are massively buffered against any change.

            Nearly all the rivers of the world that constantly flow into the ocean are mostly mildly to quite acidic (some down to pH 5.5), but the ocean remains around that steady ALKALINE value.

            92

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Andy:

              I like to point out that The White Cliffs of Dover** were laid down in the higher sea levels of the Cretaceous when the CO2 level was between 1600 and 1950 ppm. (That includes the South Downs in England and Cap Gris Nez (and a lot of Normany coast as well) in France.
              Behind that is The Jurassic Coast in Dorset which were laid down when the CO2 was 2200-2700 ppm (and the ‘global temperature’ was lower. Actually similar deposits (from the Jurassic) stretch across England to near Newcastle. https://jurassiccoast.org/walkthroughtime/highlight-old-harry-rocks/

              **The last time I flew over them in 2016 they had a distinct greyish look. I remember thinking that the best Jubilee present for Lizzie would have been a good wash for them.

              41

            • #
              TdeF

              The scare about oysters also highlights the fact that oysters are grown in estuaries and bays where you get acid runoff from the same rivers which supply the nutrients, except this time high in phosphorous from fertilizers and acid from the air, as with diesel fuels so beloved by Greens. It has nothing to do with CO2. Even human drinking water is slightly acidic from transport great distances in concrete pipes. The same need oysters have to absorb nutrients from the flowing river water is the one which puts them at risk from acid rain. Nothing to do with CO2.

              Remember acid rain? It’s as if it does not exist any more. Everything is blamed without proof on CO2. Like Polar bears in the Arctic at 0C average in summer, oysters are misused to attack CO2 when CO2 is essential to all life on earth and has never been a problem. If anything, CO2 levels in 1900 were at a dangerous historic low for the survival of many plant species and dependent animals.

              111

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            And the runner up for the most inane comment of the day goes to this one. Here is an example, if the air temp is 35C and it drops to 34C, what would your say? Would it be “it’s getting colder”? or are you going to say that “Peter Fitzroy thinks it is both hot and cold at the same time” . /sarc off

            29

            • #
              TdeF

              That’s not how it works. Colder and hotter are directions. Alkali and Acid are states. You are either Acid or you are Alkali. Everything changes dramatically.

              For example, for the oceans to become acid, all the white cliffs of dover, all the limestone, all the coral reefs, all the shellfish and much of the sand which is made from shells would have to vanish. Trillions of tons of CaCO3 would have to dissolve first and these would tip the balance back. This is called a heavily buffered solution and that is overwhelmingly true for the oceans.

              Consider that you have $100 in the bank. If it drops to $90 you still have money. You might be poorer but you are not in debt.

              The people pushing this deception with sophistry and semantics argue that you are really becoming impoverished, broke in that you owe more. You would reject that.

              Besides when you consider that 98% of CO2 is already in the oceans, almost all of it, what difference could a little bit more make. Then you also have to consider the logic that warm beer absorbs CO2. You know that is not true, even without science.

              72

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                So a pH scale -7 to +7 and a temperature scale from -35 to +35 are different? Both have a zero point. Before you go all “but one is different than the other” we are discussing a small change, not a state change which you have inflated it to be. Just has it can be colder without being cold, it can be more alkaline without being alkaline. Try try try to understand

                29

              • #
                TdeF

                I’m not the one who should be trying to understand. You are playing with language, trying to rationalize with the power of words. Reality is different.

                Sure it’s a sliding scale like above water and below water, six foot above the ground and six foot under. Just a matter of measurement around a zero? However try breathing under water. Or under ground. On a ruler, it hardly matters. For breathing, it is life and death.

                Chemistry is like that. Everything changes completely at Ph7. This comes from – logarithm of the concentration of [H+] ions which is 10-7 in neutral water, so this becomes 7. 6 is acid, 8 is alkali. Most life on earth would consider this range as pure neutral water. It is what you drink.

                Still if your nose is 1″ under the water, you would know it. That’s the difference in chemistry. Everything changes dramatically.

                Now do you understand?

                91

              • #

                Tdef… chemical reactions exist in equilibria. pH determines the direction of that equilibria. At a pH of 7.001 vs 6.999 there will be no dramatic changes. The cliffs wont suddenly dissolve. You know that above pH 7 that reactions of both acidic and basic are happening? No really… did you know that? You know swapping protons or electron pairs or whatever you like to call acid-base reactions.

                Do you understand Ka?

                27

              • #
                TdeF

                Also on that ‘zero’ point, the switch over from acid to alkali is 7. This is not one of those made up scales like temperature. It does not go from -7 to +7 but perhaps practically 0 to 14.

                0 is actually a very dangerous acid, 10x stronger than battery acid.
                14 is an equally dangerous alkali. Run, don’t walk.

                81

              • #
                TdeF

                I was trying to explain the concept to someone who clearly does not know any chemistry or physics. I am now giving up. Even the insults are childlike. Please get a book on the subject and read it.

                102

              • #
                TdeF

                Science is a skill which is acquired one block at a time. You cannot get it from Google.

                72

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                I know you would not understand

                37

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                I knew you would not understand

                38

              • #
                AndyG55

                No pfutz, it is YOU that is lacking in comprehension of chemistry and physics.

                You have LESS THAN ZERO KNOWLEDGE, because everything you think you know is patently WRONG.

                geegee says “At a pH of 7.001 vs 6.999 there will be no dramatic changes”

                There will be no dramatic change in an imaginary change from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 either.. so why use dopey, anti-science words like “acidification” as though something of major drama was happening.

                People who use that terminology are nothing more than propaganda driven DRAMA-QUEENS.

                Are you one of those DRAMA-QUEENS, geegee.. we all know pfutz is.

                Or are you a rational thinking human being?

                103

              • #
                AndyG55

                “So a pH scale -7 to +7″

                Adam Sandler would be feeling he is being outdone now.

                There is no such scale.

                72

              • #

                So you know that the enzymatically catalysed chemical reactions used by little critters to deposit shells (as an example) are pH dependent. They are able to buffer themselves somewhat but buffering is also an active process. So if the pH stress is such that they spend more effort on buffering and/or the buffering does not work so well they are less vigorous and less able to create and maintain the shell they require. ie the shell thins. Depending on the critter there may be behavioural options and a few generations of selective breeding will favourably change the population’s mean abilities – so there are other buffers aside from the chemical ones. BUT this does not happen on the interface of pH 7!

                33

              • #

                There will be no dramatic change in an imaginary change from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 either.. so why use dopey, anti-science words like “acidification” as though something of major drama was happening.

                that’s an absolutist arguement. And a poor one. There are plenty of systems that reach a stress point somewhere in the pH Scale.

                here’s a review that cites a lot of papers using actual data on real organisms

                https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5551099/

                44

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I know you would not understand”

                The problem is well and truly with your ludicrous ignorant anti-science nonsense explanations.

                They are rooted well and truly in science fantasy land and mindless blather.

                If you don’t comprehend simple chemistry, you really should just not type anything, so as not to advertise that fact.

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                You have no argument geegee.

                And why the link to a load of hypothetical BS?

                Did you even bother to try to understand it before you pasted the link.

                There is nothing real in it.

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                “somewhere in the pH Scale.”

                We are talking about the fabricated change is sea alkalinity geegee,

                pH 8.2 to 8.1 (even though local variability can be far greater)

                You really should have stuck to your usual inane, irrelevant, little comments than try to pretend to know what you are talking about.

                Everybody is now alerted to fact that you don’t

                32

              • #

                it is a paper about hypothetical BS, as you put it, referencing a humongous number of papers containing real data. The linked paper saved me spamming the forum with 80 or so links.

                hence why I wrote this

                here’s a review that cites a lot of papers using actual data on real organisms

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                Which paper shows ocean going sea creatures damaged by a mythical change of pH8.2 to pH 8.1, geegee?

                You are the one making this story up.

                Now back it up. !!

                You were the one saying that “missing” page was still there.

                STILL no link to it.

                We are all waiting.

                51

              • #
                AndyG55

                You have to admire their final summary though..

                In summary, we recognize the need for re‐aligning our conceptual frameworks that enable forecasts of ecological change. We reconcile positive with negative physiological responses to climatic and nonclimatic drivers and their underpinning of direct and indirect ecological responses. As research in ecological forecasting science intensifies, we call for embracing the nonlinear response of multiple species to multiple drivers and how variation among those responses elicits change in the interaction of species. By unifying organismal‐level responses with community‐level interactions we can thus move closer to anticipating and perhaps mitigating some of the inevitable effects of climate change.

                Very “blathery”, without actually saying anything of any substance at all.

                62

              • #
                TdeF

                “Tdef… chemical reactions exist in equilibria. pH determines the direction of that equilibria. ”

                No, where did you get that? Firstly the reaction has to involve water to have a pH and most do not. Secondly pH is a measure of H+ concentration. It determines nothing.

                I am now aware that I am wasting my time trying to teach basic logic and a little chemistry. You two must have been shockers at school. Ignorance is not bliss.

                61

              • #
                robert rosicka

                “So a pH scale -7 to +7 and a temperature scale from -35 to +35 are different? Both have a zero point. Before you go all “but one is different than the other” we are discussing a small change, not a state change which you have inflated it to be. Just has it can be colder without being cold, it can be more alkaline without being alkaline. Try try try to understand”
                So if the temp goes from 35.02c to 35.01c it means it’s becoming more freezing ?

                31

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Rubbish Geehi,

                Reactions, by their very nature, Do Not Proceed from Equilibrium.

                They only occur when there is Disequilibrium.

                They then proceed down the set path to the Big E.

                KK

                20

              • #
                tom0mason

                TdeF,

                The way I see it is there are ~38,000 Gt of carbon dissolved in oceans (27ppm). Most of it as bicarbonate ion HCO3- (~90% of it).
                Total carbon available in fossil fuel reserves somewhere is about 5,000 Gt. If all that fuel on earth were burned, then the all the CO2 from it was somehow to dissolve in the oceans, it would raise the ocean carbon content to 31ppm.
                To put things into perspective: in contrast to the 27ppm (or 31ppm) of carbon, oceans have 35,000ppm of (Sodium, Na) salt in them.

                Even wikipedia assures us that the oceans are alkali in nature, even if they squirm around with such blather as ‘CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels’, and inaccurate language like ‘ocean acidification’.

                Role of carbonic acid in ocean chemistry
                The oceans of the world have absorbed almost half of the CO2 emitted by humans from the burning of fossil fuels.[9] It has been estimated that the extra dissolved carbon dioxide has caused the ocean’s average surface pH to shift by about −0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels. This is known as ocean acidification, even though the ocean remains basic.”

