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

Books

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (34 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 9.0 out of 10 based on 34 ratings

478 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #

    The Thunberg fallacies
    By David Wojick
    https://www.cfact.org/2020/01/25/the-thunberg-fallacies/

    Ever since she splashed into view I have wondered about Greta Thunberg’s reasoning. Her quoted statements, blasting the world for not doing the impossible, have given no clue where she is coming from.

    Now, thanks to some detailed published statements of hers, from the World Economic Forum in Davos, I have my answer. It turns out she is hotly embracing not one, but two, howling fallacies. No wonder she sounds nuts.

    To begin with, she cites the IPCC report on climate change from 2018, which claims we have only a few years left to act if there’s a 67% chance of keeping the global temperature rise from now to below 0.5 degrees C. (She, like everyone else, talks about a rise of 1.5 degrees, but the IPCC says that 1.0 degrees has already happened, which she knows.) If she said a half a degree people might laugh.

    She says this is “not an opinion”, that it is THE science. Which is the first fallacy. What the IPCC writes is of course just an opinion and a highly contested one at that. It is nothing but model-based speculation, which is contradicted by real evidence.

    But hey, lots of alarmists buy the IPCC stuff and they are not yelling that our planetary house is on fire. Getting to that point is Thunberg’s second, and far bigger, fallacy. She has decided that another half degree of global warming is the threshold to catastrophe.

    Mind you she gives no actual reasons here. It appears to be a pure leap of faith. She mentions in passing some apparently dreadful things like tipping points and unknown feedbacks, but nothing specific. The IPCC certainly does not suggest any such hidden cataclysmic triggers.

    She even says, “Either we prevent temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees (Celsius), or we don’t. Either we avoid chain reaction of unravelling ecosystems, or we don’t.” It sounds like one follows from the other but it doesn’t.

    This is the first I have heard of a chain reaction of unraveling ecosystems, especially one triggered by tiny warming (just half of what we supposedly have already seen.) I am sure the IPCC has never mentioned this demon or we would all have heard of it.

    So there it is. She starts with the questionable IPCC and then simply leaps into the abyss but she calls it, “THE science”. There is no science here. In fact, there is no reasoning that I can see. In logic this is called argument by assertion.

    The IPCC report merely addressed the relatively mundane question “What is the difference between 1.5 degrees of total warming (0.5 to come) and 2.0 degrees?” This question arises because the Paris Accord includes both targets. It says we want to hit 2.0 but get below it toward 1.5 if possible. In no case is 1.5 a target.

    Given that 2.0 is the basic target, it is perfectly clear that 1.5 is not the threshold to catastrophe. In fact the report says that while holding to 1.5 is better, the difference is small. This is why the UN has not proposed dropping the 2.0 degree target. All of which contradicts Greta Thunberg’s claims. The report she cites simply does not support her outlandish position. No wonder the CLINTEL people say there is NO emergency.

    To recap, there are two fallacies in her reasoning. Let’s call them the IPCC fallacy and the Thunberg fallacy. The IPCC fallacy is thinking that humans control global temperature. The Thunberg fallacy is thinking that a mere half degree of future warming is the threshold to catastrophe, to the point of threatening human existence. Unfortunately her followers have embraced her delusion.

    The IPCC fallacy is well established and widespread, including among many scientists. It is the basis for the Paris Accord. It is moderate in its way. The Thunberg fallacy is new and nuts. In fact it is tearing the alarmist community apart, which is fine by me. Although like all forms of madness, the Thunberg fallacy bears watching, lest it get out if control.

    Greta Thunberg and her followers are calling for rapidly rebuilding the global energy system, while also completely restructuring the world’s economic, social and political systems. All this turmoil in the name of limiting future global warming to one half a degree. It does not get any crazier than that.

    Please share this.

    David

    831

    • #
      Aussie Pete

      Hi David,
      My first thought is, why devote so much time and effort to the spruiking of this kid? Then I realise that she is just another absurdity in this whole debate that needs to be dealt with. The prominence that she receives is surely living proof of the paucity of arguments of the alarmists. Greta seems to have replaced the polar bear as their poster child and as such, will soon go down the same path of irrelevance.

      410

      • #
        AndyG55

        “The prominence that she receives is surely living proof of the paucity of arguments of the alarmists”

        How true that is.. They have resorted to a ridiculous puppet show to try to get their message across.

        Like an old time Punch and Judy show.

        313

      • #

        Thunberg is not part of the traditional alarmist effort, exemplified by the UNFCCC process. She is the spiritual leader of a new movement that can put a million people into the streets around the world. She is certainly no puppet. She knows who she is, a powerful political figure. This is why I study both her and the Action Now! movement.

        281

        • #
          • #
          • #
            toorightmate

            Dennis,
            The video clip is a hoax.
            Greta’s parents are not as good looking as those two.

            70

          • #
            DOC

            Greta is a child, said to have a known personality problem and evidently much of what is said
            in her name is written by her father and a second individual in the environmental game. I believe
            I saw this alluded to in Jo’s blog recently. IMO she is a child being used for political purposes
            and that shows how sick the left, including the green movement, has become. This stuff is rammed down
            kids throat at school evidently along with the fear of God over their futures. They’ve had this for the
            entire time they have been at school. We all know that any contrarian argument can be academically fatal
            whether at school or university so our children are mentally compromised from our education system. They
            are now the unwitting foot-soldiers of the green movement They are a product of the march through the
            institutions by the left – as are our politicians in general and increasingly, our Courts. Our climate
            science is similarly blinkered by self preservation of the scientist. Greta is a child used as an
            emotional tool. She is an emotional wreck as seen in her face of fury not understanding she only knows
            propaganda and little about the scientific method.

            Greta is a child to have much sympathy for. She is the result of our media and our politicians on all sides
            that use ‘the science is in’ statement. The effects of that statement we are seeing everywhere in our
            advanced institutions including the Universities where it has become a matter funding sources, and in the
            CSIRO from years ago where a scientist considered writing a contrarian position paper on climate was
            required for debate, and got sacked. The contract of employment for the CSIRO was rewritten where ‘collegiate
            cooperation’ or some such rubbish was written in so such an embarrassment couldn’t happen again. In other
            words, AGW was proven and never to be refuted, and, as with Ridd, was a core matter for employment.

            There are a lot of learned people blogging here that I bow to for knowledge which is beyond me to retain at
            a grand old age. However, the fight is beyond demonstrating scientific knowledge and wisdom. You are the
            people that are essential to inundate the politicians with what you know about the falsehoods of the AGW story.
            It is the politicians on all sides that have led us to where the crazies of science, the Dr No’s, have taken
            charge of so much. Some from those groups have warped values for human and animal life. One said the loss of
            life from the boats was ‘Sh.. happens!’ The same types have seen destroyed large numbers of fauna in the recent
            fires as a result of their campaigns against fuel reduction added to the preservation of dead timber as preserves
            for wild fauna. The ban on clearing around dwellings has lead to human deaths and loss of farm stock and properties.
            The ban on dams and the destruction of electricity systems come from these nutters who think nothing matters but
            their own opinion, wildlife, fauna and that they save the billions of years old planet that has a habit of even wiping
            them out when its had enough. Or is that all just excuses to collapse the West using the old Hungarian’s billions.
            Alan Jones on Sky (I believe it was) says some politicians have told him in private that there are those that see the
            death of stock as a simplifying of the work they have to do to reduce our ruminant agricultural herds! Does anyone
            see India killing its cattle which a sacred to Hindus? Another anti-western policy of the greens. It looks to me that
            death is everywhere after greens get an edge. So much so that the skull and crossbones would be a good emblem,
            but one must be careful about past associations with mentioning that emblem, and is not my intention.

            I think Morrison is on the right track on climate but he can’t politically proclaim his position without changing the
            loud-public and media views on climate. That’s where the bright people on blogs such as this need to draft well-written
            argument and deluge media, education systems and the politicians to point out the total stupidity of where they
            have led the nation. It’s currently all on view but nobody is willing to confront what they see; they have a 3 or 4year
            time span before they can drop out and make it the next lot’s mess. Short-termism is our Achilles heel. Nobody is willing
            to actually call out the piper or the head lemming. Abbott tried but nobody stood against the press demolition job. Trump
            as President used his powers and is still telling the EU and UN to take a jump, but he has to win the next election. Our
            businesses and education systems are all into the money of renewables and climate so they are no help. The fight here can only come
            from the people such as yourselves, talking to the people to get a well-organised development system for this country that
            stops waste, adapts to change in climate as always and runs efficient systems.

            Preaching and pleading I know, but look at the overall organisation, intimidation and permitted violence of the green
            movement we have to fight. It is said that the extreme left aim to take control ( socialism/dictatorship better than
            democracy according to our leftist, ill educated kids) by inverting all the meaning of ethics, truths, history and social
            cohesion arrangements as we traditionally know them. Look at their recent overtures to China! Dastyari ring a bell? We
            need a Trump – not a Greta nor another child. Someone with the courage to lead as Jacinta Price is attempting for her people.

            210

            • #
              Reed Coray

              AMEN–I wish I had said that!

              40

            • #
              Graeme Bird

              I like her. I like Greta. And you have to remember that she is likely to be abused by these crazy leftists ruthlessly later on. Think of the scientist James Lovelock. Wonderful scientist. Kicking winners year after year. Then in his 80′s he is deceived by younger scientists. But he’s also deceived by the non-catastrophic view of solar systems and the brazenly foolish view of how stars work. So within that framework he’s got to come up with an hypothesis for these wild shifts in temperature in our geological history. Because geology …. Thats good science. Thats Ian Plimer stuff. The really good stuff. So he makes his hypothesis up accordingly, the young people feed him nonsense data and he starts talking about these tipping points.

              Older intelligent people cannot necessarily find out when the younger guys are selling them a lemon. But in the end Lovelock was such a good scientist that he did see through the lies before he died. Notice that he was fully in favour of nuclear. And when people asked Lovelock what we would do with the nuclear waste he would say give them to me. I’ll store the waste at my place. Or something similar.

              So if we can recognise that Lovelock was a good guy but temporarily deceived, we must give a lot of latitude to this kid. Its not her fault. And its even a bit hard to say that her parents should know better. Nowadays all of us are pretty close to being unemployed. So when these leftist crazies all start trying to trample her as a single herd, remember to say something nice to her because her psyche is likely to be pretty fragile.

              10

        • #
          WXcycles

          Nice piece David, just one thing in your remarks:

          She is the spiritual leader of a new movement that can put a million people into the streets around the world.

          IIRC, sh’se failed to do anything like that in COPE25 Madrid, ~25,000 estimated by local Police. Has she got more people to a rally anywhere else?

          40

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Really great summary Pete!

        KK

        50

      • #
        Another Ian

        You’re not suggesting that, like polar bears, they’re going to find a whole new population of thriving Gretas?

        160

      • #

        Look at it this way. If alarmism is a religion, which it sort of is, then Thunberg’s Action Now! movement Is the new fundamentalism. As with most fundamentalism, the core belief is very simple. Our actions threaten destruction so they must end now. Period. There is no reasoning with them and if you disagree you are just part of the problem. They have their sciences, the wacky tipping point, death and extinction speculations that we laugh at. And we can laugh at them, up to the point where they gain power, if they ever do. Then not so much.

        210

        • #
          PeterS

          I would not call PM Morrison and some of his party members, who happen to support the Paris Agreement and our reduction in emissions, climate change extremists or fundamentalists. Yet we ignore them and focus on the crazies like Greta. We should expose the hypocrisy of the “more normal” people, such as PM Morrison. The longer we ignore them the more the CAGW nonsense continues.

          300

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            I think its window dressing by morrison to deflect the extreme pressure thats come from the climate clowns after the fires. Hes waiting for the fire hysteria to die down and then its business as usual. He knows full well its a fuel problem, if you listen carefully hes paying lip service to the climate hysteria only…..

            152

            • #
              Dennis

              I agree that he is, and no doubt mindful of the way PM Abbott was brought down as leader.

              130

              • #
                hatband

                Abbott signed the Paris Agreement on his last morning in the job.

                It didn’t save him, because he was incompetent, and had turned the

                Government into a shambles less than 2 years after winning

                a majority of 30 seats.

                Read Savva’s Road To Ruin.

                You’ll be dumbfounded.

                236

              • #
                Richard

                Hatband, in your reply to Dennis you are factually correct to remind us that Prime Minister Abbott signed us onto the Paris Agreement, but by choosing to follow Nikki Savva’s opinions does not wash, unless you also mention her support for Abbott’s political assassin who was stalking Mr Abbott and who was ultimately responsible for recommitting us to the agreement.

                203

              • #
                toorightmate

                hatband’s true colours have just been displayed.
                He believes Nikki Savva, the wife of a Turnbull senior staffer,
                Hatband – you and the Savvas and the Turnbulls would make good company – well worthy of Greens life membership and honorary members of Traitors Anonymous.

                142

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                More fake news from Hatband.

                Hatband invents the a fiction and asserts that:

                Abbott signed the Paris Agreement on his last morning in the job.

                Turnbull rolled Tony Abbott on the evening of 14 September 2015.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

                The Paris climate agreement was agreed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris (30 November to 12 December 2015).

                http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/international/paris-agreement

                Do you know how to read a calendar?

                You’re talking through your hat again, hatband.

                51

              • #
              • #
              • #
                AndyG55

                The actual Paris Agreement is dated at the bottom as being 12th December 2015. (see bottom of pdf file.)

                It is impossible for Tony Abbott to have signed it as Prime Minister.

                31

              • #
                Dennis

                Wrong.

                I wonder why the leftists are so anxious to blame former PM Abbott for the Paris Agreement?

                The Government he led from September 2013 to September 2015 had in Cabinet a very influential group including Minister Turnbull and several of his Black Hand Faction colleagues (LINO – Liberal In Name Only) who not only influenced Cabinet decisions but were undermining PM Abbott and even using the Union Labor & Greens GetUp activist group to assist them.

                The emissions target to be taken to the Paris Conference was a Cabinet decision, I understand that PM Abbott and his Cabinet supporters did manage to negotiate a lower target than their opponents in Cabinet were demanding. The final decision voted for was announced in a Cabinet media release.

                The Paris France Paris Conference ended in December 2015, three month after PM Abbott was replaced by PM Turnbull.

                The Paris Agreement was signed in New York, USA in April 2016, a non-binding Agreement. In November 2016 Minister Hunt was sent back to New York to ratify the Agreement.

                51

              • #
                hatband

                Tony Abbott signed on to the Paris Emissions Accords in 2015, Backflipped when Turnbull was Prime Minister, and now backflips again on Emissions Targets in this SKY interview: https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6011483353001

                Not knocking the bloke, but it’s always about what’s best for Tony.

                Nothing wrong with that, by the way.

                05

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                The only backflip here hatband is yours.

                You were wrong.

                But you again try to obfuscate.

                Keep trying. One day you might just fluke pulling that rabbit out of your trilby.

                22

              • #

                “I wonder why the leftists are so anxious to blame former PM Abbott for the Paris Agreement?”

                The GeeUppers certainly like to harp on that one. They seem to see it as an ultimate gotcha, and the gotcha is their main game. There was a Michael character who could be relied to come around with it every time Paris or Abbott was mentioned. It was still AbbottAbbottAbbott and gotcha-gotcha-gotcha years after Abbott was gone.

                I appreciate that the likes of Abbott and Morrison have many personal limitations to add to the limitations laid on them by media and the globsters who have a handle on all media these days.

                But there are things I cannot forgive: the installation of the grasping, doltish plutocrat, Malcolm Bligh Turnbull, and the massive damage he was able to inflict on nation and party while his voteless political corpse was kept barely afloat by the said media and said globsters. Even I fell for it, for maybe five minutes. Shame on me.

                60

              • #
                Dennis

                How could former PM Abbott sign the Paris Agreement after the Paris Conference Nov-Dec 2015 when he was replaced by PM Turnbull in September 2015?

                The Agreement followed the Conference, drawn up after the Conference.

                And I am well aware of the misinformation/fake new media reports.

                I ask again, why do they want to blame Tony Abbott?

                My opinion, because they know that the Paris Agreement is poison.

                41

              • #
                Dennis

                After becoming the Member for Wentworth a letter was sent to constituents, according to website stopturnbull;

                Date

                Malcolm Bligh Turnbull
                Harbourside Mansion
                Sydney Harbour

                Dear *******

                10

              • #
                Dennis

                The Paris Agreement was dated the end of the Paris Conference date.

                Australia signed the Agreement in April 2016 in New York.

                11

              • #
                hatband

                Have a squiz at my link to Abbott’s SKY interview, at 2:25p.m. today.

                He acknowledges that the decision to join Paris was his.

                01

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Toorightmate, Turnbull is a straight traitor and Goldman Sachs-Bot. Foisted upon us by the deep state with that Republican campaign deep cover as a pathetic fig-leaf. Abbot comes across as a fine well-meaning Christian human being. But he’s a Rhodes Scholar. We kind of have to assume he has obligations that go a little beyond what we see. Nice guy that he seems to be, we have to assume that he’s basically the Sachs-Bots loyal opposition.

                I like Abbot. But that queer Rhodes gifted all his money back to Nathan Rothschild. Why would you leave your total wealth, you WILL to the richest man on the planet, if there was not some arbitrage going on when you were alive. And the system that Rhodes set up, was a deep state Anglo-American system. None of these Rhodes Scholars are to be taken on face value. Even someone so loveable as Tony.

                10

          • #
            Dennis

            The key to disarming Greta and the people she represents as an actress is to stop playing their global warming climate change hoax debate diversion and focus on their political objectives.

            150

            • #
              PeterS

              People like Greta disarm themselves without anyone’s help. No one with at least some intelligence and logic take her seriously. Those that do take her seriously are beyond help just like her. We need to focus on getting PM Morrison and people like him in his own party to admit it’s all a hoax. Otherwise, they are complicit in the whole hoax and it will continue to destroy our nation, slowly but surely.

              150

      • #
        Murray Shaw

        Aussie, Greta is propelled by the XR mob. Funded by and managed by XR.
        And we all know how far that mob are devorced from reason.

        10

    • #
      TdeF

      Good stuff. I would expand the first.

      “The IPCC fallacy is thinking that humans control global temperature.” This is two fallacies in one.

      The first rarely mentioned is that humans control CO2 levels. We do not. CO2 is in rapid equilibrium and the amount in the atmosphere is set by sea surface temperature and Henry’s Law. C14 relapse after the bombs of 1965 show a half life of 14 years.

      In the IPCC reports there are two schools contradictory ideas. One is that man made CO2 stays in the air for thousands of years. Another is that the half life is 80 years. Apparently ocean CO2 is trapped in the currents of the deep ocean. So both are ‘trapped’. This is just convenient rationalization that unlike oxygen, CO2 is trapped. The ocean is stuffed with O2 and CO2. Fish breathe! All but 2% of CO2 is already in the ocean.

      The second half of the first fallacy is that an increase of 50% since 1850 has a substantial effect on temperature, 1.5C. Without help from water vapour, it is agreed by scientists this is not possible. No such hot spot exists. Temperatures actually went down mid 20th century leading to speculation of rapid cooling.

      “The Thunberg fallacy is thinking that a mere half degree of future warming is the threshold to catastrophe”. There has been no process identified which is so sensitive to temperature that 0.5C is catastrophic and nothing has been triggered by the first 1.0C. Most places vary much more every day.

      Desert areas -40C to +40C winter to summer and even temperate zones from 0 to 40C, there is no area which is sensitive to a tiny 0.5C. Except the North Pole which has a summer average of 0.0C. And if all the North Pole floating ice melted, it would be a good thing, the final end of an ice age.

      Antarctica, twice the size of Australia and as big as South America is a frozen ocean on land 3.5km high. It is growing. Summer is -25C and winter -50C, a change of 25C so again a change of 0.5C means nothing.

      My last point is that as CO2 does not vary much summer to winter, what sort of ‘blanket’ allows -40C to +40C. I would take it back to the store.

      360

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        in the last thread you asserted
        “Science is not a debate”
        “Science has to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt”

        Again I’ll ask
        has there been any science that has not been debated?
        is there any science where that shadow of a doubt has been removed?

        Science never makes an absolute truth claim, and it is always debated.

        519

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          The shadow cast around the edges of debate may be poorly defined, around the edges, when the original light source is diffuse. Conversely, shadows are something that people have been aware of for some time and people are now demanding more clearly defined edges to all shadows, regardless of origin.

          A Good point Peter, keep on contributing.

          KK

          71

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Thank you Keith

            23

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            And yet…..

            Is this a counter move regards proposed class actions against those bodies that havent done enough hazard reduction burning….?

            https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6126616938001

            “Angry’ class action lawsuit levelled against Morrison govt for ‘climate change inaction’

            “26/01/2020|4min

            “A new online petition calling for a class action lawsuit to commence against the Morrison government for its “failure to act on climate change” is simply “dripping in partisan nature,” says Queensland Shadow Tourism Minister David Crisafulli.

            “The floated class action suit against the federal government already has over 63,000 signatures, with a total target of 75,000.

            “As part of the Change.Org online petition, allegations are being levelled against the Morrison government that it has “failed to increase its emissions targets [and] failed to increase the renewable energy targets and failed the people of Australia”.

            “”They use dodgy numbers, they use dodgy arguments, and this is what we’ve come to expect,” Mr Crisafulli told Sky News host Paul Murray.

            “Mr Crisafulli said it would be “wonderful if we could have proper debate” about environmental policy instead of resorting to these “angry” tactics.

            30

        • #
          Graeme#4

          There are many laws used in engineering that had their derivation in good sound science. These laws are used to design products, buildings, bridges, planes etc., and they seem to be working ok.