                “It has been estimated that the extra dissolved carbon dioxide has caused the ocean’s average surface pH to shift by about −0.1 unit from pre-industrial levels.” i.e. it is negligible!

                See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid#Role_of_carbonic_acid_in_ocean_chemistry

                and see the follow-on paragraphs about the poor acidity of carbonic acid — for comparison Citric acid is a weak acid, with a pKa of 2.79.

                However the amount of CO2 that dissolves (and available for ionization or chemical reactions) in water is wholly determined by the temperature of the water and the (partial) air (with CO2) pressure.
                So you can not force more CO2 into the water if the (CO2 containing) air partial pressure or the water temperature are not correct. It is roughly (close enough for government work) in line with Henry’s law — all these ionizations and chemical reactions mostly adding delays to how fast the oceans take-up CO2, and a greater delay to the speed of relinquishing it.

                51

              • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                no links, no data, no anything, geegee

                Yes your comments are very sad, and EMPTY.

                11

    • #
      el gordo

      When the oceans are cold the CO2 is retained in the deep, but in this Modern Climate Optimum the oceans are warmer and release more CO2.

      Its totally under control, there are sinks which draw down the CO2, the Southern Ocean is a good example. Any yarn that the sinks can’t cope, is simply untrue.

      51

  • #
    pat

    Wallace-Wells doubles down:

    16 Feb: NYT: The Difference a Degree Makes
    by David Wallace-Wells
    (David Wallace-Wells is a columnist and deputy editor at New York magazine and the author of the forthcoming “The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming,” from which this essay is adapted)
    The age of climate panic is here. Last summer, a heat wave baked the entire Northern Hemisphere, killing dozens from Quebec to Japan. Some of the most destructive wildfires in California history turned more than a million acres to ash, along the way melting the tires and the sneakers of those trying to escape the flames. Pacific hurricanes forced three million people in China to flee and wiped away almost all of Hawaii’s East Island.
    We are living today in a world that has warmed by just one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) since the late 1800s, when records began on a global scale. We are adding planet-warming carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate faster than at any point in human history since the beginning of industrialization.

    In October, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released what has become known as its “Doomsday” report — “a deafening, piercing smoke alarm going off in the kitchen,” as one United Nations official described it — detailing climate effects at 1.5 and two degrees Celsius of warming (2.7 and 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). At the opening of a major United Nations conference two months later, David Attenborough, the mellifluous voice of the BBC’s “Planet Earth” and now an environmental conscience for the English-speaking world, put it even more bleakly: “If we don’t take action,” he said, “the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon.”

    ***Scientists have felt this way for a while. But they have not often talked like it. For decades, there were few things with a worse reputation than “alarmism” among those studying climate change…

    If we started a broad decarbonization effort today — a gargantuan undertaking to overhaul our energy systems, building and transportation infrastructure and how we produce our food — the necessary rate of emissions reduction would be about 5 percent per year. If we delay another decade, it will require us to cut emissions by some 9 percent each year…

    But perhaps the strongest argument for the wisdom of catastrophic thinking is that all of our mental reflexes run in the opposite direction, toward disbelief about the possibility of very bad outcomes. I know this from personal experience. I have spent the past three years buried in climate science and following the research as it expanded into ever darker territory.
    The number of “good news” scientific papers that I’ve encountered in that time I could probably count on my two hands. The “bad news” papers number probably in the thousands — each day seeming to bring a new, distressing revision to our understanding of the environmental trauma already unfolding.
    I know the science is true, I know the threat is all-encompassing, and I know its effects, should emissions continue unabated, will be terrifying…

    In his book “Worst-Case Scenarios,” the legal scholar Cass Sunstein (Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration) wrote that in general, we have a problem considering unlikely but potential risks, which we run from either into complacency or paranoia. His solution is a wonky one: We should all be more rigorous in our cost-benefit analysis…

    And unfortunately, as climate change has been dawning more fully into view over the past several decades, all the cognitive biases that push us toward complacency have been abetted by our storytelling about warming — ***by journalism defined by caution in describing the scale and speed of the threat…

    So what can we do? And by the way, who’s “we”? …
    We don’t ask people who pay taxes to support a social safety net to also demonstrate that commitment through philanthropic action, and similarly we shouldn’t ask anyone — and certainly not everyone — to manage his or her own carbon footprint before we even really try to enact laws and policies that would reduce all of our emissions.
    That is the purpose of politics: that we can be and do better together than we might manage as individuals.

    And politics, suddenly, is on fire with climate change. Last fall, in Britain, an activist group with the alarmist name Extinction Rebellion was formed and immediately grew so large it was able to paralyze parts of London in its first major protest. Its leading demand: “Tell the truth.” That imperative is echoed, stateside, by Genevieve Guenther’s organization End Climate Silence, and the climate-change panel’s calls to direct the planet’s resources toward action against warming has been taken up at the grass roots, inspiringly, by Margaret Klein Salamon’s Climate Mobilization project.

    Of course, environmental activism isn’t new, and these are just the groups that have arisen over the past few years, pushed into action by climate panic. But that alarm is cascading upward, too. In Congress, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has rallied liberal Democrats around a Green New Deal — a call to reorganize the American economy around clean energy and renewable prosperity…

    And while not a single direct question about climate change was asked of either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential debates, the issue is sure to dominate the Democratic primary in 2020, alongside “Medicare for all” and free college. Michael Bloomberg, poised to spend at least $500 million on the campaign, has said he’ll insist that any candidate the party puts forward has a concrete plan for the climate…

    We have probably squandered the opportunity to avert two degrees of warming, but we can avert three degrees and certainly all the terrifying suffering that lies beyond that threshold.
    But the longer we wait, the worse it will get. Which is one last argument for catastrophic thinking: What creates more sense of urgency than fear?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/fear-panic-climate-change-warming.html

    22

    • #
      Richard Ilfeld

      Ask the electorate the relevant question….
      Would you rather suffer the consequences of a one degree temperature rise,
      or a $20 a month utility bill rise.
      Well, punk,
      Doe you feel lucky?

      70

  • #
    pat

    front page of tomorrow’s The Australian:

    “Households: $2bn solar hit”

    can’t find it online as yet.

    17 Feb: Herald Scotland: Letter: How would an independent Scotland pay for massive wind farm subsidies?
    NICK Dekker (Letters, February 15) is misinformed regarding the costs of renewable generation in an independent Scotland. It was made quite clear by Westminster in the run-up to the 2014 referendum that should Scotland decide to separate from the rest of the UK that 92 per cent of consumers would not pay for Scottish wind farms. That would leave billions of pounds over the guaranteed subsidy lifetime of thousands of turbines paid by the remaining eight per cent of consumers here in Scotland. Our bills would go stratospheric, creating unbelievable fuel poverty and misery for, in particular, our vulnerable citizens.

    This matter was not addressed by the SNP in 2014 and I haven’t heard a word since about how we would manage paying these eye-watering sums of money if we left the Union apart from saying we will sell all this wind energy to others. However, that supposes when we have wind others don’t and the grid can actually cope. In addition, in times of high demand those cold, still winter highs often sit above all of the UK and a lot of Europe and no-one has any wind or little energy to spare.

    The Scottish Government continues to approve industrial wind farm schemes by multinationals and refuses its own communities the veto England enjoys which serves to encourage even more. The constraints bill as at February 14 was £524,472,833 and it continues to grow each year – most of this money has been paid to Scottish wind farms by the consumer.

    Would we have that burden too in an independent Scotland? Perhaps Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse could enlighten us.
    Lindsey Ward,
    Darach Brae, Beauly.
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/17439758.how-would-an-independent-scotland-pay-for-massive-wind-farm-subsidies/

    60

  • #
    pat

    all over the MSM:

    18 Feb: news.com.au: AAP: Govt power plan may be unconstitutional
    Legal advice given to the Australia Institute suggests the federal government’s plan to underwrite new power plants may be unconstitutional.
    Progressive think tank The Australia Institute commissioned the advice from Fiona McLeod SC and Lindy Barrett, who represented the Commonwealth in the royal commission into child abuse, to examine the government’s plan to underwrite new investments in energy generation.
    The legal opinion says the government either needs new legislation to underpin spending money on the program or to funnel the cash via the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which cannot finance gas or coal projects…

    Giles doesn’t bother to mention who gave the legal advice:

    18 Feb: RenewEconomy: Giles Parkinson: Coalition’s last minute energy policy continues to unravel before its eyes
    The federal Coalition’s energy policy moves continue to unravel before its eyes, with the latest blow coming from legal opinion that suggests that the government would need to get funding for any new fossil fuel generation through parliament if it is to have any legal force…

    The government is also trying to rush through an “auction” to underwrite “24/7” dispatchable power. It has less than two months before entering the care-taker period to conduct a formal tender, choose its favoured projects, conduct detailed negotiations, and sign a contract.
    An informal “registration of interest” process elicited 66 proposals, mostly gas, but including 10 relating to coal projects, and others such as from Sanjeev Gupta and AGL to combine renewables with battery storage or pumped hydro, or a mixture of both.

    The government was been warned that any move to underwrite new coal generation – as proposed by Vales Point co-owner Trevor St Baker – would require billions of dollars in government guarantees and indemnities against any future carbon pricing…

    Ben Oquist, from The Australia Institute, said it asked two prominent legal experts who found that the Coalition ***could not make such a funding commitment without legislative approval. One avenue already exists, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, but it can only invest in renewables, or “low emission” technologies.

    “This legal advice is very clear, the government’s hasty, poorly-designed program to invest in new gas and coal power stations cannot proceed without legislative intervention by Parliament,” said Richie Merzian, the Climate & Energy program director at The Australia Institute.
    “Energy Minister Angus Taylor is in such a rush to funnel taxpayer funds to new coal-fired power stations before the election, he seems to have overlooked that he has no constitutional authority to do so.
    “This is another blow to the federal government, that their signature program to fund electricity is destined for the shelf – along with the rest of the Government’s energy policies.”…
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/coalitions-last-minute-energy-policy-continues-to-unravel-before-its-eyes-66295/

    50

    • #
      Annie

      Yet MT was able to give $444 to GBR groups without any clearance!

      71

    • #
      Environent Skeptic

      “Government’s energy policies.”…

      The missing link is energy efficiency.
      For example:

      If products were made to last decades, things like fridges, globes, cars, houses, white-goods and so on would not need to be replaced and so vast energy/resources would be saved. We need government policy to reflect a demand for better products that are not designed to be replaced.

      If governments involved in reciprocal destruction (war) could be distracted away from this extreme, destructive, and completely wrong activity that is highly abnormal, vast energy and resources would be saved.

      And those were only 2 “if’s”.

      We cannot move forward without addressing wasted energy, resources, and efficiency.

      For example, if houses used insulation with a high enough R rating, like a freezer R rating, energy for running a split system could be cut by more than 90%.

      Under the present conditions of life on this planet, endless sources of free energy would only accelerate our demise.

      Finding more energy will not help in the slightest if efficiency, and waste (planned obsolescence) is not addressed first.

      10

  • #
    pat

    Carbon Brief gives a clear idea how monolithic the FakeNewsMSM is when it comes to CAGW. note 10,000 over 60 cities, says The Guardian (BBC claimed 15,000):

    Carbon Brief: Climate strike: Schoolchildren protest over climate change
    BBC is among many outlets to cover the climate strikes which took place across the UK last Friday. Pupils went “on strike” as part of a global campaign for action on climate change, says BBC News. The campaign calls on the government to declare a climate emergency and take active steps to tackle the problem, BBC News adds. Organisers said more than 10,000 young people in at least 60 towns and cities from the Scottish Highlands to Cornwall joined the strike, reports the Guardian, which also has a summary of the protests. Traffic outside Parliament was brought to a standstill by the protest, says the Daily Telegraph. Many of the children “were keen to point out it is their generation who will be left to pick up the pieces of our civilisation’s waste and pollution,” reports BBC education reporter Judith Burns. “We’re running out of time for meaningful change and that’s why we’re seeing young people around the world rising up to hold their governments to account on their dismal climate records,“ says Anna Taylor, of the UK Student Climate Network, which coordinated the strikes, reports the Independent. DeSmog UK notes more protests by school strikers are planned globally for 15 March 2019.

    The Financial Times, the Evening Standard, Buzzfeed News, Vice, Al Jazeera, the Scotsman and the Daily Telegraph also cover the strikes. The Hill also covers the story, while the New York Times reports more widely on the protests which took place across Europe. EurActiv covers the protests in France. The Guardian also had a live blog and video covering the protests. BBC News also has several videos and an article asking: “Why are students striking and will it have an impact?”

    Three children were arrested during the protests, says the Sun, which adds that “Youngsters swigged booze, chanted ‘f*** Theresa May’ and clambered on Winston Churchill’s statue in Parliament Square.” The strikes left many parents “concerned they would face a £60 fine for truancy”, according to the MailOnline.

    The children earned a mild rebuke from the prime minister’s office for disrupting classes, says Reuters. A spokeswoman for Theresa May, the prime minister, said the government welcomed the students’ engagement, but that disruption to schools and lessons would be difficult for teachers. But her energy minister Claire Perry said she was “incredibly proud” of the young people, Reuters adds. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said schoolchildren were “right to feel let down by the generation before them”, while Green Party MP Caroline Lucas said it was the “most hopeful thing that’s happened in years”, says BBC News. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon backed the protest, saying the actions are a “cause for optimism in an often dark world”, reports the Press Association. In Germany, similar protests led Chancellor Angela Merkel to say such demonstrations couldn’t have happened without “outside influence”, reports Politico, although her spokesman later said she supported climate action protests by schoolchildren.

    The school climate change strikes are inspiring – but they should shame us

    “Such is the upside-down, topsy-turvy state of our world, that the children are now the adults and the adults are the children,” writes Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland of the school climate strike which took place on Friday. “At first sight the reaction surely has to be one of unfettered joy… And yet, there is a harsher truth to face. These demonstrations by the young are a terrible indictment of the rest of us.” George Monbiot also writes on his support for the “Youth Strike 4 Climate”, saying: “My generation trashed the planet. So I salute the children striking back.” BusinessGreen editor James Murray also writes on the protest and other recent climate-related action. In the Scotsman, Dani Garavelli: calls the striking schoolchildren a “beacon of hope”. And ConservativeHome carries an article from Paul Goodman asking how many younger voters “know about the [UK’s] emissions reduction record” and questioning if they are “conscious of the potential trade-offs” of zero emissions by 2050. The New Statesman profiles Greta Thunburg, the Swedish 16-year-old who has inspired the wave of school walkouts.
    A Scottish Daily Record editorial says: “Young campaigners will change climate, not politicians or the wealthy”.

    ***A Times editorial also comes out in favour of the schoolchildren: “They will live in an era of heightened risk of irreversible planetary damage. They are right not to take it meekly, or to reserve their dismay to evenings and weekends.”

    31

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Getting kuds to protest is straight out of Maos play book….

      90

    • #

      Here’s a Grauniad headline I’d like to see: KIDS TAKE DAY OFF SCHOOL HOLIDAYS TO PROTEST CLIMATE CHANGE.

      110

      • #
        AndyG55

        chuckle. ;-)

        Or “kids hand in iPhones to protest climate change”

        I vaguely remember seeing somewhere that the world communication network eats up some 10% of world electricity

        Or “kids walk to school to protest climate change”

        122

      • #

        Imagine how many school children would turn up if they held this protest ….. on a Saturday morning, instead of on a school day.

        Tony.

        141

    • #
      Annie

      In the comments on yesterday’s letters in the UK DT, there were several suggesting that the schoolchildren could start with not throwing their takeaway wrappers, cans and bottles around and into gardens. Also that they should refuse car lifts to school…that’ll be the day. I say give up their tablets and iphones and do their homework, using pencil and paper, by candlelight too, sitting huddled up in layers of rugs to keep warm.
      Well, if the supposed grown-ups of the leftie, greenie favour have their way, that’s how they will end up, eating turnips if they’re lucky.

      92

      • #
        Sambar

        You are to generous Annie, they don’t need pencil and paper, give em a slate, Totally reusable endlessly.

        70

        • #

          Slates and chalk are good, carbon in its dormant and non-dangerous state.
          Pencils and paper? That means production, many unsusstainable
          interactions and energy use, no, best go direct to dark ages.

          90

          • #
            Annie

            True, Sambar and Beth. There are bits of slate lying around Cumbria and Wales and plenty of chalk in soil around Reading, not to mention the White Cliffs of Dover. They would have to walk to pick them up though…how do you think the poor little darlings would manage that?

            BTW, for the benefit of the non-English on this site:

            Reading is pronounced ‘Redding’.
            Berkshire (the Royal County thereof) is pronounced ‘Barkshire’.
            Hertfordshire is pronounced ‘Hartfordshire’

            and the ‘shire’ part in all county names is pronounced ‘sheer’, not ‘shyer’.

            41

            • #
              Annie

              Also, Derbyshire is pronounced ‘Darbysheer’, Derby as ‘Darby’, definitely not ‘Durby’.

              21

              • #
                Annie

                Having said all that, as a plural it is ‘shires’!
                As are shire horses.
                Strange language, English!

                21

              • #
                Annie

                Pronounced shyers! ;)

                31

              • #
                TdeF

                It’s not so strange. Where the New Zealanders officially use the French i into e, so fish becomes fesh, increasingly in Australian English, the letter e is pronouced a. As in a big avent. Summa. Winta. Alectricity. Other endings are turned into a as well. Autha. Then I heard one woman saying her son was going to get a medal in the AL M Pics.

                30

            • #

              Annie,

              OT I know, but so darned interesting.

              As a cricket tragic, I love all things cricket, and the home of the game is England.

              I have 25 Large books on the history of the game, and it never ceases to amaze me of the place names in England.

              One of them, a large and rare book, Pageant of Cricket is by David Frith, and while it has some text, it is 600 pages plus of wonderful images.

              That’s basically where I had a crash course in pronunciation of place names.

              One of the most evocative of all (well, it was for me at the time) was The Stinchcombe Stragglers Cricket club. Their home ground is (now) Hounds Green in Stinchcombe which is a small village near Dursley in Gloucestershire.

              The image of a game being played at their original home ground there was just titled ‘a game at Stinchcombe Stragglers Dursley Gloucs.’

              I had to go and look it all up.

              And Gloucestershire is the home of the original legend of the game, ‘The Doctor’, the great WG Grace.

              Tony.

              41

            • #
              Bill in Oz

              But in Oz Shire is pronounced ‘Shyer’ !

              That’s all just part of us being us !

              :-)

              31

    • #
      Environent Skeptic

      Cool, so when will kids protest demanding an end to war?

      00

  • #
    pat

    don’t bother looking for FakeNewsMSM coverage of the following, however:

    17 Feb: Daily Mail: Revealed: Tory peer John Gummer gave 12 speeches benefiting private ‘green’ clients of his family firm as Lords sleaze watchdog probes £600,000 in payments
    • The probe has partially been triggered by the allegations of five MPs
    • Gummer is under investigation as he failed to declare his interest in Sancroft
    • Standards Commissioner Lucy Scott-Moncrieff will be heading up the case
    By David Rose
    Tory peer John Selwyn Gummer spoke in support of measures that would benefit green businesses that paid his private company more than £600,000 during a dozen House of Lords debates, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.
    The former Minister, who has been chairman of the independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC) since 2012, is being investigated by Standards Commissioner Lucy Scott-Moncrieff over claims that he breached the Lords’ Code of Conduct by failing to declare his interest in Sancroft International – his family consultancy – and its green technology clients.

    The probe was triggered in part by allegations from five MPs that he had backed measures that could benefit Sancroft’s clients in three Lords debates – but our investigation suggests he did so on a further nine occasions.
    They include three contributions to a debate on an Energy Bill going through Parliament in July 2013.

    During the debate, the former Environment Secretary, who became Lord Deben in 2010, told peers that carbon-free electricity was the ‘key to the future’ and that it was important not to restrict the activities of companies which made power from biological sources such as food waste and wood.

    Such firms include Saria, a biofuel producer, which has paid more than £183,000 to Sancroft. In June 2015, Lord Deben used another Lords debate to call on the Government to ‘give security’ to companies investing in low-carbon generation.
    By then, Sancroft’s clients included Temporis Capital, venture capitalists with interests in wind farms and solar energy projects, which paid £50,000 to the consultancy…

    The Mail on Sunday has also learned that in his capacity as CCC chairman, Lord Deben wrote to Business Secretary Greg Clark and Transport Secretary Chris Grayling to urge the Government to provide more ‘financial support’ to the electric vehicle industry, and to bring forward the date when all new cars would have to be electric.
    But he failed to mention in the letter – dated October 11, 2018 – either his involvement with Sancroft or that the firm had received almost £300,000 from Johnson Matthey, a firm investing more than £200 million in electric vehicle batteries, since 2012…READ ON
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6713327/Tory-peer-John-Gummer-gave-speeches-benefiting-clients-watchdog-probes-600-000-payments.html

    11 Feb: Breitbart: James Delingpole: Sleaze Watchdog Investigates Green Trougher Lord Deben
    The House of Lords sleaze watchdog has launched an investigation into the dubious dealings of dodgy Lord Deben.
    Good.