          120

        • #
          TdeF

          Yes, lots. Most of mathematics, the foundation of all science. Gravity. Laws of motion. Stoichiometry. Archimedes principle. Triangulation. Chemical formulae. The composition Calcium Carbonate. The structure of long chain hydrocarbons. You cannot see these things but everyone agrees.

          Man made Global Warming was an invention since totally disproven. Every prediction wrong. What as the future is now the distant past. What debate?

          180

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            Maths is the language of models, all the rest are just assertions. And I note that you now agree that debate is part of science.

            19

            • #
              WXcycles

              Climate-change model predictions are for all intents un-testable. 20 years or 40 years is not any sort of test, its an invention by idiots and the feeble minded who have convinced themselves they understand what a “climate-change™” is.

              All properly educated and experienced geos know that a global climate-change does not run to human life time scale, or political time-scales, or meteorology funding agenda timescales. Those are all pretending to be about “climate-change” but actual climate-change occurs on the scale of greater than 250 years – MINIMUM. We know this because we have half a billion years of accessible near surface terrestrial rocks in pretty good condition and about 180 million years of accessible flat-laying continuous oceanic marine sediments in basins today, which show this. Especially the most recent 5 million years of them where the time resolution is best defined. Ice cores have confirmed what the sediments first revealed.

              A climate-change in geology is when oceans detectably stop rising or falling, in one direction, and starts to detectably go in the opposite direction. While the fossils found in the sediments change in lockstep. We know this is not a rapid process, but it is genuine global climate-change and there’s not another variety in the geology of the planet. Everything less than ~250 years timescale is just noisy natural variability, weather cycles on decadal and century scale, which overprint the longer-term sea level and sediment and fossil response trends.

              Computer climate model “predictions” will never be ‘tested’, they’re not even science, they’re an inappropriate and foolish extension of weather models, which actually do work because they can be rapidly tested and developed to make better predictions because their timescale is measured in days or weeks at most. But these alleged “climate models” remain a fantasy, created by people who clearly don’t understand what constitutes a genuine planetary climate-change event, nor the timescales of such changes.

              But they got away with spending a whole career pretending they did know, and most of them clearly didn’t understand that they didn’t know what geological climate-change actually is. They also didn’t know that the concept of climate-change comes from geology, and nowhere else. You’d think they’d want to know what geologists know about it, but they don’t. That would undermine their whole climate-change™ BS edifice.

              No geologist would bother to make a computer-based climate prediction model, as we know it would be nonsense and completely useless. And it could never be tested and refined, so their predictions will never be better than a guess, Actually much worse than a guess, as the ones that claim to predict climate-trend or “change”, are all hopelessly biased, by politics, by ideology, by dismal agenda, and by the aims of ludicrous parasitic organisations like the UN. They’re worse than rubbish! A sugary carnival toffee-apple, with a rotted out core. Disgusting nonsense.

              Only ignorant fools who don’t have any grasp of what constitutes a genuine planetary climate-change would ever bother to defend them, or to see any ‘value’ in them. Because as far as scientific prediction value goes, and what other valid science value could they possibly have – they have no ‘value’ of any kind.

              They’re a device used and cited by scurrilous crooks and scammers, the modern day version of crystal ball gazers spinning lies to fool the gullible – nothing more.

              200

            • #
              AndyG55

              “all the rest are just assertions”

              You have just described the farce that is “man made-up global warming”, to a tee

              Well done ! :-)

              Debate is part of real “Science”… but not allowed when it comes to “Climate Science™”

              What does that tell you about the latter. ;-)

              41

            • #
              Graeme#4

              Peter, maths is based on the philosophy of logic, as discussed in Newton’s “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica”, published in 1687, and considered one of the most important works in the history of science.

              20

              • #
                TdeF

                Agreed. And the Romans and Greeks did not have it. The square root of a number was unknown to Pythagoras. Nor the decimal point or the idea of zero. Mathematics is not just the language of science but the very foundation of science. And many of the most profound discoveries are expressed in this language as in E=MC2, an equation of the most profound scientific and human significance. It is not debatable.

                21

              • #
                hatband

                Everything is debatable, including E=MC2.

                01

              • #
                Robber

                Reply to Hatband: “Everything is debatable, including E=MC2.”
                Go right ahead, debate it, disprove it, the world is waiting.

                22

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Everything is debatable, including E=MC2

                Thats not debatable. Its flat wrong, idiotic and only bolstered by aether-denial, rigid enforcement, and the cult of personality. In no reactions that we know of, that release energy ….. (chemical, fission or fusion) do we have the claim that nucleons are destroyed. The same number of nucleons before and after each reaction, thats the refutation right there.

                Whereas fission involves lightly guarded secrets, fusion seems to be the subject of ruthless misinformation and deception. But nowhere have we had the destruction of a nucleon, in the course of receiving a powerful amount of energy. Energy itself is only a concept. Energy is what matter or aether is actively doing or is set up to do by way of a cascade or something akin to dominoes falling. Energy has to be specified. No evidence exists that energy isn’t destroyed, and its a logical contradiction that energy cannot be created.

                Go right ahead, debate it, disprove it, the world is waiting.

                Your turn Robber. This is a tennis game you will lose unless you figure you don’t need to worry about the net.

                10

        • #
          jack

          Peter you are correct.
          In science you can not prove your a theory right, but demonstrate the theory is not wrong.
          A subtle, but important difference.

          In regards to

          is there any science where that shadow of a doubt has been removed?

          One of the most common, of the many, Global Warming Alarmist catch cries is:
          “The debate is over, the science is proven.”
          Well anyone saying the ‘debate is over’ believes in a ‘science’ that the shadow of a doubt has been removed.
          Glad to see you are seeing the light.

          100

          • #
            AndyG55

            AGW theory predicts an atmospheric “hot spot”

            Atmosphere has now been shown, by data from 20 million weather balloons, to be in thermal equilibrium

            That implies that the “hot spot” CAN NOT and DOES NOT exist

            AGW theory… disposed of down the S-bend. !!

            132

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              Strange then, that this paper using the raidiosonde data finds the oposite.

              39

              • #
                AndyG55

                Iterative homogenisation.. ie torture the data until you can pretend you found something.

                You do know that homogenisation destroys the original data, don’t you ?

                Maths, not your strong suit, if you can’t recognise statistical malfeasance when you see it.

                82

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Dirty data is not okay Peter. You might think dirty data is okay. But its not okay just the same.

                30

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              Indeed.

              The evidence supports the Null hypothesis.

              70

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Hey. Steady on there Sceptical Sam. Lets have none of this bogus Popperian bad-epistemology around here. There is no null hypothesis. There is only competing hypotheses in parallel.

                10

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            jack – I agree.
            However, as TdeF asserts some science (and G3′s side trip into engineering), is considered to be as solid as current thinking allows. A new scientific framework like say string theory, could throw previously solid science into the bin.

            For example, the laws of thermodynamics have been tested, and have not yet been found to be false. It is reasonable to use those laws in the construction of a global heat transfer framework. In this case you could say that the thermodynamics are “settled”, and move your scepticism to the the methods used to construct the framework.

            38

            • #
              AndyG55

              “the laws of thermodynamics have been tested”

              And they find that warming by CO2 is a fantasy

              Still waiting for the empirical evidence to back up your fantasy.

              You type a lot of meaningless nonsense, you know that, don’t you.

              63

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              What side trip into engineering? I’ve made no such trip on this post.

              That leaves 3 possibilities
              1. You are making things up.
              2. You cannot read.
              3. You are hallucinating.

              Choices, choices? Fellow sceptics VOTE for your favourite explanation about Peter Fitzroy.

              50

            • #
              jack

              It is never really settled.
              Newtons laws of motion stood the test of time for over 300 years.
              They worked great for the the speed we attain on earth.
              But when we moved at much higher speeds in space, they stared to fall apart.
              The accurate positioning of GPS satellites required relativistic adjustments.
              When it comes down to it, a Theory must be able to demonstrate itself and predict the real world.
              If it doesn’t, it is wrong.
              The science behind anthropogenic global warming is a ‘hockey stick’ of failures.
              My greatest criticism of the pundits of AGW, is not so much its use of hokey science,
              but the avalanche half truths and outright propaganda that permeates through the majority of the media.

              70

        • #
          Bob-l

          The answer is science is not debated. The way things work is not set by us. The universe sets the science. We have debates in coming to understand that science.

          There IS science in which we have no doubt. We call them scientific laws. Ohms law, the law of conservation of energy and many others. Back radiation and Climate change are not one of them

          91

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Ohms Law is interesting because it can be regarded as a partial derivative, and partial derivatives are often used in GCMs. However, there are times when partial derivatives don’t apply, e.g. trying to use Ohm’s Law with an incandescent light bulb. And it’s the same situation with the use of partial derivatives in GCMs.

            21

            • #
              jack

              Graeme#4
              Totally agree with the derived nature of Ohms law, hence it gets the label Law.
              But, I would put to you(no I’m not a Lawyer), that ohms law works with an incandescent light bulb.
              If you measure the resistance of said globe. Then apply a voltage and measure the current, use the voltage and current value to calculate the resistance, it will be different to the resistance value first measured.
              The reason is the resistance value of the hot filament is different to that of a cold filament.
              I still believe ohms law applies.

              20

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Steady state.

                A cold filament, SS1.

                The working/hot filament, SS2.

                Resistance to be quoted for each condition.

                10

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yep, ohms law still applies, its the resistance of the wire that changes with temperature.

                00

              • #
                Graeme#4

                I sense that we could all have a lot of fun at a gathering… Yes, OK, all of you are correct and I admit that I was wrong in this case. Very interesting thought processes – enjoyed that little exchange.

                10

        • #
          toorightmate

          Peter Fitzroy – go away.

          26

          • #
            Graeme Bird

            He’s okay. He’s just [snip. "not the sharpest tool..."] I suspect he’s a Popperian. Being a Popperian [will do that]. He can just sit there with his arms folded until it snows in Sydney in the summertime and even then he’ll have some sort of snappy meme to justify it. If you think there is such a thing as a null hypothesis you can just stand around looking arrogant with your arms folded and no human reasons will ever reach you. If you think that there is such a process of conjectures and refutations than you will just bat away every conjecture on the flimsiest of grounds.

            Refuted. Debunked. Debunked. Refuted. Next. This is how these low-wattage types think. But then even the right side of this argument are often avowed Popperians. So as soon as they are with their own hobby-horse they will follow the exact same approach of the dumb left.

            10

            • #
              Robber

              Grame Bird: “Everything is debatable, including E=MC2″
              “That’s not debatable. Its flat wrong, idiotic and only bolstered by aether-denial, rigid enforcement, and the cult of personality.”
              “Your turn Robber. This is a tennis game you will lose unless you figure you don’t need to worry about the net.”
              My partner is Encyclopedia Britannica that returns your volley:
              “In physical theories prior to that of special relativity, mass and energy were viewed as distinct entities. Furthermore, the energy of a body at rest could be assigned an arbitrary value. In special relativity, however, the energy of a body at rest is determined to be mc2. Thus, each body of rest mass m possesses mc2 of “rest energy,” which potentially is available for conversion to other forms of energy. The mass-energy relation, moreover, implies that, if energy is released from the body as a result of such a conversion, then the rest mass of the body will decrease. Such a conversion of rest energy to other forms of energy occurs in ordinary chemical reactions, but much larger conversions occur in nuclear reactions. This is particularly true in the case of nuclear fusion reactions that transform hydrogen to helium, in which 0.7 percent of the original rest energy of the hydrogen is converted to other forms of energy. Stars like the Sun shine from the energy released from the rest energy of hydrogen atoms that are fused to form helium.”

              11

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                So you admit you have zero evidence. No data. No experiment. No clue. And no the sun does not work that way. And no no-one has ever measured the sun losing mass as its energy released. So wasn’t that interesting Robber? A longstanding religious belief and you found out that there was nothing behind it.

                10

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              But conversely you must consider the inverse of that statement otherwise reversion to the mean might occur every 97 years.

              01

      • #
        disorganise

        My last point is that as CO2 does not vary much summer to winter, what sort of ‘blanket’ allows -40C to +40C. I would take it back to the store.

        Well….a blanket doesn’t *generate* heat, it only traps it, right? It’s same argument as to why the temp changes so much between day and night. I personally don’t think it is a valid argument for the skeptical side as it comes across (to me at least) as deliberately missing the point.

        A blanket in the midday sun can make you way too hot, in the shade, maybe it’s fine, and in the depths of winter maybe it stops you freezing to death, but doesn’t necessarily keep you comfortably warm.

        The point is, it is not the blanket itself that varies the temperature, but the sun, and the blanket simply buffers the changes somewhat.

        The problem, in my view, is that the sun overall seems to be diminishing – the Milankovitch cycle etc from what I’ve read recently should have us overall cooling, with cooler summers and warmer winters.

        Yet we’ve apparently warmed a degree. So either we haven’t warmed actually, or there’s some other factor at play.

        There’s a LOT of talk here about the fiddling of the numbers by the BOM, which would seem to imply that the degree of warming is untrue. But let’s assume for a moment that it has warmed, what is the other factor? I had pinned my expectations on the sun intensity, but it looks like I was wrong.

        10

        • #
          AndyG55

          A significant drop in tropical cloud cover over 30-40 years has meant more of the SUN’s energy gets into the tropical oceans.

          That is why we see that the only real warming has come from energy release during El Ninos

          Let’s not forget that the oceans are one massive heat sink, and what takes a while to warm up, is also going to take a long time to respond to cooling.

          51

          • #
            disorganise

            That sounds plausible. Are there any models/predictions as to how long it’ll be before cooling kicks in?

            00

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              The Milankovic cycles don’t operate in a way that allows predictions in months or years.
              The next Big freeze will start sometime in the next couple of thousand years.
              Looking at the last interglacial we’ve had 7 or 8 thousand years of reducing temperatures and sea levels.
              Minor fluctuations grabbed by the warming enthusiasts are just that minor.

              KK

              50

              • #
                disorganise

                It really does depend on perspective doesn’t it?

                I agree, in the mind-boggling time scales of the Earth, we’re still cool.

                I guess the conjecture is whether the apparent warming is indeed a fluctuation, or if it is the start of a trend reversal.

                I’d be lying to claim that some of the scare tactics didn’t get to me at times.

                30

              • #
                tom0mason

                Past cold cycle may have been attributed to Milankovic cycles, however a feature in past climate regimes like the Little Ice Age were not seen to be attributable to Milankovic cycles.
                From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

                Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth’s orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population (for example from the Black Death and the colonization of the Americas).[11]

                Has the current 180-200 years just been an anomalous warm lull in the LIA (and merely delayed it from becoming a proper ice age), is our climate truly out of the threat of real cooling? The sun’s current activity would appear to dictate that the climate will get cooler. Then again meteorologists and climate scientist (like those at AMS) know that the sun does not control the climate and only barely affects the weather — see https://climateofsophistry.com/2020/01/26/ams-official-sun-does-not-create-earths-weather/

                20

              • #
                tom0mason

                Why the LIA?
                Analyzing 2000 years of many temperature proxies reveals (IMO) important information of the cyclic nature that is within our climate variability.

                See https://www.horstjoachimluedecke.de/egu-poster

                10

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Quite right Keith. What we can expect is that each new “little ice age” should have a slightly higher than 50% chance of being a little bit nastier than the last one.

                However the big freeze may never come. If we can stop any obstruction to the ocean conveyor and particularly the Gulf Stream. Another consideration is that there may have been a fairly recent pole shift. So that the ice went down North America as far as Kansas, doesn’t necessarily mean that the whole globe was quite as horrifyingly cold as it would seem to have been. The old North Pole may have been near the top of Hudson Bay. And the old South Pole could have been due South of Perth but not quite to the Antarctic shore.

                20

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Indeed. All the thickest ice is relatively close to the coast and as you say the Western side. The side below Perth. Go South of Patagonia and you will be wasting your time if you want longstanding ice cores. They should find out what kind of ice cores they can get. We want to know which global near extinction event the pole shift was associated with. To me its doubtful that they’ll find even as much as 12000 years of ice buildup anywhere near the South American side of Antarctica. It would be amazing if they could only find 3200 years because then the problems would be associated with the Bronze Age collapse.

                10

            • #
              AndyG55

              Too much unknown to be precise.

              Solar energy is only semi-predictable from cycle to cycle, plus many other variables in the Sun’s output which look like they may also have a significant effect on the global climate.

              I suspect that we will be in La Nina territory, maybe by the end of this year.

              Has the ocean got another El Nino burp.. also a question that is very hard to answer.

              If not, then we should see a drifting down of temperatures over the next several years.

              31

              • #
                disorganise

                FWIW I came across the article here about the Russian paper tracking the cloud cover v temps.

                I did a search in my Uni library and so far only found stuff about *predicting* cloud cover in the models :/

                20

              • #
                Sceptical Sam

                FWIW I came across the article here about the Russian paper tracking the cloud cover v temps.

                Yes. Here:

                http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/new-study-settles-it-global-warming-and-the-pause-was-driven-by-changes-in-cloud-cover-not-co2/

                20

              • #
                jack

                AndyG55

                Solar energy is only semi-predictable from cycle to cycle

                Andy, check out Professor Valentina Zharkova.
                Her solar prediction models have run at a 97% accuracy. Not to be sneezed at.
                She says we are going into a Super Grand Solar Minimum, starting right now.
                The last Grand Solar Minimum (Maunder Minimum) was 1650-1700.
                “Zharkova’s analysis shows a 8 watts per square meter decrease in TSI to the planet.“
                It could be very significant in the scheme of things.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                I should have phrased it, “not 100% sure”

                I do know of Zharkova’s work.

                Other solar scientists aren’t totally in concurrence with her.

                Time will tell. ;-)

                I hope we don’t drop into a Grand solar minimum.

                10

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Theodor Landscheidt was the man. He was so good at what he did that his death has to be considered deeply suspect until proven otherwise. He used planetary orbits to predict solar behaviour. People in his tradition may have taken things further but they are kind of marginalised. He was the first and still the best to be able to predict these El Nina El Nino occurrences. When I say still the best I mean that the mainstream has not been able to best him. Jeremy Corbyns brother probably has a better weather prediction deal going but thats a big operation whereas Theodor wouldn’t have had those resources. And whereas Theodor mostly was predicting how the solar wind would go, Piers Corbyn has brought the moons orbit into it, and done a lot of work historically trying to fit historical situations to the time period he is predicting.

                Theodor was decades ahead of his time. [snip. Nah. - jo]

                10

            • #
              Graeme#4

              There has been suggestions that the next cooling cycle has started, but that it will only result in a drop of about one degree over about 200 years.

              20

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Maybe. I’m confident that the 2030′s will be horrifically cold and that we won’t be out of that disaster until well after mid-century. But beyond that its a hard ask. No-one for example, has really looked into the electrical implications of Jets putting water vapour into the stratosphere. No-one is looking at the implications of trying to generate electrical energy from the Gulf Stream. Which would definitely throw us into another glacial period if taken too far.

                Take the idea that extreme weather events have a trend of getting just a little bit less extreme. Usually the antagonists, of the trace gas hysterics, look at these graphs and do the “HAH HAH” from Nelson … of the Simpsons. Hah Hah. Wrong again you trace gas hysterics.

                But if extreme weather events are getting less extreme we need to solve that problem. I say its because of extra water vapour causing extra conductivity in the lower stratosphere. But to do science you cannot have just one hypothesis. You need 3-5 competing hypotheses.

                So before I ramble too much. Yes I think we will be pretty damn cold from the 30′s, way past mid-century. But until we can nail down all the strange things, and get real about the secondary energy source, we cannot really look too much further into the future.

                21

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water;

                “No-one is looking at the implications of trying to generate electrical energy from the Gulf Stream. Which would definitely throw us into another glacial period if taken too far.”

                Outstanding.

                KK

                00

              • #
                Graeme#4

                Interesting thoughts GB. Somebody also pointed out that if West Antarctica’s ice ever extends a bit further northwards, it could cut off the current flows around Antarctica.

                00

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Disorganise, sure you aren’t mixing convective effects with radiative effects?

          00

      • #
        Graeme Bird

        My last point is that as CO2 does not vary much summer to winter, what sort of ‘blanket’ allows -40C to +40C. I would take it back to the store.

        Its not so much a blanket as a pair of sunglasses. In the first instance its sunglasses. Okay so no simple metaphor will cover it. But first step is sunglasses. Because this is the colour of gas we are talking about. And you throw a colour in that gas and the gas is a pair of shades.

        20

    • #
      Yonniestone

      David, Rebel News just did a great video into the origins of Greta’s leap to fame in Stockholm and video of them trying to ask questions at her latest school strike for climate, the behaviour of her security is a real eye opener in including the claim of being a Communist country.

      Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXdhTwO320

      100

    • #
      PeterS

      Very good synopsis of the situation with Greta. However, I repeat what I said before about alarmists. She is not interested in the facts. It’s a waste of time trying to explain to them why they are wrong. As far as they are concerned the debate is over, done and dusted. They have moved on and all they care about is how to reduce our emissions to 0% as quickly as possible at all costs. Logic to them is irrelevant.

      What really annoys me though is the other sort of people who are appeasers. Morrison is one of them. He must know that reducing our emissions will do absolutely nothing to the climate yet he pushes that agenda as though it’s the only thing we can and must do to keep the “peace”. It’s a recipe for disaster. Those are the people we should target, not the crazies like Greta.

      130

      • #
        Mark

        He, and every like him, need to grasp the fact that every time they “appease” them they get a little more power and when they get power we will NOT be able to get it back from them. By being “nice” to them you allow them the illusion that they have more power so their attacks intensify. He needs to stand up to them, start throwing facts at them and, maybe most importantly, give them some of their own medicine back. Whilst this will not have much effect to some, it will cause a number of them to stop and think, “what just happened?”. When that happens you will get some people to start thinking which will drag them out of the emotional sphere. Only then will some change their mind. Most importantly, get it through their thick skulls that the ones that are making the most noise are the ones who DID NOT vote for him and NEVER WILL no matter what he does. Stop pandering to the noisy mobs and start repaying the trust of the people who placed their trust in him at the last election.

        50

        • #
          PeterS

          Exactly, which is why he should have followed Trump’s move to get out of the Paris Agreement instead of proclaiming we will meet the emissions reduction target “in a canter” as though it’s some great achievement.

          30

        • #
          Murray Shaw

          Absolutely Mark. Donald Trump is a living and startling example as to the correctness of your argument.
          These people need to be confronted and their thinking highlighted.
          The RebelNews doco on Greta Inc at her latest “school Strike” was most enlightening, with her links to XR. All added to her call that deniers needed to be lined up in front of a wall, demonstrates the Communist/Socialist/Leftist roots of the organisation that is funding and using her as their poster child.

          40

    • #

      Dave, thanks for another thoughtful column.

      You are consistently good … but please consider my idea that the ONLY way to defeat climate alarmism, other than a few cold years in a row, is to encourage them to become so radical they turn off ordinary people.

      Greta “thundering” Thunberg is, like AO here in America, a climate radical — a weapon that will help the skeptics in the long run.

      She’s very angry
      Hostile to adults
      Unable to observe the wonderful current climate she lives in.
      Unable to realize that Sweden benefits from global warming.
      A trained parrot of IPCC junk science, with minimal real climate science knowledge
      A high school dropout

      Here’s my article about her family life — the most read article in the five years I’ve had a climate science blog:

      https://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-portrait-of-thunberg-family-that.html

      What we skeptics need is climate alarmists even younger, and even dumber, than Greta.

      We need alarmists gluing themselves to roads and buildings.

      Better yet, gluing themselves to each other.

      We need leftists to push hard for the radical Green New Deal that reads more like a 21st century Communist Manifesto.

      We need new, expensive ‘green’ proposals such as $1 or $2 a gallon tax on gasoline, with the money used to build windmills !

      We need crazy proposals, such as banning the sale of meat on weekends.

      When they say the world will end in 12 years (maybe 11 now) we should reply it’s now six years, or maybe 18 months.

      At Davos, President Trump, based on the speech he read, was the only sane person there on the subject of climate science !

      Climate alarmists were never persuaded to believe in a coming climate catastrophe with real science in the first place … so there is no hope of changing their minds using real science.

      I’ve been an atheist for 60 years — I could not possibly convince a religious person there is no god, nor would I try.

      “Climate change” is a religion for people who do not like conventional religions.

      Conventional religion try to control people by saying if you don’t follow the “rules” then you you go to “h-e-l-l”.

      Thew climate change religion tries to control people by saying if you don’t support the “cause”, Earth itself will turn into “h-e-l-l”.

      It’s all religious nonsense to me, but many people believe it, and want to be part of a group of like minded people.

      There’s no way real science can change beliefs based on faith.

      But when any religion gets too radical, with bizarre beliefs, and demands that others believe in everything they believe in, or else, they scare away outsiders.

      Great Thunberg and other rigid, hostile, demanding, “my way or the highway” climate change zealots, scare ordinary people who are busy with their own lives, and know next to nothing about climate science.

      They know it gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and always has.

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

      112

      • #
        PeterG

        I think there may be another way.

        Agree with them and then state due to the emergency we now find ourselves in, we are going to transition to Nuclear power, announce 10 plants. Also we will need to build many new dams as the weather will be drier this will also entail the movement of vast amounts of water from where it falls to the drier areas. There are lots of infrastructure that needs to be built this is the reason.

        Of course existing subsidies will need to be heavily reviewed in light of the urgent need to replace the base load generators. (Of course the renewables could tender as a baseload supplier:)……)

        You would place Big caveats on the decisions, whereby you name the IPCC, CSIRO, Chief Scientists etc, etc, etc as the experts who have forced your hand, so in ten years when it implodes you can point at them.

        Also the matter of population size, immigration rates, water and food security will need to be resolved as what is the carrying capacity of our country in the new climate.

        In other words, use this as a trojan horse for nation building.

        50

        • #
          PeterS

          Appeasers like PM Morrison are already agreeing with them. Staying with the Paris Agreement is the biggest agreement possible. If we are to turn things around then we the people must focus on the appeasers and tell them enough is enough. Otherwise, as Mark explained so eloquently above the alarmists will gather more and more strength and eventually overcome us.

          20

      • #
        John

        Yes there may be something to be said for giving people a taste of what zero emissions really entails.

        30

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Richard Greene. You wrote “What we skeptics need is climate alarmists even younger, and even dumber, than Greta.” I’ll go along with the “younger climate scientists” bit, but I have serious doubts about dumber.

        40

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Reed Coray:

          Greta has improved the family’s finances considerably. Perhaps Richard Greene wants “younger climate scientists” because they won’t want supercomputers and/or millions in money.

          00

    • #
      Maptram

      I think the people who have dreamed up such disasters as unravelling ecosystems believe that a 1.5°C or 2.0°C this means that everywhere will increase by 1.5 or 2 degrees. In reality that’s an average. Some places will increase by more than average some by less than average, indeed some will actually decrease. Whether ecosystems unravel will depend on each specific ecosystem and the increase or decrease for that ecosystem.

      40

      • #
        Chad

        I assume you realise that the 2deg figure promoted by the IPCC , is just a random number plucked ftom the air when group was put on the spot to suggest a “target” range.
        There is NO science behind that number.

        120

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          “What’s the next number after one?”

          “Two!”

          “Correct. That’ll do, two degrees, science!”

          At 1.40 pm this afternoon (while my guests were lunching) my Mercedes McMerkel thermometer read 36.5° Celsius – thankfully I’d brought my boardies & towel – so a brief immersion in the South Pacific Ocean cooled my body temperature somewhat (SST 20°C) chilly/brisk/brrr!/lovely.

          The ‘official’ temp for today was 27°C yet I’ve got the pic of my McMerkel 36.5° and I’m sticking with it! Do Greta/IPCC/Inc. know what ‘micro-climate’ means? Could they even say the word ‘isthmus’? Who cares – give me warmth – huzzah for summer!!!

          10

    • #
      Dave in the States

      Unfortunately, such fallacies are not unique to Greta. They are widespread through out the education systems, and are being taught to kids as absolute facts.

      50

    • #
      bobl

      David, I’m glad you’ve picked up on the grand Post Industrial deception where all this pain is for just half of one degree. This is a point I’ve been trying to relay, it seems like forever.

      If the general public managed to get a hold of this grand deception and understood the lie, and why it matters, I think a great change might happen. No-one is going to believe there is armageddon waiting at the end of 0.5 degrees except maybe Peter Fitzroy.

      Jo, your blog is widely read by Journos and politicians perhaps you could devote an article to the grand lie. That the target is actually a piddling 0.5 above present and not 1.5 degrees, a piddling amount you can’t even feel and nowhere near thermageddon. If this becomes commonly known then hopefully common sense steps in and people will start realising that the thermageddon propaganda, and “Climate Emergencies” are a lie.

      Please Jo, I don’t ask often.

      50

      • #
        Robber

        Exactly bobl, and David. At every opportunity (meetings, newspaper blogs), I correct people who talk or write about the dangers of 1.5°C of warming by reminding them that the earth has warmed by 1°C over the last 100+ years and now supports an additional 6 billion people. So where is the catastrophe in a further 0.5°C of warming? People thrive in temperatures from below freezing to 40°C and adapt.

        40

    • #
      sophocles

      Well put, David. GT did have me wondering for a while, so thank you for that explanation.

      20

      • #
        sophocles

        #@$%=!!* — a new version of firefox on a new laptop. And they’re both screwing me around already!

        30

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          I understand.
          Just spent a week setting up a new computer.
          But they are good when they’re finally working.

          30

        • #
          jack

          That surprising, what flavor/version of Linux are you using?

          20

        • #

          Hi Sophocles. Are you using something like the FVD speed dial? That thing crashed and crashed Firefox till I realised what the problem was. It’s tricky because I couldn’t even get Firefox to stay open in order to ditch the speed dial. I eventually found a way (which I forget, as with all tech things). Don’t know if it’s just a Linux thing, but it cost me some frustration.

          I’m using Peppermint 9 and browsing with Vivaldi these days. Finding Vivaldi much more readable and comfy, at least on desktop, though I keep Firefox for alternative uses, YT download especially.

          In other Linux news, I’m not needing a phone, but when I get one it’ll be the Librem. Going full penguin here! (Okay, so I’ll have to keep an old Apple or Android for the Rugby League app…but I’ll be almost full penguin.)

          30

          • #
            jack

            Good on you mosomoso.
            I am Debian, mainly because I tinker with Raspberry Pis.
            So I use Ubuntu as a Desktop.
            VirtualBox for running a few progs from M$ (Solidworks and Autocad)
            Been a penguin user for over 15 years.
            Also use Linux to run a CNC mill, 3d printer, media server and home automation.
            Check out anbox for running android apps on a Linux PC.

            30

    • #
      Mal

      I will prophesis Greta’s future.
      She will be either be the new Stalin, Hitler or Mao and slaughter millions, or end up in a lunatnic asylum.

      20

    • #
      Ian Hill

      I’m wondering whether anyone can confirm that there’s a car sticker with a yellow background and a red silhouette of Greta Thunberg’s face? I was driving in a double lane 80 kph zone today in Adelaide and saw it from a distance. I managed to get closer, but not enough safely to confirm it. The old model car had a lot of stickers on it but they were all about football. I couldn’t see any others to do with the AGW religion.

      00

  • #
    graham dunton

    Right on target

    I have viewed this already – and forwarded it to many others.

    So, is Greta Thunberg a fraud?

    Is her entire climate change crusade based on a lie?

    Click here or visit GretaInc.com now to see the world premiere of our exclusive documentary, Greta Inc. — you won’t want to miss it!
    Yours truly,
    Ezra Levant

    https://rebeldonations.com/greta-thunberg-inc-rebel-news-keean-bexte-documentary/

    30

  • #
    Mark

    She’s what, 17yo, yet she has dropped out of school and travels around the world so where is her money coming from ????? Who’s paying her to do this? That would be very telling to find out who it is as it would lay bare the real motive behind her “rise to fame”. What I find absolutely mind-numbingly stupid is the fact that, at the UN, with all those so called intelligent world leaders, not one of them had the b***s to stand up and ask her to put up her proof to back up the garbage she was spouting. The Global Warming religion finally has a new Fry-Priestess. God, we are all doomed!!!!

    60

    • #
      TdeF

      That’s only because it is UN garbage, invented by the UN.

      Consider that the supra National organizations, the UN, EU and even the USSR set out to make themselves essential and ultimately to destroy national borders and cripple the major powers. All so they could run the place, preferably without elections.

      It is all extreme self interest and Climate Change is a means to an end, nothing more. Of course no one disagreed. They are all part of it. Greta is their creation. And the billionaires at Davos. All in it together, one world government and no elections. And their big enemy today is Donald Trump. He must be brought down, like our own Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.

      Nothing Tony Abbott did was right, according to the press. A mysogynist too. All untrue. Ultimately assassinated by a grasping, dishonest and jealous Goldman Sachs merchant banker he trusted. The same banker believes in Global Climate Change and making money and gave an unrequested, unjustified gift $444 million to his wife’s friends as his last official act, to save the world of course. No questions asked.

      120

    • #
      hatband

      She’s suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, so she wouldn’t be smart enough to

      continue past Primary School anyway.

      11

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    If only they had a CSIRO carbon (sic) tax …

    Viking runestone may allude to extreme winter, study says
    Ninth-century Rök stone may deal with fear of cold climate crisis in Scandinavia

    “The inscription deals with an anxiety triggered by a son’s death and the fear of a new climate crisis similar to the catastrophic one after [AD]536,” the authors wrote in a study published on Wednesday.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/08/viking-runestone-may-allude-to-extreme-winter-study-says?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Carbon tax hit small: CSIRO

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-tax-hit-small-csiro-20111112-1ncvq.html

    40

  • #
  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    The state of the union speech in the US is approaching.

    The fantasy Presidential speech:
    …..
    Now lets turn to energy. The US has become energy independent, and has recently
    becomes a net energy exporter. Our Power grid is sound, and in the vast
    majority of our country, power for the necessary tasks of every day life
    is readily available 24/7/365 and for a lower effective cost than almost anywhere else in the
    world.

    The people who think a simple molecule, carbon dioxide, is the sole driver of the earth’s climate,
    are spreading a false message of doom. They want to end our prosperity, and indeed, pur very way
    of life. They want to command every aspect of our economy, all in service, so they say, of managing
    this magic molecule. This in spit of the facts that first, there is no direct evidence that carbon dioxide is
    the direct driver of our climate, second, that the variability we see in our day to day climate is completely
    normal and fits historical patterns. Some areas are warmer, some are colder, some are wetter and some are dryer,
    and this varies from place to place and year to year for the entire historical climate record of the United States, or indeed,
    the world.

    But, say the prophets of doom, suppose we are right? Well, they weren’t right about any of the other prophecies of
    doom they’ve made over the decades. They weren’t right about global cooling in the 70′s. They haven’t been right in any of their predictions.
    And even after they’ve diddled with the climate records, they aren’t right today about the predictions they made five, ten, or twenty years ago.

    This suggests one thing that can be done that I think everyone can agree with. There is dispute about our climate record. Some of our data is adjusted,
    some is estimated, some is simply fabricated. Everyone will agree that good science depends on good data. Therefore, I am asking for a significant
    appropriation for climate research, by a new presidential commission. So that all agree, I want the work of this commission supervised and managed,
    for integrity, by one of our large respected accounting firms. The goal of the commission will not be to reach any conclusions. It will be to build the
    most accurate historical record possible of the climate in the United States, from official records and other reliable contemporary sources.

    Only raw data points, and the circumstances of collection, will be considered. Most of the data will likely be temperature, and rainfall.
    One can also expect sea levels, major storms and their tracks, and possibly other elements, likely based on agricultural historical data,
    as the commission shall determine.

    For a temperature. we’ll know: where was the station, and how was the record taken and recorded. When were stations added to and deleted from the record. What were the surroundings like.
    If data is missing, it will be missing.

    The Commission will produce a database, completely available to the public and in an straightforward form with respect to access. We should recognize at the outset
    that there are going to be millions of data points, and a probably complex pattern of coding the data that a researcher may need to make a little effort to understand.

    But, the prophets of doom cry, We Have an Emergency Now!

    For the most part, the lives of the loud do not reflect what they claim to believe. Their plans are for us to sacrifice, and give up our freedoms.
    But, there is a better argument to ignore them.

    The best thing we can do to manage our ability to cope with the climate is to do what we are doing.
    Our power generation is efficient, and getting more so. Our industries, and households, are efficient, and
    getting more so. The US alone has met the treaty provisions we did not subscribe to, while most countries that signed
    on have failed miserably. Our industry moves on. It is profitable, but it also is making real progress while the
    gasbags give us empty words. Each new generation of planes is more efficient, Information services allow us to
    make better and more efficient of our resources. Our energy industry has made steady progress, as have our households.

    There is one thing the government can do. If we want to convert to electric vehicles, and the market demands it; if we want to
    continue to make life better for the population by bringing the fruits of technology and automation to all , we need plentiful,
    cheap, reliable dispatch power.

    Nuclear power, currently 1/5 of our misx, provides this to many, with zero emissions; no carbon, no particles, no nothing.
    Our military build compact efficient plants that can be operated safely.

    We can fund, and permit for field test on a wide sacle, package nuclear plants that have full passive safety, are
    as hardened to terrorism and operator error as our technology allows, have a virtuous fuel cycle, and are engineered to withstand
    the vageries of nature at their sites from 200 mph hurricane resistance to protection from extreme cold to protection against major earthquakes.

    This is an engineering problem we can solve, which gives us the near zero carbon option the zealots claim to desire.
    And, as always in the American economy, if wind, or solar, or geothermal or unicorn breath proves to be a better alternative, the
    market will design it, fund it, build it and implement it.

    So we have a path forward to improve our science, maintain our economy, and
    continue to cope with anything the climate throws at us.

    Prosperity is the best medicine.

    90

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    Greta Thunberg needs a huge dose of reality if she thinks anyone but wannabes who are not anything for real would listen to anything she says. I suspect she has lived in a cocooned environment that has protected her from the normal slings and arrows that beat some sense into most teenagers.

    With her diagnosis she can’t live in the real world without many years of very demanding reality based treatment. With our PC world, this is not about to happen. She is going to continue to live as a total parasite and drag on society until the 12th of never. The best thing that could happen to her is that she will be ignored. The worst thing that could happen to her is that she believes someone-anyone is listening to her and is allowed to continue in her delusions. It is also the worst thing that could happen to us because it would mean that the world has gone stark raving mad and has lost all connection with reality.

    Maybe the madness of the crowd will pass but if not, we are in a world of hurt. I do know, that talking to one at a time and convincing them that reality is real and the catastrophe is at best a fantasy and a wish is about the only thing we can do. The madness seems to have to run its course. Otherwise, hang on, it is going to be a very rough ride.

    80

  • #
    Robert Swan

    Recent trends in comments have awakened my inner muse:


    The commenter here called Hatband
    time waster as I understand.

        Don't respond to the dope

        'cause it's too much to hope

    that our Jo will have the pratt banned.

    This is only a warning limerick. I could easily escalate to a sonnet.

    Pray I never have to resort to an ode.

    213

  • #
    Annie

    We went down to East Gippsland last week to visit family. Along with everyone around them it has been very stressful. At one time they really thought their property would be gone as they watched the fires from where they evacuated to and there was a supposed spot fire at their gate. Most reports were genuine but this one was a hoax, wasting the time of the emergency services and giving them a very bad night wondering what they would face the next day. There are so many good and decent people but there are also the disgusting toe-rags who can do the sort of thing that is cruel.
    We stayed in a cabin in a beautiful place at Nicholson (Lakes Bushland Caravan Camp). They have lost business big-time as they had to send all their post-Christmas visitors away on 28th of December. I urge anyone needing a break to get down there and support them all. We had good meals at the Bruthen Pub and in Lakes Entrance (Central Hotel) and, after some good rain last week, so much is looking lovely again. Metung is beautiful. Local wineries need business too and we were able to buy some very good wine. No name here as the one of the four local wineries is family-linked and I don’t want to embarass Jo!

    190

    • #
      Bill In Oz

      Good to read your comment Annie !
      Yes East Gippsland is so dependent on tourism
      And the fires at New Year drove everyone away.
      Many people are staring down the barrel of losing
      Their businesses, jobs and homes
      Not to the fires !
      But to the fact that the tourists have gone

      And tha is another harsh lesson for the dopey idiots
      Who hampered and stopped the fuel reduction burn programs
      And hampered private land owners from doing the same .
      I wonder if now these idiots will listen ?

      90

  • #
    yarpos

    A little story of bushfire profiteering.

    My wifes cousin got burnt out in the Batemans Bay fires in NSW. A “friend” offers them a house to rent just down the coast at Tomakin. Dont worry about leases and stuff we will work that out once the dust settles. Sounds good doesnt it?

    Similar houses in the area rented for $400-$450 a week. He wants $800 , nice.

    140

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Tempting to name and shame such people…..

      70

    • #
      robert rosicka

      And here’s me thinking it was only the greens and labor who tried to profit from the natural disaster !

      50

    • #
      hatband

      Similar houses in the area rented for $400-$450 a week. He wants $800 , nice.

      That’s neoliberalism for you, take every opportunity you can to make a Quid,

      the Market Rules.

      Wonderful, isn’t it?

      38

      • #
        Yonniestone

        The actions of one tainted individual is not supply and demand Capitalism, what you’re alluding to is crony capitalism, if the market sees a bad investment it will steer away from it towards safer options.

        51

        • #
          hatband

          Where’s the Crony Capitalism here?

          Rental houses are in very short supply in the area ATM [presumably], the Landlord has one vacant, and someone wants one ASAP.

          Supply and Demand 101.

          Sure, there was personal dishonesty, but not criminality, involved.

          NeoLiberalism in a nutshell.

          28

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Wrong label PB, the proper description is greed which is evident across the whole political spectrum.

        KK

        51

        • #
          hatband

          The Political Spectrum in Australia is:

          NeoLiberals:
          Liberal Party, National Party, & Labor Party.

          Green Capitalism [AKA Capitalism]:
          The Greens [Don't believe me? Have a look at where their funding comes from]

          Reactionary [Going nowhere, but supporting NeoLiberalism anyway Parties]:
          Hansonites, Katterites

          24

      • #
        yarpos

        I dont try and intellectualise or point score over basic greed.

        61

    • #
      Annie

      It’s sad to read about that Yarpos.
      A different story: our son lost all his beautifully clean tank water after Monday’s rain flushed everything clear and then completely filled his tank. On Tuesday they had no water, the day we went down there. The tank had cracked. He was offered immediate help by a neighbour who had lost sheds, hay, fencing…how wonderful was that? Our son will be working with the neighbour to re-fence the neighbour’s property.
      While waiting for the insurance company to decide what to do, our son has rigged up two 1,000 litre tanks on a large trailer and run the system to the house. He can refill from a standpipe nearby, using pre-bought coupons.
      Like our daughter in 2009 here, he and the family count themselves very fortunate still to have family, friends and neighbours, animals and home. There were neighbours only 2kms away who lost everything.

      70

  • #
    scaper...

    If I was to describe leftism and warmism, which go basically hand in hand, in one word it would “oikophobia”. It also explains their acceptance of Islam over the rights of women and gays. But is there a cure?

    70

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Some great comments above using the great Greta as a foil.