    I was beginning to worry that there would be no fallout whatsoever from David Rose’s Mail on Sunday scoop last week about Lord Deben’s involvement in a £600,000 conflict of interest scandal. Indeed the silence from the rest of the media – mysteriously, it went unreported in the Guardian, in the Daily Telegraph and at the BBC – was so deafening that I began to suspect there might be some kind of Establishment cover up going on.
    Happily, five MPs have kept the story alive by complaining to the Standards Commissioner Lucy Scott-Moncrieff, who has now announced an inquiry into allegations that Lord Gummer may have breached code of conduct rules.

    Also, Christopher Booker has followed up with a piece (LINK) of his own in the Sunday Telegraph, reminding us why this story is important…READ ALL
    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/02/11/lord-deben-investigated-by-parliamentary-sleaze-watchdog/

    60

  • #
    pat

    behind paywall:

    Households’ $2bn hit for solar roof panel subsidies
    The Australian-15 minutes ago
    Households will pay nearly $2 billion for rooftop solar installation subsidies this year, costing every home nearly 200 and threatening to derail Scott Morrisons …electricity consumers will be hit with an increase of between $360 …

    50

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      We need an ‘opt out’ clause in our power contracts.

      As in “I do not want to buy any renewable generated power & I decline to pay any subsidy for such energy”

      If a few million of us did this the game would be up completely.

      51

      • #
        Serp

        Well it’s on account of the RET and that battle was lost nearly twenty years ago when it was legislated; the right questions weren’t asked at the time and when an opportunity arose to kill it Al Gore prevailed upon Clive Palmer and it’s been all downhill since.

        Irrespective of the sovereign risk the RET must go. Once there’s no money in it renewables will disappear and we can go back to the path to national prosperity and all its benefits.

        40

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    The principal forcing is the electric plasma currents driving the Universe and by induction the solar system, where the solar TSI might be likened to the old temperature idiot light cars used to have, now replaced by an analog gauge, indicating the operating temperature of the V8 engine.

    The v8 engine under the hood, obviously invisible to the temp gauge monitors, is equivalent to the plasma currents powering the earth system, but all sorts of ad hoc theoretical adjustments are made to explain how the perturbations of the temperature gauge force geophysical activity, without realising that it the plasma that’s forcing things.

    90

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    What do you expect from NASA? Honesty? Certainly not. They always had a boss and like anyone with a boss they kept the boss happy. When the boss wanted tall rockets taking men to the moon that’s what they did. Now the bosses want the Earth to be warming so that’s what they do.

    Frankly I wish Trump would pull out the plug that keeps NASA going and start over. They have become too big to control.

    80

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Roy Hogue:

      It is important to realise that the NASA GISS Laboratories are a separate part of NASA and there because they can bask in the privilege of being part of NASA. They have nothing to do with the achievements of NASA and are merely another one of those on the gravy chain of Global Warming (about 14 organisations at last count I am told).
      Certainly they are dispensable and Trump could use them as a money saving so he can build his wall (and he could twitter that he is letting Gavin Schmidt move to Canada as Gavin claimed he was doing a bit over 2 years ago).

      60

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        I never get why its (USA) the National Space Agency that is doing the weather/climate bit (announcements) rather than the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or NOAA. Do they fight for grants? Ans: probably yes. Who has the profile? NASA. Who puts up the dam weather monitor satellites..NOAA!

        40

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I could make a few comments at this point:

        1. that NASA has so many arms gives NASA a builtin conflict of interest and that isn’t good for any organization

        2. item 1 makes NASA hard to manage at the top level where it’s most important to be well managed

        3. I’m not so convinced of the benefit of NASA that I couldn’t do without any part or all of it

        4. clearly the space race accelerated technology development from which we no doubt benefit but there was plenty of incentive without the space race and most of that advancement would have happened anyway, just probably at a slower pace

        5. a large unwieldy organization like NASA is very had to put back on the rails once it has derailed

        6. a thorough reevaluation of the usefulness of the several parts of NASA is long overdue and we could toss the old and restart what’s useful more easily than fix a broken behemoth

        I don’t think it’s a good use of resources to even talk about missions to Mars, and certainly manned missions when there are so many more important problems right here on Earth to worry about. NASA has become a millstone around our necks.

        The EPA has become a similar problem.

        Just some food for thought…

        30

  • #
    Another Ian

    Somewhat O/T – “The Greens will fix it all”

    “Greens intro bill for immediate phase-out of burning, mining or exporting coal”

    https://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2019/02/greens-intro-bill-for-immediate-phase-out-of-burning-mining-or-exporting-coal.html

    60

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      If it gets up, time to leave Australia….

      70

      • #
        PeterS

        If it gets up, we will crash and burn much like Venezuela then China will step in to “assist” and we will get all the coal fired and nuclear power stations we/they need. Ironic how the Greens here are polar opposites to the communists in China with regards to energy. That’s why I always wondered if the Greens are not communists but some other more chaotic and evil group of dangerous fools. In China such people would be rounded up and handled appropriately.

        80

    • #
      Another Ian

      It has got competition


      AOC says America should lead the world

      In committing national economic suicide and sending living standards back to 19th century ”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/18/aoc-says-america-should-lead-the-world/

      71

      • #
        Another Ian

        In comments there

        ” dam1953
        February 18, 2019 at 10:42 am

        I’ve come to the realization that suicide would solve all my problems…

        … if I could just get the right people to try it.”

        90

      • #
        Bill in Oz

        No thanks. Not with AOC in charge.
        Had enough of little kids running things at home !

        41

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      There’s absolutely nothing wrong with coal mining and when burnt for electricity generation.

      There is a proviso to the above which, as with most bad news, involves government supervision of these processes.

      I have seen enough comment to be aware that coal mining, blasting, transport of coal and restoration of mined areas may not be as good as it is supposed to be.

      Coal combustion and off gas cleaning is way better than seventy years ago but with HELE processes it could be much better.

      In all the above, the very core of Australia’s existence in the modern world, there’s still a problem.
      Government routinely turns a blind eye to the “shortcuts” taken to maximise profit.

      One recent example was the dispensation given to a local, Lake Macquarie, powerstation to keep running with their scrubbers inactive. What gives the government the right to ignore the stated environmental protection regulations: money?

      I’m 100% in favour of mining but totally against any sort of government diddlybop, especially when it leaves the average taxpayer short changed on their rights as citizens.

      At the level of leading through fantasy as practiced in the modern Green Band world, no words are enough.

      We need to restore reality to its proper place.

      KK

      102

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        yes, ignore just ignore all the problems. Fantasy land is now on the central coast

        25

        • #
          AndyG55

          Fantasy land is the ONLY thing inside your head, pfutz. !

          You even fantasise about atmospheric CO2 causing warming and affecting the climate.

          Get your doc to re-adjust your meds… less hallucinogenics.

          82

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Two cases of Black Lung confirmed in the Hunter, so health is also not what it should be.

        35

        • #
          AndyG55

          You are a slimy little character, aren’t you pfutz

          “He worked underground in an earlier period of his life but it’s only being detected now,”

          ie.. before the current protection regimes were in place.

          “Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis and silicosis were preventable diseases if appropriate dust control, atmospheric monitoring and worker monitoring measures were in place at mines.”

          52

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Those measures were brought in in the 1960, but he got it after that. And of course in Queensland, it is much much worse. But as long as we get cheap power, who cares, certainly not you.

            35

            • #
              AndyG55

              How many mine workers in the Hunter pfutz.

              ONLY 2 with the problem?

              WOW. Open cut, air-conditioned certainly protects the workers, doesn’t it, pfutz.

              Who cares if we destroy the whole fabric of society with the Greenie agenda..

              Certainly not you.

              Just remember.. YOU will always be on the very bottom rung of society, pfutz. A worthless troll.

              52

            • #
              AndyG55

              13,000+ mine workers in the Hunter, 2 cases = 0.015%

              Its obviously a very hazardous industry.

              I wonder how many people have actually DIE from putting up and/or servicing wind turbines.

              Which would you prefer to do, pfutz.

              a) sit in an air-conditioned mining rig earning $200,000+ pa

              b) dangle aimlessly from a crane trying fix a broken wind turbine?

              51

        • #
          AndyG55

          How many mine workers are there in the Hunter, pfutz.

          Hunter is open cut, with air-filtered and conditioned mining equipment.

          You have been caught out slithering, yet again.

          62

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            fro Coal Services:
            At the end of March 2017 there were 42 coal mines operating in NSW, 22 were open cut and 20 were underground mines (14 longwall operations)

            Fantasy land again

            23

            • #
              AndyG55

              “The Hunter Valley Coal Chain (HVCC) is the chain of coal delivery in New South Wales, Australia from (mainly open-cut)

              ooooooops….. pfutz proves his ignorance .. yet again.

              32

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        The main point is that it’s not Global Warming that’s the problem, it’s failure of government to engage.

        You chop a tree down. Stand away from it.
        You work around a mine. Keep your dust mask on.
        You drive a car. Only when sober.

        Lots of rules about common sense. Ignore them at your peril.

        60

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Why blame the government – they were engaged, but were convinced to step back, and hand over to ‘Coal Services’ and if you look at its representatives, it could be a textbook case of regulatory capture.

          The main point is that profit before people rules in the coal industry.

          34

          • #
            AndyG55

            “profit before people rules in the coal industry”

            Total and absolute BULLC**P

            (SNIPPED) CTS

            52

          • #
            AndyG55

            SNIPPED CTS

            72

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              SNIPPED CTS

              02

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              SNIPPED CTS

              24

              • #
                Dave

                SNIPPED CTS

                51

              • #
                AndyG55

                SNIPPED CTS

                42

              • #
                AndyG55

                SNIPPED CTS

                52

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                SNIPPED CTS

                24

              • #
                AndyG55

                SNIPPED CTS

                32

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Feter Pitzroi.

                Going round and round in
                Ever decreasing circles until
                He disappears up his
                Own black whole
                In a blinding flash
                Of blue light.

                Absolument stunning Pierre.

                Well done. You have just broken Geehis record of 322 consequtive posts without any content.

                Brilliant!!

                Jo must be so proud that she used you to show everyone just what a real warming butter is.

                Now we have seen.

                KK

                (I just deleted a whole bunch of stupid, boring, immature, off topic, name calling, it doesn’t help when you add another useless comment at the bottom of the sub thread.