    The comments highlight the fact that the global warming praternity uses standard cliches to get the message over:

    “a doubling of CO2 produces so and so warming” and ” Arhenius showed a hundred years ago that CO2 is a greenhouse gas”.

    The always inferred effect is that “our” CO2 sits over us in the atmosphere for thousands of years and that we are responsible for CO2 increases and hence for global incineration, bushfires and extinction of the little known earthworm, Bullus Excrematus, found mostly downstream from cattle farms.

    The scientific facts are more mundane.

    As TdeF says, the C14 monitoring shows that CO2 in the atmosphere has a half life of 14 years.

    In the last year or two there were some other studies which showed even more rapid turnover rates. Without double checking, these studies from reliable sources indicted full turnover of CO2 in 7 years and 4.5 years.

    Now, even if my memory is in error and these figures are half life, they are still amazing and totally rebut the human control concept of global warming theory.

    Rates of re_absorption of CO2 by nature may vary considerably from one zone to the next around the globe.
    Rates may differ over oceans, landmass and poles.

    CO2 readings taken above crops show that levels can be up to 1250 ppm for part of the 24 hour daily cycle.

    Movement of CO2 levels from 400 to 1250 and back to 400 ppm over a 24 hour cycle says something that the UNIPCCC, Angela Merkel etc don’t want the public to know;
    Human Origin CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere with that amount of churning.

    It is also obvious that what applies to crops also applies to every bit of greenery on the Planet.

    Some recent newspaper articles have speculated that our bushfires have sent a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere and this will show up in the sensors on that mountain in Hawaii that reads CO2 levels without fear or favour.

    And so, despite the science, we are trapped in this ongoing political nightmare, the religion of Man Made Global Warming.

    AUSUNEXIT.

    81

    • #
      Dennis

      Exiting the United Nations, at least requiring them to get back to their original Charter as President Trump has stated is a must do, should be our elected representatives top priority.

      91

      • #
        Yonniestone

        All good except our elected representatives are all in on the ruse, the direction of modern society has led to people believing in materialism instead of idealism, in the classic modern world people were spiritual and strove to ascend above their human condition both inventive and intellectually now post Marx the modern world has been infected with the ideals of the political left and with unprecedented technology this world has given the mediocre the power instead of the exceptional.

        51

        • #
          bobl

          Yes, we live in a mediocrity.

          40

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Ive been watching a favourite movie “Lock stock and 2 smoking barrels”.

          In terms of natual selection of sorts, all the nasties wiped each other out, and went from king of the hill to worm food quickly.

          Right now sceptics might be fighting back the tide of stupid and the leftist jackals, but when stuff goes bad, as it will, sceptics are going to survive as they are practical and know stuff like engineering etc.

          20

      • #
        hatband

        The original U.N. Charter looked the other way when up to 19 million Ethnic Germans were

        ejected from their homes in Central and Eastern Europe and Force Marched to the new German

        border into the Russian Sector at the Wars end in 1945 [AKA The Morgenthau Plan].

        Then there was Operation Keelhaul, when the British and the Americans forcibly repatriated

        several million Soviet Refugees to certain death in the Soviet Union in 1945/1946.

        39

        • #
          Mark D.

          Hatband this is total bull shit
          The Morgenthau plan does nothing what you claim, it was to remove the tools of production.

          Operation Keelhaul might have repatriated 1000 people not “several million” as you claim.

          Your “facts” aren’t factual at all.

          105

          • #
            hatband

            No, it’s not B.S..

            One of the Conclusions of the Yala Conference was that the Allies would repatriate

            all Soviet Citizens who found themselves in Allied controlled Zones at War’s end,

            irrespective of those people’s wishes.

            To ensure that this happened, the Soviets kept the few thousand Allied Prisoners

            they had liberated from German POW camps as hostages in the Soviet Zone.

            Read more:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Keelhaul

            49

          • #
            hatband

            Here’s Paul Craig Roberts‘ latest article at The Unz Review,

            with links to a highly regarded book on the implementation

            of the Morgenthau Plan:

            https://www.unz.com/proberts/he-fate-of-post-wwii-germans-deported-from-their-homes-by-the-allies/

            46

          • #

            I like to stay open to ideas which grind against the consensus, if only because they are more likely to be independently conceived. Note I only said “more likely”. There’s no point starting an argument about a subject so vast that it can only be taken in thousands of pieces, but I don’t mind having my convictions about the war mussed up, provided respect is given to the sacrifices of my own people first. Peace is no small thing.

            I’m just saying that automated opinions are not the best. Belgium went from African monster to Kaiser victim in a couple of decades. N Korea seems to be cool or nasty on a monthly rotation. With the left now “guided by the beauty of our missiles” you start to wonder if we’re being handled more than ever. The US could not escape fierce domestic protest and media backlash over its actions in the Philippines 1899-1902. Now, despite media saturation 24/7, you’d be lucky even to know it was going on.

            Wilhelm Roepke, a Saxony-born economist who was about as anti-fash and as you can get, had this to say about about the “plan”:
            Even this might not have been so bad if her conqueror could have remained a man like General Patton with his sturdy common sense and soldierly honesty, or if she had been conquered by General Clark, who liberated Austria. But after the brief Patton episode Bavaria has been conquered by people who seem to have had the queer notion that what this country of Catholics, strong federalists, individualist peasants, loyal monarchists, and other ardent anti-Na&is needed most were Communists, Protestants, Freem&sons, Prussianised centralists, and German emigrants steeped in the Morgenthau mentality.

            Glorifying Patton has no more appeal to me than glorifying the likes of Churchill and Eisenhower. Patton’s hatred of what lay to the east was as rash as Eisenhower’s blanket hate of “Germans” seen in bulk. It’s the possibility of peace which appeals as a subject, and it seems the war really wasn’t over for many millions till the late 1940s. I’m not taking a definite stand against Eisenhower’s actions (or inaction?) over the Rhine internment camps, but the charges are grave enough to warrant more independent questioning. Lyons and especially Menzies are still reviled for their Japanese appeasement…not by me! I’m not saying they were right, but I can at least be curious rather than react and bite.

            Peace is no small thing. So, yeah, I’ll give a green one to Hatband for venturing on to difficult ground.

            70

            • #
              Graeme Bird

              No you cannot be comparing a soldier like Patton to mass-murdering war criminals like Churchill Or Eisenhower. Certainly the deep state didn’t see them as just the same. Because they obstructed and then assassinated Patton, whereas they lionised and promoted the war criminals.

              11

          • #
            Graeme Bird

            No you are just talking nonsense Mark D. This was real genocide. All the players in World War II were involved in extremely gratuitous acts of human culling. It wasn’t really a war. It was mass-murder pretending to be war.

            11

    • #
      TdeF

      The figure I use is global. Above water and in storms and low altitude it is likely much faster. My figure comes from the elimination of C14 from the entire atmosphere. It cannot be destroyed so it has been lost in the oceans, exchanged for non radioactive CO2.

      This was an accidental discovery. World C14 was suddenlý doubled in 1965. It is almost all gone. Up to the stratosphere.

      20

      • #
        TdeF

        That’s say 90% roughly in 55 years. 1/8. 3 half lives. 55/3=18 years. More careful fitting with e-kt yields 14.

        20

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          The above crop daily variations are fascinating from the point of view of comparing land based CO2 turnover with oceans.

          More ocean area than land so which one has the biggest churn rate?

          :-)

          20

        • #
          bobl

          However Salby showed clearly that half the CO2 added to the atmosphere is absorbed in that year. Your method doesn’t allow for biosphere expansion due to increased CO2 – Global greening if you like.

          This gives NEW CO2 a half life of just one year. Partly this is because that much of the newly created CO2 isn’t well mixed, it’s emitted at ground level where it feeds photosynthesis. Ever notice how green/high road verge grasses are compared to the land around them? The power of CO2. delta CO2 is around 2% so Biosphere expansion alone accounts for almost 1% of total sinks. Given biosphere expansion is 0.5-1% of the total biosphere 50-100% photosynthesis turnover of atmospheric C02 is implied.

          Remember though that C14 goes through the carbon cycle too, any given molecule might have been through any number of plant growth/death cycles.

          40

    • #
      Ian G

      It will be interesting if the CO2 from Australia’s bushfires shows up on Mauna Lola’s data.
      The 1984 volcanic eruption of ML didn’t.
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Loa

      10

    • #
      Graeme Bird

      The main thing ought not be about putting down Greta. The main thing should be about us trying to encourage her to eat good fats and stack on a bit more weight. Seriously that ought to be our main concern. She’s too skinny. She’s not getting enough good Aussie grass-fed fatty meats where she is. No more putting her down. She’s a good kid who hasn’t built a proper woman’s body because she’s not getting the right nutrition. Don’t worry about school Greta. Get some of this Australian grass-fed fatty beef going.

      We are watching an intelligent emaciated kid [snip. No. - jo] Looking at her Mother its not like she lacks the genetic material to fill out. So stop worrying about what she is saying. And stop worrying about who is controlling her. [snip] Just try and get her to eat pork. Olive Oil. Coconut oil. Fatty meat. Liver. Oysters.

      We have been too much thinking of Greta as a symptom of, or a mouthpiece for, some sort of greater evil, or at least some larger influence machine. But Greta is Greta. She is a little girl. Our goal is to get her to eat more eg. pork fat. Any other considerations other than being kind to Greta and helping her develop like a normal woman …. these are just the jibber jabber of men and women at the hairdressers.

      Have some human feeling people.

      20

  • #
    el gordo

    This is hot off the press, Worrall continues the debate and it might be instructive to follow the comments as they unfold.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/25/aussie-climate-change-bushfires-ignited-by-arson/

    52

  • #
    el gordo

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio …..

    ‘The death of this reigning physics paradigm, the Standard Model, has been predicted for decades. There are hints of its problems in the physics we already have. Strange results from laboratory experiments suggest flickers of ghostly new species of neutrinos beyond the three described in the Standard Model. And the universe seems full of dark matter that no particle in the Standard Model can explain.’ GWPF

    42

  • #
    hatband

    The link does hat tip Jo Nova, but apart from that, it’s Clickbait..

    Selected examples:

    Forty specialist police officers will work full-time on bushfire investigations to zero in on and profile would-be arsonists as the state continues to face the worst bushfire season in history.

    The 19-year-old Strike Force Tronto has been investigating…

    Profiling Arsonists? Really?

    Then what were they doing for the last 19 years? Eating cream buns?

    Here’s the conclusion:

    We’ll always have arsonists, just as we shall always have to live with the possibility of lightning igniting fires. But there is a lot more we could be doing, to reduce the damage and harm fires do, regardless of their cause.

    Remember, lightning causes 9% of Bushfires. The other 91% are either Arson or suspicious.

    55

    • #
      el gordo

      Suspicious, yeah like falling power lines, in the inferno which follows its impossible to find any arson fingerprints.

      Forget the drones and advertising campaign, instead selectively round up mentally ill males living in the bush and give them a holiday in capital cities, until deemed safe to return.

      Bushfires cost us more than any other crime and rarely is anyone caught or tried, so I’m suggesting in a Beijing sort of way, take the holiday or be placed under house arrest for the season.

      42

    • #
      toorightmate

      And Mr hatband, don’t run away from the very plain fact that several of the arsonists have been murderers, but I guess that is OK by your pathetic Green standards.

      22

  • #
    Peter C

    Dr David Stockwell and the Bradfield Scheme.

    The experts say it can’t be done, but a close look at the elevations of the sources, storages and destinations for the Bradfield Scheme says otherwise.

    I looked up el gordo’s link to the WUWT site above (Eric Worral on Arsonists) and I noticed David Stockwell in the bookmark sites on the right. I listened to a lecture by David Stockwell once at the Australian Environmental Foundation Conference, so I clicked there to see what he has been doing since.

    His website is mostly devoted to the Bradfield scheme. So much information there.
    http://landshape.org/

    It seems a far, far better use of public money than Turnbull’s Snowy Mk 2.

    90

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Bradfield scheme can be done and yes much better than Snowy 2.0 .

      70

    • #

      I don’t know if it can or should or will be done…but, hombre, that Bradfield Scheme really gets my juices running. Of course, if it runs on commonsense and gravity and involves no massive waste or white elephant tech the globsters will hate it. It’ll be rare frogs and threatened lizards, for sure.

      80

      • #
        bobl

        Don’t worry about those, the cane toads already got them

        60

      • #
        robert rosicka

        Any pumping from the ord could be done using solar on a large scale or better still nuclear.
        CY O’Connor built a 600kilometer pipeline a hundred years ago and I’m just positive technology has improved since then .
        A Bradfield scheme should include Lake Argyle but also any river that’s feasible in the territory and Queensland.
        Water would benefit all states if they do it right .

        31

        • #
          hatband

          Where’s the real benefit for Auatralians though?

          The Scheme would only benefit Industrial Scale Agriculture, the machinery will be Automatic, and all that will be needed are a few Mechanics and Fitters.

          The Soil, Water, and Atmosphere will be polluted with Industrial Chemicals, and we’ll become the first Country to go from First World Status to Third World Status.

          27

          • #
            el gordo

            Mass immigration is happening and will continue, so we need to unlock the land and make Australia habitable, otherwise capital cities will take the brunt.

            I think its possible to fill Lake Mungo and all the others in the Willandra Lakes district with Ord water, do you have a problem with this?

            21

            • #
              hatband

              1.Immigrants only want to live in the Capitals, like most other people.

              2.You’ve got to make it habitable first, not the other way around.

              Making the unhabitable parts of Australia habitable will take Centuries.

              3. Most things are possible, but building an irrigation ditch from

              North West Australia to South East Australia would eclipse

              the White Sea Canal in pointlessness.

              https://erenow.net/modern/gulagahistoryanneapplebaum/6.php

              N.B. Anne Applebaum is a well know NeoCon [Trotskyite].

              20

              • #
                el gordo

                I see your gulag yarn and raise …

                https://norepublic.com.au/water-harvesting-and-drought-proofing-australia/

                As an example only four percent of Lake Argyle water is used for irrigation and the rest flows into the Timor Sea.

                A pipeline from the north-west to south-east would cost around six billion dollars and permanently drought proof the MDB.

                11

              • #
                hatband

                The Length and Area of the MDB:

                The basin is 3,375 kilometres (2,097 mi) in length,…

                Most of the 1,061,469 km2 (409,835 sq mi) basin is flat,..[Wiki]

                It runs from Southern Queensland to South Eastern South Australia.

                How are you going to ‘Drought Proof” that?

                A Couple hundred thousand miles of smaller pipelines, perhaps.

                Or a few million Water Tankers, driven by the Green Army?
                .

                20

              • #
                el gordo

                Firstly a six billion dollar loan from the China Infrastructure Bank would bring water from Argyle tp Bourke. Anywhere along the length people can siphon off what ever they need, for a fair price.

                As it reaches the MDB there would be new dams holding Ord water, user pay principle, branching like a tree to all who are prepared to pay.

                The thing is, there will be La Nina years and this might hinder paying back the loan.

                11

              • #
                hatband

                Sounds like NeoLiberalism on Steroids, e.g..

                If your pipeline ran from the Ord to Bourke in a straight line, what’s the shortest distance a ”branch line” would have to travel to ”drought proof”, say, Warwick.

                500 k.?

                Bottom line: Australia borrows $6 Bil. from China to support Chinese Cotton growing, Chinese Intensive Piggeries, Poultry Farms, etc, along the Darling River.

                Here is my question:
                What’s Australia gaining from the deal?

                10

              • #
                hatband

                Sounds like NeoLiberalism on Steroids, e.g..

                If your pipeline ran from the Ord to Bourke in a straight line, what’s the shortest distance a ”branch line” would have to travel to ”drought proof”, say, Warwick.

                500 k.?

                Bottom line: Australia borrows $6 Bil. from China to support Chinese Cotton growing, Chinese Intensive Piggeries, Poultry Farms, etc, along the Darling River.

                Here is my question:
                What’s Australia gaining from the deal?

                10

              • #
                el gordo

                Speaking on behalf of the utopian socialists, we imagine the borrowings, including all the infrastructure required in branching, should be paid off fairly quickly. From then on all water is free.

                Chinese market gardens, strictly controlled, would make the MDB a place to live.

                10

              • #
                hatband

                Chinese market gardens were a thing of the past by 1960.

                Like the Iceman, they ain’t ever coming back.

                00

              • #
                el gordo

                I should have said Chinese mono culture covering the MDB.

                So I take your silence on the issue of ‘drought proofing’ that a north south transfer of water is not credible?

                11

    • #
      jack

      In the history of mankind,
      there always seems to be a majority of ‘experts’ that say it can’t be done.
      The individual, standing on his own belief, against all odds,
      then goes out and does it.
      To many “experts” saying the Bradfield scheme cannot be done, so it is probably viable.
      Seeing the amount of fresh water that falls in north eastern Queensland and runs directly back to the ocean seems such a waste in a dry continent.

      31

      • #
        hatband

        Perhaps it’s more that Powerful Interests want that water to stay right where it is,

        for now. I once read that 60% of Australia’s fresh water is in Cape York.

        The Cattle were cleared out years ago, and the Qld Gubbermint’s Wild Rivers Legislation

        stymied the Aboriginal Corporations raising money to start Primary Industry up there.

        So much for the Wik Decision of the High Court and Aboriginal Land Rights then.

        23

      • #
        hatband

        Few things can’t be done, but some things shouldn’t be done.

        The Bradfield Scheme falls into the 2nd category.

        26

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Typical left rubbish , no dams , no water , no cattle etc etc etc .

          62

          • #
            hatband

            Cattle need grass as well as water, I can’t see graziers being able to afford to

            irrigate to grow grass.

            Was the Bradfield Scheme intended as a leg up for Graziers?

            Perhaps, but it sounds more applicable to Industrial Crops.

            24

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Grass doesn’t grow too well in shadows.

              Need solid UV.

              32

            • #
              robert rosicka

              Cattle don’t need grass they do ok on mulga but do need water .

              01

            • #
              Graeme Bird

              Water comes from water retention landscapes. Irrigation is about water access and not about hydrating the continent. And Keith its not true that grass doesn’t do better with shade. It needs some shade but not too much. Old Bill Mollison talks about “farmers trees.” These trees have many virtues. But one of them is that the grass grows all the way to the trunk without a gap.

              Grass and herbivores develop soil and inter carbon faster. But grass does need some tree around and about the place to keep the land more resilient. Plus you want your trees to give a lot of shade to all your water retention features.

              21

      • #

        Inspiring. I bet it will even look beautiful, like the great aqueducts.

        I don’t know the region or the challenges well enough to know how feasible it is, but just thinking about it is cool enough.

        And, hey, the luvvies and Guardianistas totally hate it, so the Bradfield’s got that in its favour.

        50

        • #
          robert rosicka

          Mosomo there is plans for a modern version which I think was released last year with a few options but doesn’t include the ord .
          Would be gravity fed and end up in the Darling system , I’ll have a look and see if I kept the link .

          30

          • #

            I spent a few days in the company of this sublime object…
            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Aqueduct_of_Segovia%2C_Segovia%2C_Spain%2C_April_2015.jpg

            Every time I think about underused desals burning precious coal and precious money; and feeble white elephant power sources clanking on the hills or rusting off Port Kembla; and French oiler subs for Adelaide later this century (maybe); and Uphill Snowy, and all the green monstrosities of these last decades…

            I just look at the Aqueduct of Segovia and it calms me and reminds me that people can build with nature and with ingenuity. Like I said, I don’t know if Bradfield is the real deal. And I’m sure the funds which get poured into clunky globalist absurdities will be scarce for something so Australian.

            But, hey, let’s dream a little on Australia Day Weekend!

            40

        • #
          hatband

          Queensland has a history of these proposals, they sound great, but never stack up, or get axed for political reasons.

          One of the first, and a beauty, was a proposal from European Bankers, to build a Railway from Roma to the Gulf of Carpentaria, going through Aramac, Blackall, and Cloncurry.

          Part of the deal was that the Builders would meet all costs, but would be granted 8 miles of land either side of the tracks.
          The Qld Parliament knocked it back in 1882.
          Here’s the best link I could find:
          https://blogs.archives.qld.gov.au/2018/03/06/the-aramac-tramway/

          The Peak Downs Scheme of the late 1940s was another one, British investors were going to fund small farmers producing pork for the U.K.

          Was always going to happen, never happened.
          A bit like Adani.

          20

        • #
          jack

          While we are talking great things and Cape York.
          I want my space launch facility?
          During the heyday of rocketry research in the 1960s Australia was the seventh nation to launch a satellite, WRESAT, into orbit, and the third (behind USSR & USA) from its own soil.
          Now, Australian space-related activities have been virtually nonexistent.
          Is the ‘new progress’; not progress?

          10

          • #
            hatband

            Australia isn’t a bad place to launch a rocket.

            Australia also had a lot of Technical and Engineering knowledge back then.

            The Whitlam Government took the big steps in Deindustrialising Australia and

            dumbing it down, it’s successors have finished the job.

            10

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Readers who frequent Joanne’s blog know that I post lengthy comments in support of AGW skepticism. Well, here’s another one.

    The Logic Of Science is a Blog hosted by a person who goes by the nom de plume Fallacy Man. As the Blog’s name implies, Fallacy Man takes the position that science is based on logic, and therefore must be believed unless errors can be shown in either (a) the premises from which scientific conclusions are derived, or (b) the logic itself. An example of Fallacy Man’s position on logic comes from a Fallacy Man thread entitled “Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we know” (see https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/06/global-warming-isnt-natural-and-heres-how-we-know/). On that thread Fallacy man wrote:

    Fact 1: CO2 traps heat and plays a vital role in our climate
    Fact 2: Increasing the CO2 results in more heat being trapped
    Fact 3: We have greatly increased the CO2 in the atmosphere
    Conclusion: Therefore, we are causing the climate to warm

    This is a deductive logical argument. Unless you can show that one of the premises is false or that a logical fallacy has been committed, you must accept the conclusion.

    In his 20 January 2020 thread entitled “The overwhelming consensus on climate change” (see https://thelogicofscience.com/2020/01/20/the-overwhelming-consensus-on-climate-change/) Fallacy Man argues that there is an overwhelming consensus that mankind is the primary cause of climate change. That such a consensus exists doesn’t surprise me one whit. Given how much money has been spent for the express purpose of finding just a relationship, what would surprise me is a consensus that mankind is NOT the primary cause of climate change.

    Fallacy Man mostly posts threads related to medical issues. Occasionally, however, he posts threads about anthropogenic global-warming/climate-change. He is a firm believer than mankind is responsible for most of the global-warming/climate-change that is currently occurring. One of his favorite techniques is to debunk skeptical arguments. I point out that even if he successfully debunked every skeptical argument presented to date, such debunking would not prove anthropogenic global-warming/climate-change is real. Nonetheless, inspired by and employing Fallacy Man’s technique, in this comment I “debunk” Fallacy Man’s “we are causing to warm” argument appearing at the start of this comment.

    Below (in blockquote italics) is a “wordsmithed” copy of a comment I submitted to Fallacy Man’s “overwhelming consensus” thread. As of 25 January 2020 my comment has been blocked—i.e. does not appear on the thread. There are several possible reasons why my comment does not appear.

    First, there may be some glitch in the computer process that posts comments.

    Second, Fallacy Man might deem my comment violates his “Blog comment rules” and as such has blocked my comment. For example, one of his Blog rules addresses the “civility” of comments. Specifically, the second Blog rule states: “I would like to request that anyone who comments do so with a certain amount of civility. You are welcome to criticize other people’s arguments, but attacking the person making the argument is not permitted. Similarly, I would like everyone to feel comfortable reading through the comments, so please refrain from profanity. Engaging in behavior like telling people that [they] should commit suicide will probably result in you[r] being banned and your comments being deleted. To be clear, I have nothing against healthy sarcasm and witty jabs, but there is no excuse for name calling, attacking people, bigotry, or suggesting violence.

    Since you, the reader of Joanne’s Blog, can’t compare the comment I submitted for posting on Fallacy Man’s Blog with my “wordsmithed” copy of that comment, you’ll just have to take my word for it that any differences between the two are minor and in no way alter the “civility” of the message. With that said, you be the judge of whether or not my comment violates the “civility” rule.

    Another rule is that a comment must address the specific topic of the thread—which for the thread on which I attempted to post my comment is that “there exists an overwhelming consensus that mankind is the primary cause of climate change.” My comment does not specifically address the “overwhelming consensus” issue; but rather addresses the contents of a separate “thread” referenced by Fallacy Man in his “overwhelming consensus” thread. If this is the reason my comment was blocked, Fallacy Man is justified in blocking my comment—but then when Fallacy Man references documents that support his position on a specific topic, those documents are treated as gospel and are immune to criticism—at least on the thread where the document is referenced. I would have preferred posting my comment on the appropriate Fallacy Man thread, but comments on that thread are closed.

    Third, the history of my interaction with Fallacy Man’s blog (see https://thelogicofscience.com/2018/09/17/extreme-weather-the-effects-of-climate-change-are-already-here/) may have dissuaded Fallacy Man from posting my comment.

    For whatever reason, my most recent comment has not yet been posted on Fallacy Man’s blog. I believe that comment has relevance to the AGW issue, and as such is appropriate for posting on an “unthreaded thread” of Joanne’s blog; but that’s for Joanne to decide.

    Now for the wordsmithed copy of my blocked comment.

    The title of your blog, The Logic Of Science, carries with it the idea that scientific results are arrived at by starting with one or more premises (you call them facts) and applying logic to those premises to arrive at a conclusion. Your blog emphasizes the idea that logic is an integral part of the scientific process; and therefore unless there is a flaw in one or more of the premises and/or the logic, people must accept the validity of the scientific conclusions. Okay, let’s analyze a logical scientific argument that has relevance to your blog.

    Fact 1/Premise 1: “X” traps “Y” and plays a vital role in our climate.
    Fact 2/Premise 2: Increasing the “X” results in more “Y” being trapped.
    Fact 3/Premise: We have greatly increased the “X” in the atmosphere.
    Conclusion: Therefore, we are causing the climate to “Z.”

    The above is flawed logic because the “Facts/Premises,” which characterize relationships between “X” and “Y,” are used to reach a conclusion about “Z.” If “Z” is unrelated to both “X” and “Y,” the logic is obviously nonsensical. Note that if you replace “X” with “CO2,” “Y” with “heat,” and “Z” with “warm,” you have the exact wording of the logic you use to argue that we (mankind) are causing the earth/earth-atmosphere to warm (see https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/06/06/global-warming-isnt-natural-and-heres-how-we-know/).

    Now if “warm” and “heat” are the same phenomenon, then the above would be valid logic. The problem is that “warm” and “heat” are not the same phenomenon. To most people the word “warm” implies a higher temperature, not a larger heat content. For example, a Greyhound bus at 40 degrees centigrade contains more “heat” (thermal energy) than a thimble at 500 degrees centigrade; but very few would say the bus is “warmer” than the thimble. “Heat” and “temperature (warmness)” are related, but they are not the same thing. Thus, when you say “we are causing the climate to warm,” you are in effect saying “we are causing the temperature of the climate to increase.”

    Wait you say! All logic processes assume some level of understanding not explicitly stated in the logic flow. Heat and temperature may not represent the same physical phenomenon; but everyone knows if you increase the heat content of an object, you increase the temperature of the object. Therefore, it is implicitly understood, and does not require justification, that an increase in “atmospheric heat” (“Y”) implies an increase in atmospheric temperature (“Z”).

    The problem with this “understanding” is that an increase in heat content does not always produce an increase in temperature. Consider the following two examples. First, an ice/water mixture at a temperature near 0 degrees centigrade. If the mixture is mostly ice with a little water and you add heat to the mixture, the temperature of the mixture will not increase until all of the ice has melted. The added heat goes into changing the phase state (ice to water) of H20, not into increasing the temperature of the mixture. Thus for this example, adding some heat to the mixture does not warm the mixture—i.e., does not increase the temperature of the mixture.

    Second, consider a large sphere of “spherically-symmetric construction and uniform density” with a spherically-symmetrically-distributed internal source of heat whose heat generation rate is constant. Place the sphere in the vacuum of cold space. The surface temperature of the sphere will eventually stabilize at a temperature such that the rate the surface of the sphere radiates heat to space is equal to the rate the internal source generates heat. When the temperature of the surface of the sphere has stabilized, the material making up the sphere “contains” (in your vernacular, “traps”) a finite amount of thermal energy. Now holding everything but the sphere’s radius constant (i.e., maintaining all the properties inherent in the original sphere) increase the radius of the sphere by adding material identical to the material of the original sphere. Because (a) the radius of the modified sphere is greater than the radius of the original sphere, and (b) the rate energy is generated internal to the sphere has not changed, the stabilized surface temperature of the modified sphere will be lower than the stabilized surface temperature of the original sphere. Like the original sphere, the material making up the modified sphere contains (“traps”) a finite amount of thermal energy. Because there is more matter in the modified sphere than in the original sphere, it is possible, if not likely, that the total amount of “contained” (“trapped”) thermal energy in the modified sphere is greater than the total amount of “contained” (“trapped”) thermal energy in the original sphere. Thus for this example, for at least a portion of the sphere, an increased heat content exists simultaneously with a lower sphere temperature.

    Wait you say! The two examples you give are so different from the earth/earth-atmosphere system as to render the examples meaningless when applied to the earth/earth-atmosphere system.

    I question that conclusion because I am applying your premises and your “logic” to a real-world physical situation and nowhere do you imply that the logic only applies to the earth/earth-atmosphere system. But for the sake of this discussion, let’s say the comment about “situational differences” has merit. In that case consider a third situation that again does not exactly represent the earth/earth-atmosphere system but is a closer representation than the ice/water mixture and the solid sphere examples. Specifically, consider a vacuum thermos bottle. In its simplest form, a vacuum thermos bottle consists of (a) a chamber into which material (say a liquid like coffee) is placed, (b) a surrounding wall that ideally makes no physical contact with the outer surface of the chamber (in reality some physical contact between the chamber and the surrounding wall will have to exist to keep the chamber separated from the surrounding wall), and (c) a vacuum region that exists between (i) the outer surface of the chamber and (ii) the inner surface of the surrounding wall. Place coffee in the chamber and place the thermos bottle in a room at a constant temperature. Insert a constant-rate “heat source” (say a battery/resistor circuit) into the coffee. The heat from the heat source will increase the temperature of the coffee until the rate heat is generated within the coffee is equal to the rate the outer surface of the wall transfers heat to the room, at which point the temperature of the coffee will stabilize at some value. Now inject CO2 gas into the vacuum region of the thermos bottle. If Fact 1 is true (i.e., if CO2 is a heat-trapping gas), the injected CO2 will “trap heat” and play a role (maybe not vital, but a role) in the “climate” of the thermos bottle. If Fact 2 is true, increasing the amount of CO2 will increase the amount of “trapped heat.” I’ll stipulate that Fact 3 is true because we are the source of the injected CO2. Using your logic, we would then conclude that the injected CO2 warms the “atmosphere of the thermos bottle”—i.e., increases the temperature of the CO2 gas in the volume between the outer surface of the chamber and the inner surface of the wall. A consequence of such behavior is that a CO2 thermos bottle would outperform a vacuum thermos bottle (as least with respect to the storage of hot coffee); and CO2 thermos bottles would line the shelves of hardware stores throughout the world.

    In fact the opposite is true. A vacuum thermos bottle outperforms a CO2 thermos bottle—i.e., in the discussed example adding additional CO2 results in a lower, not higher, coffee temperature. This happens because the presence of CO2 provides a means (thermal conduction) of heat transfer away from the chamber/coffee other than radiation. The additional heat transfer path means that for at least some amounts of injected CO2 a lower temperature of the outer surface of the chamber can support heat loss at a rate equal to the rate the internal source generates heat. This means that at a minimum, the temperature of the CO2 in contact with the outer surface of the chamber will decrease as more CO2 is added. Thus for this example, the injection of more CO2 into the vacuum space results in a lower, not higher, CO2 temperature.

    Wait you say. The thermos bottle example may better represent the earth/earth-atmosphere system than the ice/water mixture and the solid sphere, but the thermos bottle example is still not an exact representation of the earth/earth-atmosphere system. And just so we’re clear, everyone knows that increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the atmosphere.

    Two responses to the above criticism are in order. First, one of the response is correct—the thermos bottle example is not identical to the earth/earth-atmosphere system. Second, if the claim “increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature of the atmosphere” is treated as fact, then why even mention the heat-trapping nature of CO2? Assuming “what everyone knows to be true” actually is true, doesn’t the logic reduce to:

    Premise A: Increased CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere results in higher earth/earth-atmosphere temperatures (the assumed claim).
    Premise B: We have greatly increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
    Conclusion: Therefore, we are warming the earth/earth-atmosphere system—i.e., we are increasing the temperature of the earth/earth-atmosphere system?

    The inclusion of the heat-trapping nature of CO2 would then be irrelevant to the discussion; and its inclusion in the logic can only be meant to supply some measure of rationale to the claim that “increased CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere results in higher earth/earth-atmosphere temperatures.” But if Premise A is accepted as fact, there is no need to provide any rationale for its validity; and if Premise A must be established by a logical process, your logic does not do the job. In essence, to a high degree the simplified three-step logic immediately above constitutes a circular argument. The only thing that keeps it from actually being a circular argument is the inclusion of the second premise—i.e, that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Without the second premise, the logic would read:

    Fact 1/Premise: CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere increases the temperature of the earth/earth-atmosphere system.
    Conclusion: CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere increases the temperature of the earth/earth-atmosphere system.

    Two final thoughts:

    First, the phrase “trapping heat” is at best misleading and at worst wrong. Heat cannot be trapped by any substance (including CO2) known to man because no known substance will prevent heat from moving from a warmer environment to a cooler environment—i.e., trap heat in the warmer environment. The only way to prevent heat from leaving/entering an object (i.e., to “trap heat within the object”/”prevent heat from entering the object”) is to place the object in an environment that is the same temperature as the object. Thus in addition to arguing that your logic is flawed, I also argue that your first and second premises are false; but that is an issue for another discussion.

    Second, my pointing out the flaws in your logic does not invalidate your conclusion—it only demonstrates that your logic is flawed, and that your logic does not prove your conclusion.

    On reflection, I could have improved my “debunking” of Fallacy Man’s logic by including another example of the above “X”, “Y”, “Z” logic that to many people appears valid but in fact is invalid. Specifically, let “X” equal “dam”, “Y” equal “water”, and “Z” equal “water pressure.” With these substitutions, the logic would read as follows.

    Fact 1/Premise 1: A dam (“X”) traps water (“Y”) and plays a vital role in the environment surrounding the dam.
    Fact 2/Premise 2: Increasing the size of the dam results in more water being trapped.
    Fact 3/Premise: We have greatly increased the size of the dam.
    Conclusion: Therefore, we are causing the water pressure (“Z”) in the dam to increase,

    and it would not be inconceivable to imagine the following interchange between Fallacy Man and myself.

    You (Reed Coray) might criticize my (Fallacy Man) logic because I didn’t think it necessary to include the obvious relationship between the amount of water in the dam and the water pressure in the dam? Okay, if it makes you feel better, I’ll explicitly include that relationship.

    Fact 1/Premise 1: A dam traps water and plays a vital role in the environment surrounding the dam.
    Fact 2/Premise 2: Increasing the size of the dam results in more water being trapped in the dam.
    Fact 3/Premise 3: Water has weight.
    Fact 4/Premise 4: The greater the amount of water in the dam, the greater the weight of the water in the dam.
    Fact 5/Premise 5: The greater the weight of the water in the dam, the greater the water pressure in the dam.
    Fact 6/Premise 6: We have greatly increased the size of the dam.
    Conclusion: Therefore, we are causing the water pressure in the dam to increase.

    Now are you satisfied? No, I’m not satisfied. I’ll accept your third and fourth Facts/Premises; and as such agree that it is reasonable to omit these Facts/Premises from your logic. Although your fifth Fact/Premise may seem valid (be obvious) to a great number of people, it just isn’t true. [Be honest now, as you read the above argument did you not believe/accept the premise that the weight of the water in a dam and the pressure of the water in a dam go hand-in-hand?] Water pressure in a dam is proportional to the depth of the water in the dam, not to the weight of water in the dam. The weight of the water in a rectangular dam of surface area one square mile and depth one foot is greater than the weight of the water in a rectangular dam of surface area one square foot and depth one mile. However, the pressure of the water in the latter is greater than the pressure of the water in the former. Thus the seemingly obvious Fact/Premise that “The greater the weight of the water in the dam, the greater the water pressure in the dam” is invalid; and as such the logic that increased water weight implies increased water pressure can be successfully impeached.

    Bottom line, without explicitly providing the relationship between “atmospheric heat content” and “atmospheric temperature” as a premise (or premises) in Fallacy Man’s “mankind is the cause of global warming” argument, I feel justified in claiming that I have “debunked” that argument.

    100

    • #
      Another Ian

      You’re not supposed to do that!

      Like Trump wan’t supposed to re-frame “Rules for radicals” as “Rules for Republicans”

      20

    • #
      bobl

      Very good but quite unnecessary, it is easier to attack the premises

      Fact 1: CO2 traps heat and plays a vital role in our climate
      CO2 is a radiative gas that transmits IR energy it traps nothing – the basis of AGW is that the reemission of IR from CO2 is diffuse (Omnidirectional)

      So Fact 1 is INCORRECT

      Fact 2: Increasing the CO2 results in more heat being trapped
      Increasing CO2 can only intercept more IR (What he means by trap heayT) ONLY IF THERE IS SUITABLE IR ENERGY TO TRAP. At the Point that the sky becomes opaque to IR in the CO2 stop band warming MUST STOP as there can be no warming without energy. Since These frequencies are 85% opaque already warming can only occur for the remaining 15% of earth IR emission.

      Fact 2 is incorrect

      Fact 3: We have greatly increased the CO2 in the atmosphere

      Conclusion: Therefore, we are causing the climate to warm

      As you point out, temperature and energy are not the same thing so there are several facts missing. One fact missing is that there are other ways for the surface to cool that are far more significant that surface radiation. Fallacy Man implicitly assumes that the other cooling mechanisms are not affected by increasing the CO2 and that the decrease in cooling caused by CO2 isn’t compensated for by say an increase in evaporation or photosynthesis (Which absorbs incoming shortwave light thereby decreasing total incoming heat energy)

      IE FACT 4: There are no other means for the earth to remove heat energy

      Is incorrect

      40

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Bobl, I agree with everything you said. In my comment above I mentioned that the concept of “trapping heat” by any substance including CO2 is at best misleading and at worst wrong, which, if wrong, implies that Fallacy Man’s first two premises are wrong. In a comment that I submitted to Fallacy Man’s blog (https://thelogicofscience.com/2018/09/17/extreme-weather-the-effects-of-climate-change-are-already-here/) that did get posted, I argued no substance, including CO2, can “trap heat.” Furthermore, on Joanne’s blog I have stated that in my opinion the reason the concept of “trapping heat” is promoted by the AGW community is that if accepted as fact, it is a powerful tool for swaying the general public that increasing atmospheric CO2 is leading the world to disaster. This go around I chose to argue the logic of the AGW community’s argument, not the premises of their argument, because I believe the ability of the general public to discern errors in logic exceeds its ability to discern errors in physics.

        30

      • #
        Peter C

        Correct bobl.

        Fallacy Man’s argument fail immediately if his premises are not true.

        He calls his premises, facts! But they are not facts and they have never been proved to be true.

        30

    • #
      Destroyer D69

      “the overwhelming concensus on climate change” Previous such statements on other serious topics include… The World is flat… Here be dragons…if the train travels faster than 20 MPH all the occupants will die….the sun revolves around the earth…The war will be over by Christmas… The third Reich will last for a thousand years after we win the war…The Titanic is unsinkable…. Trump will not win the election… Labor will win the election…Our dams will never be full again…. Low lying ares of our cities will flood so we must stop building in them to protect us from rising sea levels… There will be no more snowfalls in the Snowy Mountains…. There will be a generation who will not know what rain is … The Antarctic ice cap is meting away and we are going down there to measure it before it all disappears… The atom is the smallest particle of matter that can exist….. Do you see a trend in events failing to obey the dogma of concensus here???????

      30

    • #

      Thanks Reed. My Ph.D. Is in the logic of science (commonly called analytic philosophy of science) and if I get time I will pay this goof a visit. For starters, there are two kinds of logic — deductive and inductive. Deductive is where conclusions follow necessarily from premises and this is how math proofs work, but it is almost never used in science. Science uses inductive logic which is reasoning from evidence, where neither the premises nor the conclusion is ever certain. He seems to be trying to use deductive logic in science, which would be a fallacy!

      On the specific case, as others have pointed out, CO2 does not trap heat. That is a common fallacy. In fact one thing CO2 does is remove energy from the atmosphere. You could run his silly little argument and deduce that adding CO2 will cause cooling.

      I discuss the trapping myth here: https://www.cfact.org/2018/03/13/two-co2-climate-change-myths/.

      20

      • #
        Peter C

        deductive and inductive. Deductive is where conclusions follow necessarily from premises and this is how math proofs work, but it is almost never used in science. Science uses inductive logic which is reasoning from evidence, where neither the premises nor the conclusion is ever certain.

        Thanks David,

        We can use more formal instruction in Logic, although Jo is very good at it.

        While I have problems with the premises themselves, I think the deductive argument does follow, so long as the premises are accepted.

        Reed seems to be trying to show that Fallacy Man’s deductive reasoning is wrong, even if his premises are accepted. However Reed’s arguments, in fact try to show (at least that is how it seemed to me) that the three premises can’t all be accepted at the same time, or he gives some observational evidence to undermine the premises.

        Do you have an issue with Fallacy Man’s deduction, in principle?

        10

        • #

          The deduction is logically correct. In the language of logic it is valid but unsound. That means the conclusion follows from the premises but one or more premises are false.

          Note that in science there are many cases where the premises are not known to be true, which is different from being false. In those uncertainty cases the soundness is also unknown.

          There is very little absolute certainty in science. This is why the logic of science is inductive, not deductive.

          20

          • #
            Reed Coray

            David/Peter. First, I want to thank David for improving my understanding of formal logic. Second, Peter is correct–I am trying to show that Fallacy Man’s deductive reasoning is wrong, even if his three premises are valid. His “logical conclusion” says something about the relationship between “X” (CO2) and “Z” (temperature). His three premises relate “X” (CO2) and “Y” (heat). David, what do you call logic where the conclusion has nothing to do with the premises? Using an example from my childhood. “Your father is a sewing machine (“X”) and your mother is a five dollar bill (“Y”), therefore it takes fourteen flapjacks (“Z”) to cover the roof of a dog house.” Fallacy Man’s first premise characterizes a relationship between “CO2″ and “heat.” Hs second premise characterizes a relationship between the amount of “CO2″ and the amount of “heat.” His third premises characterizes a relationship between “mankind” and the amount of “CO2.” His conclusion characterizes a relationship between “mankind” and “temperature.” Without characterizing a relationship between”heat” and “temperature” isn’t that an error in logic–invalid, unsound, nonsensical… or some other descriptor? What I believe is the case is that he made the implicit assumption that “more heat” implies “more (higher) temperature,” which I believe is an invalid assumption. If he had included as a premise the “assumed” relationship between “heat” and”temperature,” then his logic would have been valid but unsound. Since he didn’t include such a premise, why isn’t it true that his logic is itself flawed?