                What a waste of my time that was!!!) CTS

                31

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              for your edification
              Raw coal production from underground mines in the Hunter coalfield increased by 19.6 per cent to 13.6 million tonnes in 2017, (Coal Sevices)

              23

              • #
                AndyG55

                Hunter coal mines EXPORTED 163 Millions tons in 2016/2017.

                On top of that you have the open cut providing for the power stations.

                Glencore freighted over 48 million tons of open cut coal to Port Waratah and Kooragang, .. just one company

                How much was from underground, did you say?

                22

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                so from no underground, to but open cut is much bigger. rearrange this well know phrase or saying, bum, dead, stick, head, your, go, bear’s, and, up, a

                14

              • #
                AndyG55

                I said from the start that Hunter was “mainly” open cut

                There’s that low comprehension of yours rearing its misbegotten head, yet again.

                32

          • #
            AndyG55

            Just been on the phone.

            According to a friend who works in HR for the mines, the cost of a worker injured or sick due to mining activities is several times the cost of meeting best-practice OHAS safety standards..

            So yes, they do rate profit highly, as any business should..

            … but that means protecting their workers.

            42

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Hunter coal mining spent $2.8 billion with some 3070 of the region’s businesses, down from $3.3 billion to 3640 businesses in 2015-16. It paid $17.5 million into local government coffers, down from $19.4 million, and contributed $2.8 million to more than 400 community organisations at an average of $6730 per grant, down from $3.7 million at an average of almost $8900.

            Despite the international question marks hanging over the industry, mine operators are enjoying some of the highest prices, and most profitable times, for some years.

            profit before people

            23

            • #
              AndyG55

              NO, fool

              Profit FOR people. !!

              The mining industry IS people..

              Enjoy

              32

            • #
              AndyG55

              ” $2.8 billion “

              That’s one heck of a lot of money to spend in just one region, wouldn’t you agree.

              $2.8 million to more than 400 community organisations at an average of $6730 per grant

              WOW !! and coal prices were down that year!! Talk about generosity !!

              32

              • #
                AndyG55

                errata… “and coal prices were down that year!! ”

                should read

                ….. and coal prices were down the previous year !!

                Jun 2016 was the low point,

                of course they wouldn’t contribute quite as much in 2016/2017

                22

              • #
                AndyG55

                Actually, January-June 2016 was all around the $50 mark (US$/metric Ton)

                Spike to $100 in December 2016 then a drop to $75.

                Great the last little while though. Up to $120 in Jun, dropped a bit since to around $100.

                12

              • #
                AndyG55

                That’s for Australian thermal cola, btw.

                12

              • #
                AndyG55

                coal !! not cola !

                12

    • #
      robert rosicka

      The little worm has much confidence in the Green Labor alliance .

      61

  • #
    David Maddison

    I hate to keep repeating this but George Orwell wrote about this before it happened. The Left now use “1984 ” as an operations manual.

    Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
    George Orwell, 1984

    121

    • #
      tom0mason

      6079 Smith W, aka the unperson Winston Smith, would be pleased with your repeated observations. Unfortunately it’s too late for him.

      Not so much “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there.” but
      “The past is different; it’ll be made more different every day.”

      70

  • #
    robert rosicka

    It’s not only NASA that have removed material that counters their meme , The ABC used to show documentaries on earth science and a lot of them counter their current ideology.

    90

  • #
    David Maddison

    This must have happened under Obama’s NASA administrator who had some strange ideas about what NASA’s mission should be.

    80

  • #
    Mark M

    What happened when Bugs Bunny took a left at Albuquerque

    Albuquerque’s $133-million electric bus system is going nowhere fast

    https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-abq-art-albuquerque-electric-buses-20190213-story.html

    50

  • #
    graham dunton

    Jo, Latest from the GWPF, and yes it may well be time to listen, GWPF -TV ,Date: 18/02/19
    Video: Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar Energy
    When the world’s richest entrepreneur says wind and solar will never work, it’s probably time to listen.
    Video:
    Bill Gates Slams Unreliable Wind & Solar Energy

    40

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    More analysis of our wonderful Bureau of Misinformation at Ken’s kingdom.

    This time he has looked at what the BOM did to the weather station readings for Eucla on the Nullabor plain at the border between South Australia & Western Australia. It’s small remote place with few people.

    The Bureau of Misinformation’s ACORN 2 lowers the maximum average temperature in November 1960 by up to 5 degrees Centigrade. https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/

    I hope that he does an analysis of what BOM ‘s doen to South Australia.

    62

  • #
    4TImesAYear

    I think they also hid the page that said that climate was determined by location. You can no longer find it in a search, but I did save a snip of it.

    41

  • #
    Dennis

    Midday Tuesday in Ballarat Victoria and the temperature is 15 deg C, overcast with light showers and short periods of sunshine.

    40

    • #
      Annie

      21C here in our part of Nth Central Vic at 1249.

      41

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Yes . areal global warming heat wave happening here in the Adelaide Hills of SA.

      Currently 22 degrees out side my back door.

      But the Bureau of Misinformation is promising that Summer will come back next Sunday with a top of 37 !

      41

      • #
        Maptram

        Good weather for solar power. Solar power works best in sunny, dry weather, (daylight only of course), the sort of weather produced by climate change, it is not very productive on cloudy, rainy, or foggy days.

        20

  • #
    pat

    Adani attacks could cost Bill Shorten swag of seats: Stephen Conroy
    by Jared Owen
    The Australian – 1 hour ago
    Former MP Stephen Conroy has lashed Queensland Labor’s “last-minute attack” on a planned coalmine, warning of the damage to Bill Shorten…
    Labor MPs silent on union…

    30

    • #
      pat

      only CAGW activisist (tiny in number) should be allowed to use social media, lawsuits! is that it, ABC?
      lengthy, repetitive, crazy:

      19 Feb: ABC: Adani’s new law firm put forward ‘trained attack dog’ strategy for waging legal ‘war’
      Exclusive by Josh Robertson
      PIC: The Adani strategy proposed using social media as a tool against anti-mine activists
      Lawyers for mining firm Adani proposed waging “war” on opponents of its controversial Queensland mine by using the legal system to pressure government, silence critics and financially cripple activists, according to documents obtained by the ABC…

      Queensland Deputy Premier Jackie Trad told the ABC she believed it was “clear that their strategy has been activated … and we should be concerned”.
      “We’ve seen the attacks on government — they clearly don’t like the role that the independent regulator [the Department of Environment and Science] is performing in terms of using science to make recommendations around final approval,” she said.
      “I mean, seriously, what’s Adani going to do next? Are they going to start pressuring the CSIRO around the ground water management plan?
      “And quite frankly, I am quite alarmed by some of the language used in the report like pursuing individuals so that they become bankrupt.
      “I, like most Australians, don’t want to see us go down an Americanisation path of heavy litigation and corporate attack.”…READ ALL
      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-19/adani-law-firm-put-forward-trained-attack-dog-strategy/10821470

      20

  • #
    pat

    18 Feb: WUWT: Virtue Signaling and Tax (subsidy) Equity Investors
    by charles the moderator
    In the elaborate article for Bloomberg, the author delves in to complex financial structure used by mega investors to harvest solar subsidies, while weaving in the appropriate smattering of virtue signaling.~ctm
    From Bloomberg (LINK)…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/18/virtue-signaling-and-tax-subsidy-equity-investors/

    18 Feb: Daily Caller: Michael Bastasch: Cities And States Are Scaling Back Their ‘Green’ Ambitions As Costs Skyrocket, Opposition Grows
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/18/green-new-deal-taxpayer-costs/

    10

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Does anyone know if this happens in Australia ? A year ago I was contacted by a company called Shine which offered more or less the same type of deal if I allowed the to put solar panels on the roof of my house.

      I never bothered. Was too suspecious of the whole thing.

      21

  • #
    crakar24

    Never A Straight Answer

    30

  • #
    pat

    18 Feb: Herald Scotland: Energy price cap branded “con” as Scots energy bills set to rise by up to £184 a year
    by Martin Williams
    While consumers hit by the potential price rises were encouraged to switch suppliers to find the best deal Britain’s leading consumer organisation warned that the cheapest deals have been vanishing from the market fearing it is to make up for a loss in revenue.
    USwitch.com, the price comparison service, warned that larger families in Scotland could see their annual bills rise by up to £184 a year, as the cap is on the rates which suppliers can charge on each unit of gas and electricity used
    Pensioners in Scotland on standard variable tariffs are more likely to be looking at around a £130 increase, on the assumption that they probably live in slightly smaller properties with fewer people at home with them, uSwitch added.

    Age Scotland warned the price rises would do nothing to tackle fuel poverty and makes “a mockery of the term ‘cap’”
    Adam Stachura, Age Scotland’s head of policy and communications said: “This change and increase is going to be hard to swallow for those already having a tough time paying their energy bills. It sends a confusing message to older people who thought help was at hand.”…

    In December Which? found that the number of energy deals costing less than £1,000 a year for medium users had dropped from 77 in January to eight. As of Monday, February 4, there were just six…
    Age Scotland’s Money Matters project found 54.5 % of elderly people are particularly vulnerable to fuel cost increases, with 38% “squeezed” and 3% “struggling” with increasing bills…
    Age Scotland research highlights that 6 in 10 single pensioner households and 4 in 10 pensioner couples in Scotland find it hard to afford the bills from their energy supplier.
    https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17439488.energy-price-cap-branded-con-as-scots-energy-bills-set-to-rise-by-up-to-184/

    20

  • #
    pat

    lol.

    18 Feb: DundeeEveningTelegraph: Dundee council approves plan for 20 solar-powered electric vehicle chargers
    The move will see 20 EV chargers installed on the roof of the Greenmarket car park, powered by an array of solar panels and additional electrical infrastructure beside the car park’s exit.
    It is believed the devices will be so-called “trickle chargers” which a car can be plugged into all day to charge up at a slower rate.

    At present, chargers in Greenmarket and other city multi-storeys have a maximum limit of three hours – the time it takes to fully charge the car using a higher-voltage charger…
    https://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/dundee-council-approves-plan-for-20-solar-powered-electric-vehicle-chargers/

    20

  • #
    pat

    10 Feb: CNN: Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein expected to leave Justice Department in mid-March
    By Laura Jarrett
    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is expected to leave the Justice Department in mid-March, according to a Justice Department official who spoke to CNN Monday.
    The official disputed the idea that the timing of Rosenstein’s departure has anything to do with the latest revelations from former acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, emphasizing that the plan was always that Rosenstein would help with the transition for his successor and then leave…

    AAP has the following but can’t find it on our major MSM; nothing on ABC:

    18 Feb: Western Advocate: AAP: Top US senator promises Trump ‘coup’ probe
    A prominent US Republican senator allied to Donald Trump has promised to investigate allegations Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed trying to oust the president from office in 2017.
    Former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe said in an interview on Sunday that Rosenstein was so alarmed by Trump’s removal of FBI director James Comey in May 2017, he discussed recruiting cabinet members to invoke the 25th amendment to remove Trump on the grounds of presidential disability.