            00

            • #
              Reed Coray

              I was in a rush (I had a Dr.’s appointment) when I composed and submitted the above comment (http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/weekend-unthreaded-295/#comment-2263864). I would like to clarify one point. I, too, believe and have argued that Fallacy Man’s first two premises [(1) CO2 traps heat and plays a vital role in our climate, and (2) Increasing the CO2 results in more heat being trapped] are invalid, and I suspect his third premise ["We have greatly increased the CO2 in the atmosphere"] is also invalid. If any of these three premises is invalid, then in David’s terms, Fallacy Man’s logic is “valid but unsound.” However, I also argue that even if these three premises are valid, Fallacy Man’s logic is flawed because his conclusion ascribes a behavior to “temperature,” which nowhere appears in his premises. I further argue that if (a) he adds a fourth premise The greater the amount of heat, the greater (higher) the temperature, and (b) his original three premises are valid, then his logic would be “valid but unsound” because the added premise is invalid.

              00

    • #
      Graeme Bird

      Fallacy man has his epistemology all wrong. He’s trying to say you can do science by way of bivalent deductive logic. Whereas the mainstays of science are inductive logic, and convergent evidence.

      And evidence needs to be defined pretty carefully too. Evidence is data, broadly considered, related to a specific hypothesis, narrowly considered, by a process of human reason. But in the context of three or more competing hypotheses. You have to have at least three and five would be better. If you have only two you inevitably get stuck in this Popperian bipolar fantasy where one hypothesis is being framed as null, and given special privileges.

      No science can ever by done by over-emphasizing bivalent deductive logic. Poppers “Conjectures and Refutations” would seem to show this non-understanding even in the very title of his book. This cookie-cutter approach never lead to any discoveries and just got in the way. He over-emphasized falsification when its verification that is needed. Convergent verification and convergent falsification which cannot or at least should not be attempted unless you have at least 3 and better yet 5 competing hypotheses on the fly.

      And in fact you neither refute or verify any of them early on because this implies a knowledge that you don’t yet have. This is an investigation into a mystery leading to new knowledge and not a crooked cop trying to clear his book.

      What you do instead of verify and falsify is you rank and re-rank your 5 hypotheses for plausibility as the data arrives and is analysed and thought about deeply.

      The only time you can do science by way of pure logic is when there is an existing psychological operation in place enforcing really bad science. Like the demand that we believe conservation laws which are logical impossibilities.

      30

  • #
    dinn, rob

    How hard is this stuff? Not very with teamwork, but it does take lots of persistence. No royal road to geometry. /https://aumladder.blogspot.com/2020/01/runaway-big-pharma.html
    https://aumladder.blogspot.com/2020/01/congress-is-owned-by-pharma.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    theirABC broadcasts Cambridge Uni’s “The Naked Scientists” each week; this episode was on air last nite.

    first 7m24s on the following:

    13 Jan: ScienceDaily: Nature Food: Atlantic circulation collapse could cut British crop farming
    Source: University of Exeter
    Summary: Crop production in Britain will fall dramatically if climate change causes the collapse of a vital pattern of ocean currents, new research suggests…
    Such a collapse — a climate change “tipping point” — would leave Britain cooler, drier and unsuitable for many crops, the study says…
    “If the AMOC collapsed, we would expect to see much more dramatic change than is currently expected due to climate change,” said Dr Paul Ritchie, of the University of Exeter.
    “Such a collapse would reverse the effects of warming in Britain, creating an average temperature drop of 3.4°C and leading to a substantial reduction in rainfall (?123mm during the growing season).
    “These changes, especially the drying, could make most land unsuitable for arable farming.”…

    ***The study examines a “fast and early” collapse of the AMOC, which is considered “low-probability” at present — though the AMOC has weakened by an estimated 15% over the last 50 years…
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200113111145.htm

    ;osten to first segment:

    AUDIO: 21 Jan: The Naked Scientists: Food Waste: Slimmer Waste-line
    Why does so much good food end up in the bin?
    https://www.thenakedscientists.com/

    30

  • #
    RicDre

    Oops:

    A pre-hurricane climate change analysis gets major revision after the storm

    https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/a-pre-hurricane-climate-change-analysis-gets-major-revision-after-the-storm/

    H/T:

    Climate Etc.
    Week in review – science edition
    by Judith Curry

    20

  • #
    jack

    :
    NEW RECORD! 2019/2020 Coldest Maximum temperature in Melbourne for start of summer.
    Well true, if you use MELBOURNE (OLYMPIC PARK)only.
    Daily Maximum Temperature Dec, 1 MELBOURNE (OLYMPIC PARK)
    01-Dec 2019 16.8
    01-Dec 2016 21.9
    01-Dec 2017 23.5
    01-Dec 2015 24.6
    01-Dec 2014 28.1
    01-Dec 2013 30.8
    01-Dec 2018 31.7

    Not being one to use selective data to justify a belief,
    lets be a bit more objective and less sensational than the MSM.

    We should include data from MELBOURNE REGIONAL OFFICE,
    which has been recording since 1 May 1855.

    Daily Maximum Temperature lowest for 1 Dec MELBOURNE REGIONAL OFFICE
    01-Dec 1987 15.5
    01-Dec 1966 15.7
    01-Dec 1890 15.8
    01-Dec 1939 15.8
    01-Dec 1996 15.8
    01-Dec 1969 15.9
    01-Dec 1894 16.7
    01-Dec 1934 16.7
    01-Dec 1942 16.7
    01-Dec 1892 16.9

    Now you could less sensationally say:
    Summer 2019/2020, Melbourne’s 10th lowest recorded Maximum temperature for start of summer in 165 years of recording.

    I’d never get a job in the media, I always let the truth get in the way of a good story.

    130

  • #
    RicDre

    Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085782

    H/T:

    Climate Etc.
    Week in review – science edition
    by Judith Curry

    10

  • #
    WXcycles

    SUNKEN STRATOSPHERIC AIR

    I developed a new global humidity display which clearly substantiates that tropospheric pressures-systems and jetstream flows are being intruded by sinking stratosphere.

    The cold-core Lows driving the previously discussed emergent east Pacific equatorial-jet, prompted me to attempt to unambiguously identify and display sinking stratosphere within and also adjacent to the cold-core Lows driving that unique new jet flow – and this has been very successful, as shown in screens below.

    But I also found far more as a result, and can now display a global pattern of how and where stratosphere is sinking into the troposphere. The supposition that sinking stratosphere is what’s unseasonably exciting and expanding the jetstream to way beyond record speeds, is now confirmed, as made clear below.

    Genuine sinking stratosphere will be ~0.0 % humidity. As it falls it warms up and begins to dilute and mix-in with the more humid air it enters. But this takes time, and it does not always thoroughly occur, remnants of the ultra-dry air remain and take longer to dilute. Thus ultra dry air that can only have recently been stratosphere, is still unambiguously identifiable with as much as 2.0% relative humidity, due to its direct association with even drier air.

    By which I mean, air with literally no moisture in it at all, which dryness level is of course not possible for tropospheric air as it’s much too close to evaporating oceans and transpiring plants, plus constant wet convective overturn, to ever dry out as much as 0.0% to 1.0 % within a tropospheric weather system, or even the upper levels. Troposphere doesn’t get cold enough, and still enough, for long enough to get that dry, as it’s always affected by moist convection movements and faster lateral and vertical mixing mechanisms, which combine to keep it moister. Especially within the lower most troposphere which almost never drops below ~5% relative-humidity (rh) for long.

    So if I can make a humidity display that maps observed air rh it would highlight such ultra-dry air within observations, and then I would be viewing air which can only be warmed, but is otherwise the unaltered remnant of ultra-dry stratosphere which has sunk and intruded the lower troposphere surrounded by much wetter air, where such ultra-dry air can otherwise never normally exist within the ambient mixing conditions there.

    There is simply no other way such ultra-dry air could get into that location unless it’s source is genuine formerly and recently sunken true lower-stratosphere air.

    Which should be very easy to detect at the upper-level and mid-levels of the troposphere, and of course it is there, as I made clear about a month back. It is there over Antarctica, and in the upper-levels of the mid-latitude Hadley-Cell.

    But if such ultra-dry warmed remnants could be displayed within the sub-tropical and tropical regions of the lower troposphere, that alone would constitute clear and compelling evidence that stratosphere sourced air is indeed now sinking near to sea level. Also, the extreme dryness means such air can not merely be downwelling remnants of wetter prior Sudden-Stratospheric-Warming events, or from routine disturbances caused by waves and convection at, or just above the tropopause. Such ultra-dry remnants that have not mixed in yet at low levels can only have come from the stratosphere itself. 0.0% humidity anywhere within the lower troposphere can only be the result of very recently sunken stratosphere.

    And that’s what I’ve actually now found within the lower troposphere!

    I had expected such sunken stratosphere to be mainly on the poleward side of the jet flows, and so it is, within the upper-levels, but I was shocked to find that in the tropics it’s already sinking down to as low as 3,000 ft, off the Western Australian coast (as shown in a screen below), and it’s done it during the middle of Summer! The sinking stratosphere is indifferent to the season below it, it is now falling continuously in both the north and south hemispheres, but has apparently been doing it in the south hemisphere for longer, and in higher volume. The northern hemisphere is still catching up, and is observably doing so.

    What we are seeing in out southern spring and summer they will probably experience in their coming spring and summer, namely, an upper and mid level jetstream which refuses to go quiet and shrink as the lower-troposphere northern Summer arrives.

    Everyone also expects the trade-wind flow from sub-tropical Highs to be the primary transporting mechanism that delivers cold, and these do that, of course, but no one expects ultra dry stratosphere to sink deep into the tropics, near ground level within tropical pressure systems, but it does, it has, it is right now. And this can now be displayed as an unambiguous proof that such sinking true stratosphere is now occurring even within tropical systems.

    Other than for the novel equatorial-jet that emerged in January, I had not expected this to be occurring elsewhere within the tropics, but the graphical evidence is clear that it is occuring.

    As to why it’s gone unnoticed to date, this is simply because no one had expected it to be there, so no one went looking for it. Thus humidity forecast maps usually are not constructed to be sensitive enough to display such things. For instance, the standard ‘Windy’ app humidity display map uses very large increments of change, and the display makes no attempt to display fine changes in dry air near to 0% humidity. And why would you? No one is much interested in such low levels of water in air. The app steps assigns 0% to 30% relative humidity to just two very similar looking colors, making detection of extremely dry air quite impossible, visually. If it’s there you’ll never see it. And so they didn’t. Met agencies also don’t seem to display rh changes below the sub 1% increment range. They’re not interested in looking for ultra-dry stratosphere within the troposphere, as the WX paradigm of the day says it can’t be there. So no one’s humidity screen display is configured to detect and highlight such completely dry air. They don’t expect to find such humidity levels at or near to the ground so why bother to sett a data viewer program rh display to show or flag such seemingly impossible completely waterless air at 3,000 feet altitude? So they didn’t. Thus if or when such dry air suddenly showed up they would not even know about it. They’d not see it, they would not notice it, they would at best just see 1% increments of change, and a color or grey scale display will not be setup to highlight such extreme dryness. So if present it will never be seen even if the increment of change of the display was displaying less than 1% rh steps.

    As a result of that, it’s almost certain that no one outside pure research has deliberately setup an rh display within a met data or model viewer, to search for literally 0.0% humidity levels within the lower troposphere. For why the heck would you even bother to program that into a display at that level of dryness in the interesting weather parts of the atmosphere, as it should never be present.

    Except it is present in the lower-troposphere, as you read this.

    My prior humidity display (within ‘Windy’) was likewise too insensitive, as it showed only 1% increments of rh change within a linear color gradient which I personally thought was a bit of detail overkill, but I like to make sure that I see everything there. But this did not unambiguously display the ultra-dry air within the new equatorial-jet Lows that I have described this week. So I experimented to try to increase the sensitivity sown to 0.1% increments of rh changes, plus I coded the display to show all humidity from 0.0% to 2.0% in 0.1% steps of change with a conspicuous shade of hot-pink.

    Brightest pink = 0.0% relative humidity
    Dullest (barely visible) pink = 2.2% relative humidity

    And of course no one would think of doing that unless you really thought true stratosphere might actually be sinking within the lower troposphere. Who would ever think that? No one. So I’m fair confident no one has a computer display programmed to show such a crazy thing as 0% humidity air within the lower-troposphere. But when I used this new display the first time I just about fell off my seat, due to what it depicted.

    I used the initiating OBVERVATIONAL inputs that are always included at the front of each ECMWF run. By which I mean, the part of the run that is included which is 6-hours older than the model release’s timestamp. It is constructed from several million global observations that were frozen as the run input 6 hours prior, and are the basis for all of its physical forecast interations. Those observations include virtually every form of sensor input known to humans that are operating today.

    This mass of data was in recent years added to via the vast and very rapid expansion of ADS-B aircraft transponder met data during the last 5 years, which is now integrated into model observations via streaming WX data coming from national and international jet sensors and ADS-B transponder data sources, as well as from balloon radiosondes, which allows constant air-truthing of initiating global forecast models.

    Modern avionics and especially turbofan engines require very precise continuous met-data to operate safely and efficiently, so the jet has numerous met-sensors to provide outside air temperature (critical for keeping a turbine hot-section from over-heating), pressure (critical for injecting the exact amount of fuel required into the engine combustor for the correct air : fuel burn ratios, for maximum power, efficiency and profit) and humidity (which is also critical data for engine burn efficiency).

    Airline profit margins are strongly related to how efficiently the engine burns fuel, so the readings are very precise, continuous and real-time, down to thousandth of 1 second level and is logged with precise GPS location and aircraft altitude data. This data is all logged and a sample is included in the continuous ADS-B transponder data feed that identifies which aircraft sent it, and its precise GPS coordinate and altitude of that packet of precise air-truthing of met-data.

    All of that global ADS-B data from hundreds of thousands of precision aircraft sensors at all altitudes, up to 60,000 ft (including military), is used as an input to ECMWF. So if ultra dry air is actually present ECMWF’s initiating observations will actually contain this information. And the model will use that precise air-truthed data to calibrate the entire model run. So if the display of the observations at the front of the model are optimized to show any ultra-dry 0.0% humidity air that these aircraft sensors are detecting, that data will be seen within a program like Windy which allows the user to reprogram the graphical display to highlight such very dry air masses, where those air-masses (captured by satellite) are calibrated with the data from the aircraft that flew right through it.

    So I made a display as a recon experiment just to see if such levels of observational data were actually present, *IF* 0.0% rh air was actually sinking into the troposphere, as it should show up within the logged air-truth observations provided at the front of ECMWF runs, and the forecast would be calibrated with it and would continue to display its iterative physics trend from there, over 10 days.

    That recon experiment worked, the data was there, and the ECMWF physics did integrate it into the forecast run.

    Furthermore, ECMWF was specifically designed to detect vertical air movement either side of the tropopause, and to model the stratosphere with similar fidelity, as it does the troposphere, and to forecast the global weather result stemming from any such vertical interactions with the stratosphere, mostly directed at SSWs. But likewise, the stratospheric physics iterations also indicate if there’s any physical tendency for the stratosphere to sink lower, or even to intrude the troposphere. Though even I did not expect what I found from checking for such sinking 0.0% humidity air in the lower-most troposphere.

    I found such waterless air in the most stunning places. And it’s remarkably accurate in practice when you compare the 10-day forecast run to the subsequent actual initiating observations that are logged in that way. And through this constant feedback cycle the model has been continually developed and improved, to the point now that it’s become an extraordinarily accurate upper and mid-level 10 day forecast, of all such weather pressure systems, Jetstream flow and stratospheric air dynamics and tends.

    What this has revealed is that the lower stratosphere is much more influential on tropospheric weather than anyone had previously thought possible, and the discoveries keep on coming. What I found by doing this is another of those eye-openers as to how strongly the stratosphere governs the weather in the troposphere.

    0.0% rh is indisputably sunken intruded stratosphere when found within the ubiquitously wetter tropical lower troposphere, but that’s what I can now map in detail. The amount of places it has already intruded is stunning. As I had already suspected, the southern-hemisphere has more of it, which explains the extraordinary sub-tropical jetstream excitement and acceleration during the 2019-2020 southern hemisphere Summer.

    Some examples of stratosphere air now in the troposphere:

    This shows former stratosphere WNW of Perth, at about 1AM yesterday morning, within the ECMWF observation inputs, showing a stunning 0.0% relative humidity at just 3,000 ft above a warm ocean:

    https://i.ibb.co/ypbPTbS/1-Screenshot-2020-01-25-Windy-as-forecasted-3.png

    This is a forecast of an almost 400 km/h jet on the 2nd Feb. And right beside it is ultra-dry sunken stratosphere.

    The jet at 34,000 ft:
    https://i.ibb.co/NYtC718/2-Screenshot-2020-01-25-Windy-as-forecasted.jpg

    The stratosphere at 34,000 ft, immediately polewards of it:
    https://i.ibb.co/sJ6Sbys/3-Screenshot-2020-01-25-Windy-as-forecasted-1.png

    And here’s the northern cold-core mid-level Low on the north side of the “Equatorial-Jet”, at 18,000 ft. As you can plainly see sunken stratosphere is abundant within it, but also the base of the equatorial jet is full of recently sunken stratosphere as well, and it then wraps into the high just east of the low, which High then sinks it down to the surface level on the US west coast. Thus winter cold-dry air input is coming indirectly from sinking stratosphere itself, not just from the polar circle over Canada, via a polar vortex spill input mechanism. When you see unexpected record cold air excursions, this is why it is occurring, it’s reinforcing the cold that already normally exists.

    https://i.ibb.co/tQx2s6w/4-Screenshot-2020-01-25-Windy-as-forecasted.png

    And here, at 18,000 ft west and north west of western Australia, is why India-Ocean-Dipole (IOD) phase is not going to be calling the shots with respect to the rainfall levels for Australia, as this dry sinking stratosphere will over-ride IOD influence, and alter it. This ultra-low relative humidity level is why a large and strong 90-day Outgoing Long-wave Radiation (OLR) anomaly developed south of Indonesia, as there’s not enough H2O GHG within this large sustained very dry air mass to impede a very high continuous thermal outflow. The heating of the Sun can’t be retained as it was during the post-1980 warming-phase and post-1998 Hiatus. Another 20 years along to 2019-2020 summer and the cold-dry sky is falling down to near sea-level within sub-tropical Highs.

    https://i.ibb.co/f82kNPt/5-Screenshot-2020-01-25-Windy-as-forecasted-2.jpg

    In other words, with such large sinking ultra-dry air masses becoming established in Spring 2019 and Summer 2020, we don’t require a drop in solar output of watts per meter squared photon energy to get actual cooling. As the excessive dryness throughout the entire troposphere that such sinking ultra-dry air provides, means there’s a much weaker H2O GHG effect present, thus a more rapid loss of thermal energy, due to sustained enhanced OLR!

    The global energy balance will inevitably flip to a cooling phase simply because there’s less H2O GHG concentration in the mid-level and upper-level, up to the top of the stratosphere. Thermal energy will flood out faster as soon as photon imput is removed from the surface, at night, and via seasonal angle of incidence variation. Minimum temps will tend to drop lower again (though UHI will hinder that in cities) and as this progresses the Winters will regain their dry cold edge.

    Global cooling is physically implied if stratosphere is falling, and as you can plainly see it is. That energy balance change is now advancing with the formerly dry stratosphere dropping almost to sea level within the sub-tropics, and already present in the uppermost lower-troposphere levels within the almost equatorial tropics just south of Indonesia.

    I’ll be progressively posting a more detailed global overview of this sinking stratosphere’s expressions and locations.

    But you can now take it as CONFIRMED that sinking ultra-dry stratosphere and a lower H2O GHG effect is the missing cooling mechanism.

    What mechanism(s) are causing it to begin to sink again is what remains to be clarified.

    Have a great Australia Day everyone!

    ___
    PS: I’m curious as to how much extra demand running millions of room heaters in the Winter early mornings adds to the grid in coming years, and will that rather than air conditioner load be the black-swan, both for the grid and for angry voters, and the back lash due to people who didn’t make it because exorbitant electrical bills meant they could not get warm enough.

    130

    • #
      RickWill

      Your reasoning only makes sense if there is such a thing as a “greenhouse gas”. There is not. Low relative humidity means little cloud cover and clouds provide a net cooling; lack of cloud a net warming.

      Water vapour and OLR are strongly positively correlated. This is the 2018 global data by month:
      Mnth TPW- OLR
      Jan 17.04 236.8
      Feb 17.29 236.5
      Mar 17.73 237.9
      Apr 18.19 238.7
      May 20.40 240.6
      Jun 20.92 243
      Jul 21.89 243.9
      Aug 21.04 243.4
      Sep 20.54 242.2
      Oct 19.68 239.5
      Nov 18.93 237.1
      Dec 18.91 236.5

      TPW in mm and OLR in W/sq.m.

      24

      • #
        WXcycles

        What I’m referring to is what anyone who’s experienced a clear-sky low-humidity evening in Winter within a desert knows, the thermometer plunges fastest on the driest clear nights. That is not cloud cover related. The landscape chills off quickly after sundown, and falls to a lower temperature before dawn, than during a humid clear night. More energy is lost sooner, with such very low humidity. Cloud is just better at it, as there’s more H2O present and it tends to be lower to the ground. But when there is no condensation the molecules are distributes over a larger volume that is NET further from the ground.

        Is it your view that the behavior of the H2O molecule fundamentally varies based on whether it forms a condensed cloud or not? It’s still the same molecule with the exact same geometry and physical thermal properties. If there’s less of the molecule present, in whatever state, there will be less impedance to long-wave escape to space.