    “There’s an allegation by the acting FBI director at the time that the deputy attorney general was basically trying to do an administrative coup, take the president down to the 25th amendment process,” South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham told CBS’s “Face The Nation.”
    “We will have a hearing about who’s telling the truth, what actually happened.”…
    https://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/5909431/top-us-senator-promises-trump-coup-probe/?cs=12512

    ***”entertainment”!

    19 Feb: Yahoo ***Entertainment: Sen. Lindsey Graham calls for an investigation into the DOJ and FBI
    Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has vowed to launch an investigation into whether top officials at the Justice Department and the FBI plotted to carry out a “bureaucratic coup” to force President Trump from office. Graham was speaking Sunday on CBS’ “Face The Nation” about a “60 Minutes” interview with Andrew McCabe, in which the former FBI deputy director confirmed that Justice Department officials discussed ousting Trump in 2017, invoking the 25th Amendment.
    https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/sen-lindsey-graham-calls-investigation-161842794.html

    11

    • #
      pat

      a must-read:

      17 Feb: American Greatness: Victor Davis Hanson: Autopsy of a Dead Coup
      There are many elements to what in time likely will become recognized as the greatest scandal in American political history, marking the first occasion in which U.S. government bureaucrats sought to overturn an election and to remove a sitting U.S. president…READ ALL
      https://amgreatness.com/2019/02/17/autopsy-of-a-dead-coup/

      10

  • #
    pat

    19 Feb: NBC: AP: Scientist who warned early about climate change, popularized term ‘global warming’ dies at 87
    “He saw clearly the unprecedented warming now playing out and made his views clear, even when few were willing to listen,” a fellow scientist said of researcher Wallace Smith Broecker.
    PIC: A polar bear tests the strength of thin sea ice in the Arctic on August 22, 2015 – European Geosciences Union/AFP – Getty Images file

    The longtime Columbia University professor and researcher died Monday at a New York City hospital, according to a spokesman for the university’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Kevin Krajick said Broecker had been ailing in recent months.
    Broecker brought “global warming” into common use with a 1975 article that correctly predicted rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would lead to pronounced warming. He later became the first person to recognize what he called the Ocean Conveyor Belt, a global network of currents affecting everything from air temperature to rain patterns…

    “Wally was unique, brilliant and combative,” said Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer. “He wasn’t fooled by the cooling of the 1970s. He saw clearly the unprecedented warming now playing out and made his views clear, even when few were willing to listen.”…

    Broecker said it is possible that warming caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases could be enough to affect the ocean currents dramatically.
    “Broecker single-handedly popularized the notion that this could lead to a dramatic climate change ‘tipping point’ and, more generally, Broecker helped communicate to the public and policymakers the potential for abrupt climate changes and unwelcome ‘surprises’ as a result of climate change,” said Penn State professor Michael Mann…

    “We live in a climate system that can jump abruptly from one state to another,” Broecker told the Associated Press in 1997. By dumping into the atmosphere huge amounts of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, “we are conducting an experiment that could have devastating effects.”
    “We’re playing with an angry beast — a climate system that has been shown to be very sensitive,” he said…
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/update-scientist-who-popularized-term-global-warming-dies-87-n972901

    10

    • #
      theRealUniverse

      ““Broecker single-handedly popularized the notion that this could lead to a dramatic climate change ‘tipping point’ …” must have been a mate of Maurice Strong, birds of a feather….

      51

  • #
    Dave

    Another white elephant coming up!

    HYDROSTOR???

    Use electricity to compress air, take out the heat, and send it underground ….etc etc

    Massive infrastructure needed with this one. Look at the video?

    ARENA just gave the $6 million ???
    https://arena.gov.au/projects/hydrostor-angas/

    50

    • #
      robert rosicka

      More green folly

      50

    • #

      Yikes!

      Who would have thought, eh!

      Quick, throw money at it.

      This is similar to pumped hydro in that it uses electricity at one time to generate electricity at another time, so, it is a nett power consumer, with losses at both conversions.

      5MW nameplate, and 10MWH, so it gives two hours of power to the grid.

      10MWH. You know, 0.02% of the total power consumed in Australia in 2 hours

      And the total cost is only $33 Million, with $6 Million of taxpayer subsidy.

      Tony.

      81

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      Actually I would have thought that the Greens would completely oppose this.

      Why ?

      Well caverns always have rare living animals and other life forms in them. This pros of regularly flooding and then forcing water out again with compressed air would destroy all such living things.

      Surely if we point this out to some Greenists they will rethink the strategy.

      :-)

      61

    • #
      PeterS

      Almost as useless as sticking a large thermocouple into the sun to generate electricity. Then again there are so many gullible people they will fall for both ideas. After all there are some people who seriously believe the earth is flat.

      30

  • #
  • #
    James Summers

    yep, I checked for myself and yes, the page does say “access denied”. this is no joke.

    40

  • #
    Chris

    Before Obama came along, NASA did not actively promote the junk science of “climate change”.
    I’m only surprised that Trump has not yet drained some of the swamp around Cape Canaveral…

    40

  • #
    robert rosicka

    It’s official! Climate change is responsible for Queensland floods and fire .

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-19/climate-change-and-the-cost-of-qlds-summer-of-disasters/10826122

    90

    • #
      AndyG55

      Politically driven anti-science idiotology drive claptrap and propaganda. !

      Not one bit of real science to back such a stupid claim.

      94

      • #
        PeterS

        That’s because the vast majority of politicians and MSM are clueless about real science in general. So they spew out their fake science to impress the public who are also mostly clueless about science in general, and in many cases it works. It’s a clear case of the blind leading the blind. The trouble is eventually they will go over the cliff.

        80

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘…the public who are also mostly clueless about science in general …’

          True, so its up to us to communicate in simple brief soundbites. What we say must be plausible.

          10

      • #
        Craig Thomas

        Andy, do you understand that everybody thinks you are an idiot?

        17

        • #
          AndyG55

          Do you understand that everybody KNOWS you are a mindless BOT ?

          Come on ct, show where there is some real science in that abc propaganda

          Oh wait, you are clueless about real science.

          Go and iron your suit and grease your hair, ct. Look pretty !

          51

    • #
      el gordo

      Deb Frecklington is sharp, sidesteps climate change and looks good too. Definitely premier material

      40

    • #
      Mark M

      January 22, 2015: The Queensland Leader of the Opposition Annastacia Palaszczuk has spoken of her desire to triple the number of Queenslanders with solar …

      0.17: “I can’t control the weather.”

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezbhVrb7zMs

      31

  • #
    Slithers

    I am an Old man, I am experiencing the coolest summer ever, yet live just 150km south of Sydney.

    Just one day this year that I consider hot, that’s above 35 degrees centigrade

    BTW did you know that 32 degrees F is zero centigrade?

    Did you know that 33 degrees F is also zero centigrade.

    AND did you know that 31 degrees F is MINUS ONE centigrade… Good on ya BoM.

    91

  • #

    O/T progress report on ROM from Dr serf. He looks good but reports he’s a bit low in spirits, would like to be back on the farm. Who wouldn’t? Still when we chatted and he told me about his record altitude glider flight,(omg!) he sparked up and so did I.- What a story!

    81

  • #
    pat

    watch the video – it covers both incidents:

    VIDEO: 1min59sec: 18 Feb: ABC7: Fiery Tesla Model X crash in Fremont leaves driver injured
    By David Louie
    FREMONT, Calif. (KGO) —
    The driver of a Tesla Model X SUV survived what appeared to be a high-speed crash this morning in Fremont after smashing head-on into a tree on Paseo Padre Parkway near Thornton Avenue. Fremont Fire Battalion Chief Gary Ashley said the driver was able to free himself from the wreckage. The vehicle caught fire and suffered extensive damage to the front third. No other vehicles were involved.

    This happened shortly after 7 a.m. on Monday. Battalion Chief Ashley said it was not immediately known what triggered the fire in the electric vehicle, but first responders instituted tactics to fight a battery fire by pouring 3,000 gallons of water on the white SUV. They also used a thermal imaging camera to detect to monitor whether the batteries might cause a second fire to erupt as has happened in previous Tesla crashes. After more than two hours, fire personnel deemed it was safe to move the wreckage on a flatbed tow truck where the Tesla was isolated and monitored for a second fire at a tow yard…
    The Model X is registered to Brian Morton. Tesla would not confirm whether he is a Tesla employee…

    This is the second incident involving Tesla in three days to which Fremont firefighters have responded. On Saturday night, a fire erupted in a fenced-in area of Tesla’s Fremont auto plant. Battalion Chief Ashley, who also was at that incident, said that it was difficult at first to know what was on fire until Tesla supervisors arrived. The Fremont Fire Department dispatched 25 personnel, including its entire hazard materials unit, to that incident…
    “We were able to determine that some battery modules were involved, not so much a complete pack but modules that were disassembled as I understand it for recycling,” said Battalion Chief Ashley. Once that was determined, Ashley said Tesla provided a forklift and bins which they filled with water to submerge the battery components..
    https://abc7news.com/fiery-tesla-model-x-crash-in-fremont-leaves-driver-injured/5143718/

    01

  • #
    pat

    18 Feb: CarbonPulse: ANALYSIS: Taking a risky route, UK airline Flybmi crashes into EU ETS Brexit ‘shield’
    UK airline Flybmi collapsed over the weekend, blaming in part higher EU ETS costs, though it appears that the bloc’s Brexit-linked carbon market safeguards contributed to its ultimate death knell amid the carrier’s risky practices and despite a slew of warnings.

    17 Feb: BBC: Passengers seek flights after Flybmi ceases operations
    Passengers stranded across Europe have told of their frustration after the UK regional airline Flybmi collapsed, cancelling all its flights.
    The airline, which flew to 25 cities, said Brexit uncertainty and rises in fuel and ***carbon costs led to it filing for administration on Saturday…
    Flybmi’s move puts 376 jobs at risk and comes as other airlines face problems…

    A Flybmi spokesman said: “It is with a heavy heart that we have made this unavoidable announcement.
    “The airline has faced several difficulties, including recent spikes in fuel and ***carbon costs, the latter arising from the EU’s recent decision to exclude UK airlines from full participation in the Emissions Trading Scheme…

    Several airlines have folded or reported financial trouble during the past two years, with analysts blaming fierce competition, rising costs and falling passenger numbers.