        If you insist H2O as cloud is fundamentally different, please explain why you think a cloud of H2O differs to an air column with the same number of H2O molecules present but no condensation? What is it about condensation into micro-droplets that fundamentally changes the physics of H2O into an insulator but H2O without condensation does not act in the same way? And please describe the mechanism by which condensation makes such a proposed difference to OLR?

        60

        • #
          robert rosicka

          WX you don’t need to go as far as the desert to experience high 30′s during the day and zero when the sun goes down .
          Go to Wonnangatta valley in Victoriastan.

          40

        • #
          RickWill

          Liquid water and ice have vastly different optical properties than water vapour.

          Any water vapour in the air over the desert will provide added thermal inertia due to its high latent heat of condensation. So it prevents rapid cooling below 0C.

          That satellite data clearly shows that water and OLR are positively correlated, not the other way around.

          21

          • #
            WXcycles

            Any water vapour in the air over the desert will provide added thermal inertia due to its high latent heat of condensation. So it prevents rapid cooling below 0C.

            You’re argument agrees that faster surface and atmosphere cooling occurs when the column of atmosphere above is drier.

            10

          • #
            WXcycles

            By the way you still have not explained why you believe the thermal behavior of H2O in a cloud is fundamentally different to H2O not in a cloud. Please explain via what physical mechanism condensed H2O retains heat longer than the same number molecules in the air column above which have not condensed?

            00

          • #
            WXcycles

            Water vapor’s hydroxyl bond strongly absorbs infra-red. Such strong IR absorption by the hydroxyl bond is how water is sensed and identified within Astronomy.

            https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/09/whiff-water-found-moon

            That hydroxyl bond is present and absorbing IR whether it condenses into cloud, or it does not.

            The meaning of a Green House Effect is a gas that retains IR energy and slows its release to space and thus retains warmth, which is exactly what water’s hydroxyl bond does. So your claim that H2O is not a GHG is plainly false and must be rejected.

            50

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          WX,
          If parts of the stratosphere sink, parts of the troposphere rise to replace. What is the story about that balance?
          Geoff S

          10

          • #
            WXcycles

            Hi Geoff,

            Observations of air going into the lower stratosphere are fairly abundant. Tropical deep-convection to 65,000 ft does it, and vertical waves do it as well. When troposphere enters the stratosphere, via ‘vertical wave’ action (due to terrain and air masses clashing) it’s on a quasi-ballistic trajectory (relative buoyancy is involved so not really ballistic) and enters the stratosphere as a much denser (heavier) much wetter air mass, per cubic meter. That air is then in very low-pressure surrounds, so it begins to expand and the pressure drop chills it rapidly to less than -80 C, as it decompresses.

            As it does so it begins to lose density but remains at relative ‘High’-pressure compared to the surrounding extremely low-pressure stratosphere. So it chills and loses most (but not quite all) of its moisture, which is precipitated as micro xtals of ice, but its lingering higher density and thus gravity-driven ‘trajectory’, usually pulls most but not all of it (the answer to your question) of this former troposphere back down to the troposphere. And this is how moisture has observably risen in the stratosphere during the warming period, 1980 to recent.

            At which point this super-chilled decompressing air mass is at 100% humidity as it begins to drop back into the troposphere. This humidity level occurs because the rapid cooling due to its expansion at a lower pressure level, meant it could no longer accommodate as much water into it. So it rapidly jumps to 100% relative humidity as it enters the stratosphere, and remains at that level as it falls back into the troposphere. Yet it has actually lost most of its water while in the stratosphere, it didn’t gain any even though it’s now looks to be ‘wet’, on the display at 100% rh, but this is only because it is now fully saturated because its temp fell to about -85 C due to its decompression-cooling.

            Consequently, it becomes very easy to recognize sinking former-troposphere that has begun to fall back in through the 45,000 ft level because it’s always 100% water saturated, and always extremely cold. But as it falls back in it also begins to re-warm as it falls because it’s now forced to re-compress due to its inertia dropping it lower, thus its rh decreases as it falls to lower levels (and its re-compression rapidly warms it again) but without its total water in the air changing. So once it drops back to about 30,000 ft it stops falling, and now is just patch of drier than normal air at a more normal temperature range.

            So it’s a bit confusing when you first look at the upper levels, but once you grasp those logical relationships it’s fairly easy to read what’s occurring in this 3-D layered perspective.

            Look at these two images below, they’re showing the same location and time. The first one is the temperature map at 45,000 ft over the Arctic Circle and shows the wavy air re-entering the troposphere. That large black area shown is all below -70 C and is the chilled former troposphere coming back down over the polar region. It is coming down after a prior vertical-wave nearer to Greenland a few days before. This is how major sudden-stratospheric-warmings occur, which are just a bigger waves with more volume, which shoots up higher until it’s passage disrupts and mucks-up the stratospheric polar-vortex’s normal orderly circulation.

            https://i.ibb.co/P1K9qmK/Vertical-wave-air-rentry-is-super-chilled-by-decompression-while-in-the-stratosphere-Screenshot-2020-01-27-Windy-as-forecasted-1.jpg

            This second image is the corresponding humidity, and as you see the air is still ‘wavy’ and turbulent as it falls back in, and is 100% saturated (deepest blue). You can also see that the true sinking ultra-dry stratosphere (bright pink areas) have been displaced into the mid-latitude by this re-entering former troposphere (this sort of disturbance almost never occurs in the much calmer Antarctic thus a major difference with the north-hem’s sinking stratospheric air expression).

            https://i.ibb.co/W0XWhPT/Vertical-wave-air-rentry-is-100-percent-relative-humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-27-Windy-as-forecasted.jpg

            (Note that colder troposphere = higher winds = more vertical waves likely).

            Now look back at that temperature map for a moment, at where those pink areas were in the humidity map, and you’ll see that the sinking compressing ultra-dry stratosphere is warming as it sinks down (but remains 0.0% ultra-dry until it mixes in at lower levels).

            But air which is genuinely stratospheric in origin, that simply sank sown due to raised density as it cooled above the tropopause, will always be ~0.0% humidity as it falls down through 45,000 ft to say 3,000 ft. Such 0.0% air at 3,000 ft above warm tropical ocean waters can not have come from anywhere except the stratosphere’s air column. And it must have done so recently as any such air at 3,000 ft in the tropics above a warm ocean will be mixed in very quickly by convection the next day. So if it seems to be lingering over the ocean, that’s a sure-fire indication that more of it continues to fall in from above as it dilutes, so it’s become a continuous sinking process within subtropical highs, at this point.

            Which is what’s occurring here, note the High to the SW, is continuing to funnel down more 0.0% humidity stratospheric air, nearer to sea level … during mid Summer! i.e. this is no small amount.

            https://i.ibb.co/SR5Qd67/0-0-percent-relative-humidity-in-the-Tropics-over-water-at-3-k-ft-Screenshot-2020-01-27-Windy-as-forecasted-2.png

            The only other places on earth where such ultra dry air exists at 3,000 ft altitude level presently are off the Californian coast (from the High parked beside the new Equatorial-Jet’s northern Low), and in the Libyan desert region which is right under the major jet that stretches from the newly forming Atlantic Equatorial-Jet, right across Africa and Asia, into the eastern Pacific.

            As you see there’s no problem adding air back to the stratosphere, where it rapidly dries and chills, and will quickly become indistinguishable from true stratosphere after several weeks.

            (Just watching Andrew Bolt explaining IOD implications … this stream of 0.0% humidity air will have an effect)

            40

        • #
          Graeme Bird

          Cloud cover will mean more tunneling under at mid-troposphere level. More overturning Wherever the commonplace observation that “heat rises” is thrown into reverse you will have greater preservation of thermal energy on the ground.

          I think in terms of layers so you could have the layer, for practical purposes ending where we hit the tropo-pause. Or in other words at the very top of the troposphere. But with a layer of cloud cover overnight, thats mid-troposphere so the warmth will be better preserved on the ground.

          And also there is the question of albedo. Though we do not perceive the clouds as white during the night-time, white they indeed are. And they will perform a straight albedo rebound of a lot of the energy that would otherwise be lost in space before the morning.

          So in otherwords cloud cover is an extra cooling factor during the day but a very good warming cover overnight.

          11

        • #
          Graeme Bird

          What I’m referring to is what anyone who’s experienced a clear-sky low-humidity evening in Winter within a desert knows, the thermometer plunges fastest on the driest clear nights. That is not cloud cover related.

          Yeah it is cloud cover related. And its latent heat of evaporation related. And its the colour of the gas (“greenhouse”) related too. But I think the thing you are ignoring the most is that heat of evaporation. Because if you are in the tropics that condensation is happening slowly all through the night in such a way as the temperature can never fall below about 28. Its not all greenhouse. Part of it is sustained heat-of-condensation release.

          12

      • #
        bobl

        Um, no, water is a GHG its clear as the frost on your lawn. Cloudless nights the radiation from the ground cools it to subzero producing frost. Cloud impedes the radiative loss. This is why frost happens on cloudless nights.

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          Clouds impede energy transfer because they have already taken the energy upwards.

          That’s how they got there, afterall.

          Its all just a balance of energies.

          42

          • #
            toorightmate

            AndyG55 – Clouds are disallowed in models unless they increase surface temperatures!!!!

            Is my understanding correct that the Russian temperature prediction models are reasonably accurate and include cloud effects, whereas all the western models disregard cloud effects (and are disgustingly inaccurate)? Can someone who knows what they are talking about, wrt models, confirm/deny this for me?

            11

            • #
              Graeme#4

              Think that’s wrong. I believe that all the models include cloud effects, but as a parameter with with a fixed assumed value, and with a 100×100 km grid. As we all know, cloud effects change rapidly and often, and their effects are often localised.

              20

        • #
          RickWill

          That is basically the same as I am saying other than there is no GHG. To get frost, you need high humidity. If the high water vapour content reduced OLR then the air would not cool and there would be no frost.

          00

          • #
            WXcycles

            To get frost, you need high humidity. If the high water vapour content reduced OLR then the air would not cool and there would be no frost.

            Not correct Rick.

            Frost doesn’t form on humid nights, it occurs on very still dry-air nights under sinking High-pressure. Frost xtals grow in situ directly from very chilled air, liquid water droplets as per ‘dew’ do not precipitate out to form frosts. The amount of water near to the ground growing directly into ice xtals is minuscule. It’s only because the air in the column above ground level is so dry, and thus can not retain any ground heat, that the frost grows directly from chilled still air using whatever residual low-humidity was still retained in the still-air near to ground level (such as from transpiration and soil moisture). To get frost you have to have still and a very dry air column above to drop the temp sufficiently quickly enough for the ice xtals to grow from surface air before dawn. This is why when there is a breeze frost does not grow, as the residual humidity in the ground layer is removed and replaced with drier air.

            60

          • #
            Graeme Bird

            No you don’t need high humidity for frost. Frosty nights are low humidity. You need SOME humidity but you don’t need high humidity.

            20

      • #
        Peter C

        Water vapour and OLR are strongly positively correlated. This is the 2018 global data by month:

        That is useful evidence that increased water vapour could increase OLR. Hence water vapour could be a cooling gas. If the reverse were true the OLR should show a negative correlation with water vapour.

        Exactly how that works is a bit unclear (to me), since the OLR spectrum, we are told, shows dips at the absorption bands of water vapour. It would be good if it can be shown to operate also at the level of the individual CERES cells.

        10

        • #
          WXcycles

          That is useful evidence that increased water vapour could increase OLR. Hence water vapour could be a cooling gas.

          It isn’t. If what Rick claimed about water vapor not being a GHG were correct, absorption spectroscopy could not and would not routinely used to detect water’s presence on objects in space via water’s IR absorption spectrum. Water is a proven known GHG and has been know as such for a very long time and there’s nothing up for grabs about this.

          41

          • #
            Peter C

            Water is a proven known GHG and has been know as such for a very long time and there’s nothing up for grabs about this.

            I beg to differ. Water vapour either absorbs, or scatters IR. That is all. And that is two statements , not one, with different implications. Greenhouse Gas Theory is multifactorial with many internal assumptions. Nothing proven about it at all.
            Observational evidence supports water gas as cooling. Rick Will is supported by other observers who have used different methods.

            10

          • #
            Graeme Bird

            No you cannot say that at all. For starters water vapour has to be a cooling gas in the first instance since it blocks incoming joules. Any colouring of any gas would be expected to be a net cooling factor since its blocking incoming. Of course there is a secondary energy source we need to think about and there is also the incoming visual and ultra-violet that water vapour is almost transparent too.

            Water is a cooling SUBSTANCE as well in the following way. The evaporation of water has an extremely powerful refrigerant effect. Furthermore outside of the tropics the parcel of air that has the newly evaporated water vapour can be expected to have an upward trajectory. Taking its temperature and its latent heat of evaporation with it. Once these joules are above me head and my house not all of them are coming back.

            Not all joules are equal. The heater in the basement is doing double and triple duty as compared to the heater in the attic. A gas that takes its overt and latent heat energy quickly upward isn’t going to powerfully warm my house at the end of the day. Sure a few of those joules will return through overturning and falling air matching the rising air but most will be gone.

            So no you cannot ever say that an alleged greenhouse gas is a net warmer. Maybe in some circumstances (thanks to the secondary electrical energy source) and maybe its a net cooler in others. If we could transport enough water to Venus year after year we could cool that girl down. Since she is a hottie but she’s hot from the inside out.

            20

        • #
          Graeme Bird

          Something the two of you may not be taking into account. While its true that the cloud cover will recycle and reflect the energy far better than this same water in pure vapour form we are not necessarily talking about a situation where the starting energy is the same.

          So if you have night A where all the water is in vapour form, and night B where some of it is in cloud form, if this is the same amount of water and the same ground temperature night A is starting the night off with massively more energy in the form of the latent energy of condensation. So its no fair comparison, since we have two different energy states. Droplets in clouds have already released their heat of condensation, before they coasted into the relevant test-case.

          So you need to make a fairer comparison here. Not that easy to formulate. WXCycles may be putting his superior experience in these matters over his logic. But definitely if the water is in vapour form and not droplet form thats a lot more starting energy. So that would be like comparing a cloudless Singapore night with a cloudy Alice Springs night and the comparison is not a fair one.

          20

          • #
            WXcycles

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Water_infrared_absorption_coefficient_large.gif

            The red line in the graph is the IR absorption of condensed H2O as cloud.

            The blue line in the graph is the IR absorption of H2O as ice.

            The green line in the graph is the IR absorption of non-condensed H2O as not cloud.

            All phases absorb IR, and re-emit IR.

            So H2O in a clear sky is a GHG, so if you drop the H2O concentration globally, you will get cooling, which what I said here:

            … In other words, with such large sinking ultra-dry air masses becoming established in Spring 2019 and Summer 2020, we don’t require a drop in solar output of watts per meter squared photon energy to get actual cooling. As the excessive dryness throughout the entire troposphere that such sinking ultra-dry air provides, means there’s a much weaker H2O GHG effect present, thus a more rapid loss of thermal energy, due to sustained enhanced OLR!

            Which is correct.

            40

            • #
              Graeme Bird

              No Epicycles. Thats complete [snip "BS"]. Nothing could be more foolish than this:

              … In other words, with such large sinking ultra-dry air masses becoming established in Spring 2019 and Summer 2020, we don’t require a drop in solar output of watts per meter squared photon energy to get actual cooling. As the excessive dryness throughout the entire troposphere that such sinking ultra-dry air provides, means there’s a much weaker H2O GHG effect present, thus a more rapid loss of thermal energy, due to sustained enhanced OLR!

              What are you talking about? This is just silly. If the air is dry the energy will punch deep into the ocean on the one hand. But it will cause high heat over the deserts during the day and yet massive heat loss of in the desert over night. You have six arrows pointing in opposite directions. The statement on its face is complete nonsense. Even before we get to the electrical implications.

              14

              • #
                WXcycles

                Daily OLR anomaly data for the 26th Jan 2020:

                https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/olr/olr.gif

                Highest thermal energy outflows strongly coincide with the images already posted displaying where the driest humidity air mass are falling into the troposphere. Observations confirm that an ultra-dry air-column above the surface equates to measuring higher energy lost than gained, and it’s not even close.

                As always your ignorant opinions and presumptions are wrong and easily disposed of, but I again it was my mistake to reply to such trash.

                40

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Observations confirm that an ultra-dry air-column above the surface equates to measuring higher energy lost than gained, and it’s not even close.

                At night time sure. Not during the day. And that statement isn’t what I was objecting to. You just followed a bunch of silly stuff with a comment no-one could disagree with. [snip]ED

                02

              • #
                Graeme Bird

                Bloody bloody bloody damn and blast. I’m going to have to backpedal about 70% because I now realise I was taking the narrow blinkered view. Don’t you just hate that? I was thinking virtually exclusively from a ground-level point of view. But Cycles is watching columns of air kilometres high. Thats where I came off the beam. I wasn’t visualising his perspective. I was thinking only as a pedestrian. Gainsaying him too quickly.

                I will come back with a far fuller explanation later.

                02

    • #
    • #
      WXcycles

      This global coverage series of images shows the location of sinking ultra-dry stratosphere moving downwards through the atmosphere, there’s more in the southern polar area, than in the northern polar region. Regular vertical wave disturbances into the northern hemisphere’s lower stratosphere displaces this sinking air away from the pole, so that it sinks into the mid-latitudes.

      Firstly, 34 k ft Jetstream flow, 2nd Feb 2020.
      https://i.ibb.co/VHKrPLX/34-k-ft-Global-Jet-Context-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted.jpg

      45 k ft South Polar Region
      https://i.ibb.co/rFj3nP2/45-k-ft-South-Polar-Region-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted.png

      45 k ft North Polar Region
      https://i.ibb.co/Yf5vs4D/45-k-ft-North-Polar-Region-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-1.png

      ___

      45 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/9qskztK/45-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-1.jpg

      39 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/c10ncNP/39-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-2.jpg

      34 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/YPy8pVW/34-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-3.jpg

      30 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/3T3WHRG/30-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-4.jpg

      24 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/WkLfnnT/24-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-5.jpg

      18 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/cy10T9L/18-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-6.jpg

      14 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/pz1v5J7/14-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-7.jpg

      10 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/NtV82vZ/10-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-8.jpg

      6.4 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/3RFRn5J/6-4-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-9.jpg

      5 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/gWv8F4H/5-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-10.jpg

      3 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/hskqXDM/3-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-11.jpg

      2.5 k ft Sunken Stratospheric Air
      https://i.ibb.co/RDJHJVt/2-5-k-ft-Global-Humidity-Screenshot-2020-01-26-Windy-as-forecasted-12.jpg

      Note that the cold ultra-dry air is infiltrating jets in the winter hemisphere, as it falls closer to the surface in the sub-tropics and tropics, particularly in the sub-tropical Highs. It also fills the top of all cold-core Lows.

      Currently I think the sinking stratospheric air probably always has occurred and continually varies, year to year. In a ‘warming phase’ it decreases and the troposphere becomes more humid and warmer while weather extremes declined, but when the sinking stratosphere again increases, the atmosphere dries and cools and weather again will tend to become more aggressive more often. The cold-dry air injection clearly increases all wind speeds and pressure gradient extremes, vertically, and pole to equator.

      Warming was a slow process, and the cooling probably will be as well.

      This will be the perfect opportunity too find out how such cycles really work, an opportunity not to be missed if we’re to stop the insufferable alarmists from pulling this absurd doom charade on the world again in future.

      60

      • #
        Graeme Bird

        The cold-dry air injection clearly increases all wind speeds and pressure gradient extremes, vertically, and pole to equator.

        Dry air doesn’t conduct as well. So therefore the electrical energy cannot ground as easily. So its attempts to ground, in this less conducting environment, are expressed in far greater kinetic energy. The magic photon theory cannot explain these observations.

        34

    • #
      WXcycles

      An Atlantic equatorial-jet fully forms within the most recent ECMWF run and now displays the same features of flowing in between two cold-core Lows north and south of it, as shown:

      39 k ft Atlantic Equatorial-Jet forms:
      https://i.ibb.co/CttcZ5q/Atlantic-Equatorial-Jet-39-k-ft-Screenshot-2020-01-27-Windy-as-forecasted-2.jpg

      Ultra-dry stratospheric air under the Atlantic equatorial-jet and its Lows at 14 k ft:
      https://i.ibb.co/6vGSNZJ/Atlantic-Equatorial-Jet-Dry-Air-at-14-k-ft-Screenshot-2020-01-27-Windy-as-forecasted-1.jpg

      It’s clear from a more zoomed-out regional perspective that the east Pacific equatorial-jet continues to develop and grow in strength into February. The feeder streams connecting them to the north and south sub-tropical jet flows also become stronger. The sinking stratospheric intrusion process into the lower troposphere becomes more general as this equatorial jet strengthens.

      https://i.ibb.co/64wYzxz/Equatorial-Jet-Overview-at-39-k-ft-Screenshot-2020-01-27-Windy-as-forecasted-1.jpg
      https://i.ibb.co/FwBrHv0/Equatorial-Jet-Dry-Air-Overview-at-14-k-ft-Screenshot-2020-01-27-Windy-as-forecasted-2.jpg

      Obviously this wouldn’t be occurring if there had not been a major change in global atmospheric dynamics during the past 3 months. That change is clearly stratospheric intrusion.

      50

    • #
      WXcycles

      After a bunch of color shading experiments to find an ideal setting to visually display the source location and path taken ultra-dry air sinking within the troposphere, I concluded the original range setting I used (0.0 % to 2.2%, in linear 0.1% steps) provides the best discrimination for that purpose.