    Britain’s Monarch collapsed in October 2017, while Germany’s Germania filed for insolvency earlier this month. Air Berlin and Alitalia, and a string of smaller operators hit trouble.
    Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary warned this month that the airline industry would see more bankruptcies.
    Flybe, another UK airline, has said that if a rescue takeover by Virgin Atlantic is not approved by shareholders, the airline’s holding company will close…
    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47269397

    10

  • #
    pat

    Angus Taylor sounds like Labor/Greens!

    19 Feb: Daily Mail: Climate change farce: How every Australian household contributes $200 a year to those lucky enough to be able to afford to put solar panels on their roof
    •Cost to each household to pay for solar installation subsidies soaring to $195
    •More than two million Australians use solar power technology in their homes
    •Energy Minister Angus Taylor said cost of incentives to install solar was low
    By Ben Hill For Daily Mail Australia
    The federal Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme together with state rebates – used to pay for subsidies to homeowners for installing solar panels – are set to rise by 45 per cent.
    The cost to each household for the subsidy will soar from $134 in 2018 to $195 this year, The Australian reported…

    Energy Minister Angus Taylor said the cost of small-scale technology certificates – used as an incentive for homeowners to install solar panels – made up three per cent of an average power bill.
    Small-scale technology certificates are given to consumers installing solar panels and are then bought back by power companies
    Mr Taylor said Australia’s biggest electricity retailers such as Origin, AGL Energy and EnergyAustralia were responsible for a bigger part of power bills.
    ‘The big cost is the profits being taken by the big energy companies in the wholesale market, without innovation or new products, and it is time for them to deliver a fairer deal for their customers,’ he said.
    ‘According to the Australian Energy Market Commission, the small-scale technology certificate cost is less than three per cent of the bill, whereas 46 per cent is going to the big generator retailers.’…

    Victorians can set up solar in their homes for half the usual price under a scheme introduced by Premier Daniel Andrews’ government, while in New South Wales Labor plans for 500,000 homes to have renewable energy technology in a capped rebate program.
    The average price in Australian capital cities for a 5kW system is $5,100, according to Choice.
    It takes from two to seven years for solar panel systems to begin to pay for themselves and allow homeowners to save money.
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6718419/Power-bills-set-soar-61-home-pay-2billion-solar-installations.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    Updated 18 Feb: DesMoinesRegister: Des Moines is inches away from breaking a snowfall record set the same year the Titanic sank
    by Anna Spoerre
    Des Moines could break a 107-year-old snowfall record this week.
    In 1912, 43.5 inches of snow fell in 40 days in Des Moines. Since Jan. 11, 37.4 inches covered Iowa’s capital, according to the National Weather Service.
    But a mid-week storm could overturn Des Moines’ record for most snowfall in a 40-day period set the same year the Titanic sank to the bottom of the Atlantic.

    A winter storm system passing over central Iowa late Tuesday night through Wednesday morning could bring about half a dozen more inches of snow, said Brooke Hagenhoff, a meteorologist with National Weather Service in Des Moines.
    Official measurements used for record-setting purposes are taken at the Des Moines International Airport, Hagenhoff said. And though snowstorms that produce three inches of snow or more are not remarkable for central Iowa, the frequency of such storms this year is unusual…

    If enough snow stacks up by Wednesday morning to break the 40-day snowfall record, it wouldn’t be the first time this season’s weather will have broken a record.
    On Jan. 30, under a polar vortex, Des Moines surpassed the 1965 record low of minus 17 degrees.
    The minus 20-degree day, with wind chills dipping to minus 40, became the coldest Jan. 30 in the city’s history, just 10 degrees shy of the all-time coldest day on record in Des Moines of minus 30, a record set on Jan. 5, 1884, according to the National Weather Service.
    https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/2019/02/17/des-moines-iowa-may-break-107-year-old-snowfall-record-mid-week-storm-titanic-weather-service-cold/2901024002/

    20

  • #
    Slithers

    Please note Peter Fitzimonnds has No
    reply to this statemt of Fact!

    31

  • #
    Slithers

    Summers are getting cooler….

    51

    • #
      el gordo

      The Queensland coast has been cooler this summer, because of the blocking highs in the Tasman bringing south easterlies onshore.

      10

  • #
    pat

    19 Feb: Guardian: Renewables need urgent investment to ease Australia’s transmission bottlenecks, experts warn
    Energy storage and transmission must be rapidly updated to meet emissions targets through uptake of renewables, group says
    by Katharine Murphy
    Renewable energy experts have called on federal and state governments to invest in additional transmission infrastructure and storage, saying Australia’s emissions reduction targets won’t be met without rapid policy action.

    A statement issued by more than 40 experts, following a three-day symposium at the Australian National University, says renewable energy is now central to efforts to mitigate climate change, and the energy sector has been deploying solar and wind power at “unprecedented” rates.
    “But there are emerging bottlenecks, and the present market settings do not deliver for consumers,” the joint statement says.

    It says in order to maintain the rapid pace of renewable energy deployment, Australia “urgently needs” additional electricity transmission, additional energy storage and demand-response mechanisms, electricity-market reform and a solid electricity infrastructure investment framework.
    One of the signatories is Andrew Blakers, professor of engineering at the Australian National University…

    The Blakers research said government subsidies for solar and wind were no longer required for the target to be met, but it would be valuable for governments to facilitate new private investment in storage and new transmission lines…
    A colleague of Blakers at ANU, Frank Jotzo, noted that after the Blakers study was published it was “a very big assumption that renewables deployment would continue at present rates, and all it is is a straight-line extrapolation from one year’s renewables deployment”.
    Jotzo is also a signatory to the new statement, which says policy action will be required to meet the Paris target…
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb/19/renewables-urgent-investment-australia-transmission-bottlenecks

    19 Feb: UtilityMag: Major NSW party announces renewable energy plans
    If elected on 23 March, the NSW Labor Party has vowed to deliver 7GW of renewable energy within a decade.
    NSW Labor has committed to use reverse auctions to build 6GW of renewable energy with storage, and establish a new state-owned corporation to deliver a further 1GW of renewables and storage.
    4GW of renewables will be commissioned in its first four year term, subject to consultation with AEMO, industry and consumers.

    NSW Labor says its policy will:
    Power more than three million homes (more than are currently in NSW)
    • Create 13,485 direct jobs in regional NSW
    • Generate $9.5 billion in capital investment and $5 billion in additional economic benefits
    • Cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 million tonnes, or 12 per cent of current NSW emissions

    Last week, NSW Labor announced that if elected it will deliver 500,000 new solar homes through a new $2200 rebate.
    Smart Energy Council CEO, John Grimes, said, “This is an absolute game-changer, the biggest renewable energy policy ever announced in Australia. If this policy is implemented, NSW will go from laggard to leader.
    “We are facing a climate change emergency and we need to do whatever we can to shift NSW’s energy generation to renewables. NSW Labor has delivered a smart plan for a smart energy future.”…

    “Energy network businesses are working hard to ensure the incredible growth we are seeing in renewable resources can be integrated into the grid in a safe and smart way,” (Energy Networks Australia CEO, Andrew) Dillon said.
    “This is why Energy Networks Australia and the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) are working on the Open Energy Networks project.
    “Open Energy Networks is investigating options to improve the electricity system to ensure household solar and storage work in harmony with a grid that was never designed for two way energy flows. As we move to greener grids, this work will help ensure reliable supply and lower household power bills.”…READ ON
    https://utilitymagazine.com.au/major-nsw-party-announces-renewable-energy-plans/

    20

  • #
    pat

    19 Feb: EnergyMatters: NSW Greens energy policy: PowerNSW, a public renewable electricity company
    The NSW Greens energy policy aims to transform the state’s electricity market with a publicly-owned renewable electricity supplier and retailer called PowerNSW.
    The 100 per cent renewables supplier would build, distribute and also retail affordable electricity for New South Wales residents. The Greens also wants to create regional renewable energy hubs across the state.
    PowerNSW would build a totally renewable energy supply for NSW by 2030. The company would commission one gigawatt of cheap, green, reliable energy every year.

    Publicly owned renewable electricity: Regional hubs
    A $5 billion Regional Clean Infrastructure Investment would fund four regional renewable hubs in the Murray-Riverina, Northern NSW Tablelands, Central West NSW and Broken Hill.
    The hubs would see targeted investment in new network capacity. This would then deliver renewable energy to the grid and create jobs in regional NSW communities…
    It would provide a growing pool of publicly-owned renewable electricity assets state-wide.
    The company will also provide the cheapest and greenest electricity possible – 100 per cent reliable, renewable and affordable, Shoebridge says.

    NSW Greens energy policy: PowerNSW to slash bills
    NSW consumers will then save on average more than $200 a year. PowerNSW will save money by stripping out corporate profits and advertising.

    ***The NSW Liberal and Labor parties are also promising a big solar roll-out if they win the state election on March 23…
    https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/powernsw-nsw-greens-energy-policy/

    20

  • #
    pat

    19 Feb: SBS: AAP: Victoria to end energy price fruit salad
    The Victorian government will force energy retailers to put customers on a mandated best offer so they can stop comparing “apples with pears and bananas”.
    Not a basket case, but a fruit bowl – that’s how the Victorian government has described the state’s energy pricing structure, while announcing plans for an overhaul…
    “One of the key problems we’ve had for many years is that we compare apples with pears and bananas,” Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio told reporters…

    The laws, first flagged in October, will take effect by July 1 when 167,000 households on standing offers will automatically be moved to default prices, set by the Essential Services Commission.
    Other customers can request a shift to the annually-reviewed default offer through their suppliers.
    The default price will vary across the state…

    Victorian Council of Social Services chief Emma King said companies had been “fleecing” customers for years…
    “For the first time, we’ll be able to compare apples with apples rather than apples with oranges and (customers will) know they are getting the best possible deal.”
    But the Greens say the laws do not go far enough, calling for a state-owned renewable energy company.
    The energy sector and opposition are also critical of the bill…
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/victoria-to-end-energy-price-fruit-salad

    40

  • #
    pat

    Moran claims we have spent $72bn over the last 10 years on RE. pity this is only a short excerpt:

    VIDE0: 1min31sec: TWEET: Andrew Bolt: WATCH: Alan Moran discusses the increase in household costs on energy due to a shift toward renewables.
    Bolt Report – 19 Feb 2019
    https://twitter.com/theboltreport/status/1097784298717949952

    20

  • #
    pat

    lol.

    19 Feb: UK Independent: Fund more lab-grown meat to fight climate change, experts tell EU leaders
    Chatham House calls for official backing for high-tech food to cut greenhouse gas emissions
    by Jane Dalton
    Experts at an influential think tank are calling on EU leaders to back the expansion of more lab-grown meat to enable Europe to help tackle climate change.
    The Royal Institute of International Affairs, known as Chatham House, says new high-tech foodstuffs will be vital to the EU meeting its goals on climate change, human health and drug resistance…

    It also says EU chiefs should prioritise development of the “meat analogues” industry – lab-grown meat and plant-based food that resembles meat.
    Lab-grown meat – dubbed “clean” meat – is made without killing animals, but by taking a muscle sample from an animal, collecting stem cells and growing them into muscle tissue…

    Eleonora Evi MEP said: “Our food system is contributing to an environmental and climate catastrophe and excessive meat consumption is the key factor. It is our responsibility, as decision-makers, to reverse this trend.
    “Meat analogues have the potential to become a powerful ally.”
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/meat-lab-grown-climate-change-plant-based-health-crops-chatham-house-a8785676.html

    10

  • #
    philthegeek

    I agree with NASA 2010. So call me a denier.

    Lol! And 18 subsequent years of research and data……….

    Yup, this is a parody site to be sher to be sher. You getting hard up for things to post?

    dont worry. After the election in May i feel sure you’ll have an easier time stoking the outrage and getting the clicks. :)

    33

    • #
      Mark D.

      Lol “18″ subsequent years” I’m sure your maths skills are perfectly suited for calculating AGW….

      30

      • #
        philthegeek

        yeah whatever. Still transitioning from 18. :) But doesn’t detract from the awesomeness of Jo’s ability to post hilarious fluff to keep the regulars here well fed and exercised. :)

        Bit cruel exploiting AngryG’s obvious condition for the entertainment of the peanut gallery though…………

        22

        • #
          AndyG55

          so phlip has absolutely ZERO science to put forward, as always.

          Cannot face facts, has no fact..

          just makes gurgling baby troll noises.

          Good see I am always on your mind, little trollette

          you ARE the peanut gallery.

          31

          • #
            el gordo

            Phil doesn’t have any interest in climate science, but he likes political science.

            10

            • #
              philthegeek

              Phil doesn’t have any interest in climate science,

              Untrue eg…i just have a different take on it than most of the denizens here. :)

              And cant be bothered anymore with the endless re-runs of some of the basic arguments and assertions about it made here.

              The politics around how science and public policy making interact is rather fascinating.

              And, this place is always good for a laff. :)

              11

              • #
                AndyG55

                You go by brain-washed mantra and propaganda pap, rather than anything resembling real science.

                We know that.

                You are always being laughed at phlip, because you are so darned EMPTY and INCOMPETENT.

                You have NOTHING to offer to rational discussion.

                You have NO arguments to offer, not even basic ones.

                Any empirical evidence of warming or any climate effect, for that matter, by increased atmospheric CO2, yet, phlip.

                …. or are you still on your little FANTASY La-La-Land trip.

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                Angus Taylor is going to tender for new coal fired power stations, can the Coalition still win?

                00

              • #
                philthegeek

                Angus Taylor is going to tender for new coal fired power stations, can the Coalition still win?

                He may try, but it will be simple virtue signaling to the wet dreams of coalhuggers and of no actual meaning in the real world. ALP response will be similar to that relating to the Libs proposal to privatise / outsource Visas.

                If they are going to do it, with less than a week of part time parliament to go, it will have to be in the budget and that most likely wont get passed before they go into caretaker mode and the election. Up in smoke huh??

                Honestly mate, there are simply not enough people going to change their vote to the Coalition, on the basis of funding coal fired power to make up for the votes they would lose over it and EVERYTHING the Coalition is on about is about trying to win an election they may well have lost months ago. With the polling pretty much set in stone in the 53/47 range they are done…stick a fork in em. :)

                oh…and glad to see you still wuv me AngryG. XXXXX

                11

              • #
                el gordo

                Phil I predict a mini budget after the NSW election is over.

                The Coalition needs to bring back the deserters who have been voting for the independents, primarily in Australia’s rural heartland. The way to achieve this is with infrastructure spending in the bush.

                So its satellite cities connected to a very fast train network and a fresh water pipe from Lake Argyle to Bourke, eradicating drought forever. Even the Greens will warm to these ideas.

                New coal fired power stations must be a major part of the energy mix, because now we are confident that this unprecedented level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is benign.

                A victory for the Coalition is a certainty.

                00

  • #
    Craig Thomas

    Geez, Jo, you really are disappearing down the rabbit hole.
    I googled “primary forcings accroding to NASA” and I got,

    “Forcings: The initial drivers of climate.

    1. Solar Irradiance. Solar radiation is the source of heat for planet Earth.

    2..etc…”

    You’re just getting sillier and sillier.

    17

  • #
    pat

    funny I can’t find any MSM on the following two pieces:

    18 Feb: GuidoFawkes: Faiza Shaheen caught saying Sadiq’s emission tax is “unfair” and will hit poor hardest
    Labour’s rising media star Faiza Shaheen has been recorded at an event calling Sadiq Khan’s new pollution tax “unfair” and warning that it will hit working class traders and families hardest…
    Shaheen, Labour’s candidate to take on Iain Duncan Smith in Chingford and Woodford Green – not that the media normally bothers to mention that – was speaking at an event alongside fellow ‘rising star’ Rebecca Long-Bailey.
    “We have completely got the politics wrong in terms of the impact on inequalities… We didn’t think about the redistributional impacts for those at the poorer end who will have to switch their car.”…

    She is right, plumbers and carpenters with diesel vans or families with affordable diesel cars will be clobbered by Sadiq’s £12.50-a-day ULEZ charge. The ULEZ zone is set to be extended to the North and South Circulars in October 2021, just ahead of a provisional 2022 election. It just so happens that the North Circular runs right through Chingford and Woodford Green…
    https://order-order.com/2019/02/18/faiza-shaheen-caught-saying-sadiqs-emission-tax-unfair-will-hit-poorest-hardest/

    19 June 2018: YellowAdvertiser: Waltham Forest MP calls for parliamentary debate on expansion of Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ)
    by Alice Richardson – Local democracy reporter
    Iain Duncan Smith, who represents Chingford and Woodford Green, called for a debate among MPs about the expansion – which will mean a daily charge of £12.50 to travel inside the A406.
    The MP is concerned that it means his constituents will have to pay to get to Whipps Cross Hospital in Leytonstone.

    Mr Duncan Smith called for exemptions to be considered for local people travelling back and forth to hospital and in the community, otherwise they will face escalating costs from the charge.
    London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) is set to undergo considerable expansion in 2021, as part of a major push to improve air quality in the capital city…

    As many as 100,000 cars will be hit with the £12.50 fee — on top of the Congestion Charge, where applicable — if they enter the zone, with another 35,000 vans and 3,000 lorries affected…
    Signs and cameras for the expanded zone will cost £90 million to £130 million to install and drivers who fail to pay fees will be fined £160.
    From April 8 2019, motorbikes, cars and vans that do not meet required standards will all pay a daily charge of £12.50 to drive in central London, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
    http://www.yellowad.co.uk/article.cfm?id=132821&headline=Waltham%20Forest%20MP%20calls%20for%20parliamentary%20debate%20on%20expansion%20of%20Ultra%20Low%20Emissions%20Zone&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***see second link in comment #20 re “Zak Exley, founder of Justice Democrats and co-author of Rules for Revolutionaries”.
    read all:

    19 Feb: FrontPage: “Justice Democrats”: Orchestrators of The Green New Deal
    The Green New Deal is the linchpin of a broad socialist agenda veiled as “environmentalism”
    by Discover The Networks
    In light of the massive attention currently being directed toward the Democrats’ so-called “Green New Deal,” it is worth examining one particular organization that has played a vital role in promoting not only that Deal, but its staunchest advocates as well. That organization is Justice Democrats (JD), a federal political action committee which was launched in Los Angeles on January 23, 2017. The group was co-founded by several individuals who had been either supporters or staffers of Senator Bernie Sanders’ failed presidential campaign of 2016.

    These included: Cenk Uygur of the online news program The Young Turks; longtime Democrat operative ***Zack Exley, who has had close ties to MoveOn.org and George Soros’s Open Society Foundations; Saikat Chakrabarti, who later went on to become the campaign manager and chief-of-staff to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; Alexandra Rojas (national digital field director of Sanders’ campaign); Corbin Trent (founder of “Tennessee for Bernie Sanders”); and Kyle Kulinski, the host and producer of the YouTube show Secular Talk. All except Kulinski had also been co-founders (in 2016) of the pro-Democrat organization Brand New Congress (BNC)…

    In 2018, JD played a key role in promoting the congressional campaign of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. By February 2018, Ocasio-Cortez had become a member of of JD’s board of directors. JD’s socialist, open-borders, transformative agenda is hers as well

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/272873/justice-democrats-orchestrators-green-new-deal-discover-networks

    00

  • #
    pat

    this is as far as I’m going with this one!

    2 Feb: YaleClimateConnections: Climate change could screw up homicide investigations
    By Diana Madson
    Specifically, how time of death is sometimes determined.
    https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/02/climate-change-could-screw-up-homicide-probes/

    10

  • #

    An exercise: read the NASA wayback extract quoted by Jo above, and then read: https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/science/, which is the manipulative slop NASA sees as fit for our consumption now. See the contrast?

    Even to approximate some truths while pushing the IPCC line is now out of the question. Every line of text must shill. Everything which weakens the creepy globalist script must be omitted. And GeeUp is on the spot to defend the manipulative slop, of course. It’s what they do.

    Well spotted, Jo.

    41

  • #
    George Reagan

    Back in the early/mid 1970s several physic majors at Texas Tech Univ started our senior projects for a BS in Engineering Physics. We placed a tracking mirror on the roof and sent the image to the basement through a 12 inch iron pipe and with another mirror, on to a video screen. We studied time/date stamped analog pics of the Sun in various spectra and corelated the visuals with analog photometers at various locations on campus. Dr. Gott, our sponsor relayed our data to NASA (he did color correction on the super computer on visuals from the moon NASA visits).
    They liked our program and had us visit their solar studies program. Myself, being an old hick farm boy, it was something special. Regards, retired engineer, physicist, astronomer and petroleum geologist.

    10

  • #
    Slithers

    Will we ever see 35 cents/Kwatt again?
    STUPID question the poloticos have their snounst in the trough

    00