      As it turns out the driest upper-level air, which naturally forms in the upper-troposphere (an is not from the stratosphere) tends to be of course colder and less subject to uplift from convection thus naturally sinks more efficiently and quickly, unimpeded, toward the lower-most troposphere.

      i.e. the sunken stratosphere is not trying to sink due to its own density difference any longer once it sits on top of a High. The movement from there is after all the sub-tropical downwards half of the mid-latitude Hadley-Cell’s return circulation. So any stratospheric air that falls into that upper troposphere flow will end up close to the ground.

      And as a result the largest areas of 0.0% humidity air, falling down from what can only be a stratospheric source, also immediately ends up in the core of the very driest air falling down towards the surface level from normal tropospheric dry-cold High air-mass circulation processes. And that’s how most of it descends (not all though).

      So as a cooling denser less thermally buoyant lower-stratosphere increases in its tendency to sink (let’s say during the Hiatus) it of course took a path of least resistance, it mostly just sank onto and hitched a ride downward via falling through the tropopause onto the top of full depth upper Highs and became entrained within the sinking tropospheric dry air in the core of the Highs.

      Thus it easily went completely unnoticed because it just looks like normal tropospheric dry-air within a regular High.

      Except when you specifically search for the source and downwards path using the 0.0 % to 2.2% range with linear 0.1% steps highlighted with a very bright color, you can very clearly discriminate that air as not being normal tropospheric dry-air within the High’s normal falling dry air. As a result no one’s apparently recognized that entrained sinking stratospheric air prior to this. People wouldn’t see it, unless they were specifically looking for it, plus it was actually continuously occurring, as it is now.

      It also enters the tops of cold-core lows, down as far as the lower mid-level, where it tends to exit and moves into adjacent Highs to continue to fall lower. Or else it lines the polewards side of the subtropical jetstream flow and is mixed-in and diluted there by its dynamics whilst also expanding and greatly accelerating the jet by steepening the difference gradients between the stratospheric air and the tropospheric air. The mid-Summer seasonality became irrelevant to the jet’s maximum speed.

      40

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    Australia Day ? It’s sort of the day when settlement began
    At Port Jackson, in NSW.
    But Spiked has an interesting long read about it.
    https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/24/the-first-fleet-australia-begins/

    60

  • #
    pat

    think CAGW.

    following by Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich”. reminder – Hunter Biden’s Burisma is a Ukrainian NATURAL GAS company:

    18 Jan: NY Post: How five members of Joe Biden’s family got rich through his connections
    By Peter Schweizer
    (From the book “Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite” by Peter Schweizer)
    The Biden family’s apparent self-enrichment involves five family members: Joe’s son Hunter, son-in-law Howard, brothers James and Frank, and sister Valerie…

    James Biden
    Consider the case of HillStone International, a subsidiary of the huge construction management firm Hill International. The president of HillStone International was Kevin Justice, who grew up in Delaware and was a longtime Biden family friend. On Nov. 4, 2010, according to White House visitors’ logs, Justice visited the White House and met with Biden adviser Michele Smith in the Office of the Vice President…
    James Biden was joining HillStone just as the firm was starting negotiations to win a massive contract in war-torn Iraq. Six months later, the firm announced a contract to build 100,000 homes…

    Frank Biden
    In late March 2009, Vice President Joe Biden landed in Costa Rica aboard Air Force Two, and went to the Costa Rican presidential palace for a one-on-one with President Oscar Arias. The Biden visit had symbolic significance. The last time a high-ranking American official had visited the country was back in 1997, when Bill Clinton had come.
    Joe Biden’s trip to Costa Rica came at a fortuitous time for his brother Frank, who was busy working deals in the country.

    Just months after Vice President Biden’s visit, in August, Costa Rica News announced a new multilateral partnership “to reform Real Estate in Latin America” among Frank Biden, a developer named Craig Williamson, and the Guanacaste Country Club, a newly planned resort. The partnership, which appears to be ongoing, was wrapped in a beautiful package as a “call on resources available to the companies and individuals to reform the social, economic and environmental practices of real estate developers across the world by example.”…
    As it happened, Joe Biden had been asked by President Obama to act as the administration’s point man in Latin America and the Caribbean…

    On Oct. 4, 2016, the Costa Rican Ministry of Public Education signed a letter of intent with Frank’s company, Sun Fund Americas. The project involved allowing a company called GoSolar to operate solar power facilities in Costa Rica. The previous year, the Obama-Biden administration’s OPIC had authorized a $6.5 million taxpayer-backed loan for the project.

    In June 2014, Vice President Biden announced the launch of the Caribbean Energy Security Initiative (CESI). The program called for increasing access to financing for Caribbean energy projects that he strongly supported. American taxpayer dollars were dedicated to facilitating deals that matched US government financing with local energy projects in Caribbean countries, including Jamaica. In January 2015, USAID announced that it would be spending $10 million to boost renewable energy projects in Jamaica over the next five years.

    After Joe Biden brought together leaders for CESI, brother Frank’s firm Sun Fund Americas announced that it was “engaged in projects and is in negotiations with governments of other countries in the [Caribbean] region for both its Solar and Waste to Energy development services.” As if to push the idea along, the Obama administration’s OPIC provided a $47.5 million loan to support the construction of a 20-megawatt solar facility in Clarendon, Jamaica.
    Frank Biden’s Sun Fund Americas later announced that it had signed a power purchase agreement to build a 20-megawatt solar facility in Jamaica…READ ALL
    https://nypost.com/2020/01/18/how-five-members-of-joe-bidens-family-got-rich-through-his-connections/

    51

  • #
    beowulf

    Outrage as vegan blames meat-eaters for causing BUSHFIRES as she tries to stop people buying animal products in Coles and Woolworths.”

    It wasn’t fuel that caused the bushfires; it wasn’t arson that caused the bushfires; it was meat! Stop and think about that today before you chomp into your chop or snag or drumstick.

    Don’t even let the kids have an icecream or a boiled egg because they too are the spawn of satan and the products of exploitation.

    Best not to have fun at all.

    “we need to recognise the fact that this devastation [bushfires] has been initiated primarily by animal agriculture”
    “Animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change, deforestation, wildlife extinction & a majority of other environmental catastrophes.”

    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/outrage-as-vegan-blames-meat-eaters-for-causing-bushfires-as-she-tries-to-stop-people-buying-animal-products-in-coles-and-woolworths/ar-BBZhPEV?ocid=spartandhp

    And speaking of agriculture causing deforestation.

    An FOI request in Scotland has revealed that 6,994 ha of Scottish forests have been clear-felled to make way for wind “farm” projects since 2000, comprising an official estimate of 13.9 million trees. That’s OK though, I have it on good authority that Scotland is larger than Oz and has thousands of square miles of forests to spare.

    https://docs.wind-watch.org/Scottish-Forestry-FoI-19-02646.pdf

    That folks is how you save the planet. Less trees, birds, bats, cows, sheep, pigs and chooks equals a healthier planet for our children, and don’t you forget it.

    80

    • #
      Annie

      Just as well I didn’t see such a daft piece of work in the Healesville Coles on Friday! I was buying the wherewithall for our Australia Day bbq; lots of beef, pork and chicken…yum! I might have found it rather difficult not to be a touch shirty ;)

      50

    • #
      hatband

      Yep.

      They’re really after Beef, though, the Powerful Elites that promote and exploit these

      useful idiots don’t want us eating Beef in particular, butter and Cream are huge NO NOs,

      you can eat as much factory Farmed Pigmeat, Milk, Milk Products and Chlorinated Chicken as

      you can afford, but you’ll still be paying through the nose for the ”privilege”.

      41

      • #
        Fred Streeter

        I dwell in the UK not Oz, but “they” are everywhere, of course.

        “The Powerful Elite” have not, so far, discouraged us from eating Beef, but we prefer (Factory Farmed – for all I know) Pork, (Chlorinated – for all I care) Chicken, and (Some Other Indignity) Lamb.

        And we have affordable (even for this pensioner) Butter, Cream and a range of Milk from Full Cream to Ground Chalk Suspended in Water. Milk Products? A wide range, even at my local pop-in Grocer.

        00

    • #
      PeterS

      If vegans pronounce often that meat eaters must stop eating meat to save us from some mythical climate catastrophe then it’s up to certain leaders, such as PM Morrison and the state leaders to denounce such nonsense forthwith. Otherwise their silence is giving the wrong message. “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for men of good conscience to remain silent” – Edmund Burke.

      80

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6126601378001

      “The Institute of Public Affairs’ Gideon Rozner says “bitter” former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, is undertaking “callous” acts to try and use the “bushfires to vindicate his position on climate change”.

      “Sky News host Sharri Markson had said “there is no bigger culprit than Turnbull when it comes to exiting politics and complaining about what needs to be done by the current government”.

      “Ms Markson said when Malcolm Turnbull was prime minister, he “backed coal,” and said “action on climate change should not risk jobs or the economy”.

      ““But now he has recast himself as a climate change crusader, arguing the reverse of all that he stood for as prime minister.” Ms Markson said.

      “”What Malcolm Turnbull is doing is very, very transparent here,” Mr Rozner told the Sky News host.

      20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    For the many that venture here that I consider to be of like mind and character I give my heartfelt best wishes and congratulations on Australia Day.

    Also for the many that take offence for whatever reason to the celebration of developing a nation that was born on the ideals of England and their achievements in democracy I offer my heartfelt ignorance of your faux outrage and revel in your pitiful arguments, may you live a long life.

    81

  • #
    Robber

    Happy Australia Day.
    And surprise, surprise: Tanya Plibersek slammed by left-leaning commentators for saying kids should learn about citizenship pledge
    Tanya Plibersek has sparked outrage among left-wing commentators for declaring she is a patriot who wants children to learn about the nation’s citizenship pledge.
    The pledge states that: “From this time forward, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey”.
    A few “un-Australians” have outed themselves. Appalling attitudes. No surprise many of them are from not my ABC. Well said Tanya: “You can be a progressive and love your country: I certainly do.” “Patriotism, like mateship, is about solidarity. It’s about what we owe each other as citizens.”

    100

  • #
    PeterS

    Most people I believe are eager to be told the truth even if they are too lazy to do their own research and use logic and reason to decide if what they are being told is true or not. Such people therefore tend to believe whatever they hear that’s proclaimed the loudest. A second group of people refuse to listen for whatever reason and won’t use logic and reason to gauge whether what others say is true or not. The third group of people do their own research and come to the truth more often than not.
    So what our leaders say is critical for the first group only. Their silence is despicable and a major part of the problem if the first group is in the majority, which I believe it is. Leaders are meant to lead not obfuscate but of course we elect them so the buck stops with us.

    30

  • #

    As a non electrically trained person, you can only wonder at the advancements in electrical technology across the years.

    Everything you use in the home, and at work, consumes ….. CONSIDERABLY less electrical power than it did five, ten, twenty, fifty years ago.

    Because of that, you would think that the total overall power consumption has decreased, as everything now consumes less power.

    Ten years ago, the average home consumed just on 20KWH per day, and now that has fallen to around 17KWH. Now, for that figure, consider that ten years ago, most probably only half the homes that are around right now had air conditioning, which has literally exploded in recent years, and yet that ….. AVERAGE household power consumption has fallen.

    Okay, then having painted that picture that household consumption has decreased, let’s then look at overall totals from ten years ago, and compare them to now.

    Here, the term TWH stands for TeraWattHour, and Tera is a power of ten, which goes down in increments of 1000, so the next down is GWH (Giga) then MWH (Mega) and then KWH (Kilo, and the one you all recognise from your own power bills) So, One TWH is equal to 1,000,000,000KWH, a Billion KWH, and at average household power consumption, the equivalent of 59 Million homes.

    Ten Years ago, in 2009, Australia consumed 205TWH (TeraWattHours) of power. The following year it rose to 207TWH, and then fell by one to two TWH a year till 2014, when it was down to 197TWH per year.

    Then, inexorably it started to rise year on year, and at the end of last year, the total power consumption for the year was back to 205TWH, a rise of almost 2TWH per year, and now we are back at the same power consumption of ten years ago.

    So despite household power consumption falling, overall power consumption in the whole wider Australia is increasing, despite calls for us to consume less power.

    Ten years ago in 2009 rooftop power made up just a tick over half of a TENTH of ONE PERCENT (0.06%) of all power generation. Now it makes up just a tick over 5%. All of that is consumed in the Residential Sector, so that 5% of the overall is around one sixth of total residential power consumption, which is (around) 30%.

    So, 95% of all power consumption is generated by all the other sources ….. NINETY FIVE PERCENT, and coincidentally, that 95% comes in at just under 195TWH, the same overall total of 2014, when the ‘boom’ in rooftop solar power installations began.

    So now, keep this in mind, we now have considerably less coal fired power plant Units, and we are consuming the same power we did ten years ago. The coal fired power total now in 2019 comes in at 74% of the wider power generation (rooftop not included) and 69%, with rooftop generation included.

    We need to get out of the mindset that rooftop solar power is the answer to it all, and in fact we need to realise that it’s not even the tiniest part of the answer at all.

    Consider this.

    Despite the increases in technology, power consumption is increasing and on an average of one to two TWH a year, and while that figure might seem small, just one and two, each increment of 1 TWH is the equivalent of 59 MILLION homes.

    An increase of 1TWH per year is the equivalent yearly output of Macarthur Wind Plant, the largest wind plant in the Country with a Nameplate of 420MW, However, although worth keeping in mind, that increase of one TWH per year is power that is required 24 hours of every day, 365 days of that year, and while Macarthur generates around 1TWH that power is not reliably steady output.

    Consider what you consume in your home, an average of 17KWH. Australia, as a whole, consumes what you use in your home multiplied by 12.06 BILLION.

    Tony.

    80

    • #
      RickWill

      You are confusing energy and power. There is absolutely no way that a McArthur wind farm could supply 59M homes.

      By your numbers, a single home takes 17E3Wh x 365 = 6.2E6Wh per year. Hence 59E6 homes requires 3.66E14Wh. Equivalent to 366TWh. Maybe you did not allow for the number of days in a year. There are only 9M private dwelling in Australia. AGL claim McArthur wind farm can supply 181.000 homes.

      Your numbers do not pass the sniff test.

      40

    • #
      AndyG55

      Yep, looks like Tony forgot to multiply that 17kWh per day to get a yearly household usage.

      It is Sunday, y’know ;-)

      I only have an average daily usage of 14kWh, but that is for one person :-)

      30

  • #
    Zane

    The UN is starting to promote the eating of insects as the solution to global hunger. Here we go again… All aboard the loonie express.

    70

  • #
    pat

    25 Jan: UK Independent: Australia wildfires: Devastating blazes pushing global CO2 levels to record high
    Fifth of increase in atmosphere’s carbon since last year caused by blazes, says Met Office
    by Chris Baynes
    The UK’s Met Office predicted 2020 would see one of the largest annual jumps of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since records began, with the raging bushfires blamed for up to a fifth of the increase…
    https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/australia-wildfires-latest-climate-change-carbon-emissions-deforestation-a9300401.html

    24 Jan: ClimateNewsNetwork: 2020 starts with the plain prospect of rising heat
    by Tim Radford
    LONDON – The year is less than four weeks old, but scientists already know that carbon dioxide emissions will continue to head upwards – as they have every year since measurements began – leading to a continuation of the Earth’s rising heat…
    The warning is a reminder that global heating and climate change create their own positive feedbacks: more numerous and calamitous forest fires surrender more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which helps raise temperatures, accentuate droughts and heat extremes, and create conditions for even more catastrophic forest fires…
    https://climatenewsnetwork.net/2020-starts-with-the-plain-prospect-of-rising-heat/

    40

  • #
    pat

    25 Jan: BBC: Sir David Attenborough says fixed-term parliaments lead to lack of climate focus
    The UK’s fixed-term parliaments could see politicians failing to prioritise climate change, veteran naturalist Sir David Attenborough has suggested.
    He told the first citizens’ assembly on climate having a five-year government leads to a lack of long-term planning…

    Sir David said he was “extremely grateful” to those taking part.
    It is hoped their recommendations – to be published in April – will help inform Parliament and the government on policies to reach net zero emissions…
    “It is very difficult to persuade politicians that they should give money and time and attention and worry about an issue which is not going to come to a climax – and people won’t know if it is successful or not successful – for 10 years hence, 15 years hence,” he said…
    “So the fact you are here is extremely important because it shows you can put pressure on your members of Parliament to take this issue seriously.”
    “I believe that the question we are facing is of the upmost importance,” he added…

    The 110 members of the assembly will learn from experts about climate change, and discuss and make informed decisions on options for meeting the net zero goal during sessions in Birmingham…
    The £520,000 scheme has been funded through £120,000 from Parliament’s select committees’ research budgets and two philanthropic foundations.
    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51252222

    as BBC couldn’t be bothered to name the “philanthropies”:

    26 Jan: Daily Mail: Sir David Attenborough warns politicians may not prioritise climate action because five-year governments won’t make long-term plans required
    by Raven Saunt
    The 93-year-old was speaking at the Climate Assembly UK conference which began in Birmingham earlier today…
    The conference, which will run over the next four weekends, was commissioned by six parliamentary select committees…
    The £520,000 scheme has been funded through £120,000 from the select committees’ research budgets and two philanthropic foundations – ***the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation and the European Climate Foundation…

    40

  • #
    pat

    25 Jan: ThisIsMoneyUK: Rolls-Royce aims to have at least ten ‘mini nuclear reactors’ that it can transport on lorries running by 2029 in plan which could revitalise energy industry
    by Harry Wise
    They are looking to open between ten and fifteen SMRs at sites in either Cumbria or Wales with electricity selling for below £60 per megawatt hour (MWh)…
    Speaking to BBC Radio 4′s Today programme, Chief Technology Officer Paul Stein said the firm aim to get their first SMR up and running in the UK by 2029 and that they could revitalise the country’s nuclear sector.”…

    He added that the company ‘was certain the maths is right’ and that the economics of its plan had been given a positive reception by both the Treasury and the Royal Academy of Engineering…

    A Nuclear Consulting Group report (LINK) says the financial justification for SMRs is uncertain though.
    They noted: ‘Setting up SMR assembly lines is costly, and the relative economics of SMR production may remain unproven until very many SMR units have been produced – which, paradoxically, cannot happen until a significant number of orders are placed, a circular dilemma.’…

    The Fukushima nuclear plant meltdown in Japan in 2011 motivated the German government to announce plans to close all its nuclear plants by 2022.
    However, a recent paper (LINK) from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), estimated that the phase-out is costing Germany $12billion per year, because the coal power that is largely replacing the lost nuclear power is increasing mortality risks from the extra air pollution that is being emitted.
    Shares in Rolls Royce rose by 1 per cent above its opening price to 658.8p.
    https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-7924867/Rolls-Royce-aims-mini-nuclear-reactors-running-2029.html

    10

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: 7m14s: 25 Jan: Fox Business: Larry Kudlow: Davos leaders had ‘no idea of the facts’ of Trump’s success
    CEOs attending the World Economic Forum were unaware of administration’s achievements
    by Catie Perry
    CEOs attending the World Economic Forum in Davos were not aware of the facts, figures and feats behind the Trump economy before the global gathering began, White House aide Larry Kudlow said on Thursday, but he added, they are now.
    Kudlow, the National Economic Council director, joined FOX Business’ “Lou Dobbs Tonight” to discuss accompanying President Trump on his recent trip to the annual economic gathering in Switzerland.

    “We visited with a lot of the CEOs at several dinners and lunches and whatnot,” Kudlow told FOX Business’ Lou Dobbs. “And what I heard, again and again, was, ‘Oh, I had no idea of the facts. I had no idea of the achievement.’”
    Kudlow labeled this as “cognitive dissonance that’s running around in the country with bad information.”…

    While speaking in Davos, Kudlow on Wednesday touted that American economic growth is “a remarkable development” and “it is the American blue-collar, middle class, they have the fastest wage growth.”…
    https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/larry-kudlow-business-leaders-dont-understand-trump-economic-success

    23 Jan: NYT: Big Business Says It Will Tackle Climate Change, but Not How or When
    In Davos, business leaders were newly vocal about the danger, though they gave few details about how they would reform their practices.
    By David Gelles and Somini Sengupta
    “It’s an increase in rhetoric, absolutely,” said Alison Martin, who leads the Europe, Middle East and Africa divisions of Zurich Insurance. “Will we see a walking of the talking? The jury is out.”…

    Larry Fink, BlackRock’s chief executive, showed up to meetings wearing a wool scarf that represented the decades of warming since the industrial age, a Christmas present from a nonprofit organization that works on climate issues.
    “I’ve never seen a social issue explode like this,” said Paul Tudor Jones II, the investor and founder of Just Capital, which ranks companies based on sustainability factors. “Every single C.E.O. and board is having to figure out what their carbon footprint is and what they’re going to do about it.”…

    Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin ridiculed calls for fossil fuel divestment, singling out the teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg, who called on the Davos crowd on Tuesday to immediately halt investments in oil, gas and coal…

    One measure of a newfound awareness, said Stefan Rahmstorf, a climate scientist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, was how many invitations that researchers like him were now receiving from the titans of global capital…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/business/corporate-climate-davos.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    both open access:

    23 Jan: NYT: Climate Change Could Blow Up the Economy. Banks Aren’t Ready.
    Like other central banks, the E.C.B., which met on Thursday, is scrambling to prepare for what a report warns could be a coming economic upheaval.
    By Jack Ewing
    FRANKFURT — Climate change has already been blamed for deadly bush fires in Australia, withering coral reefs, rising sea levels and ever more cataclysmic storms. Could it also cause the next financial crisis?
    A report issued this week by an umbrella organization for the world’s central banks argued that the answer is yes, while warning that central bankers lack tools to deal with what it says could be one of the biggest economic dislocations of all time.
    The book-length report (LINK), published by the Bank for International Settlements, in Basel, Switzerland, signals what could be the overriding theme for central banks in the decade to come…

    Christine Lagarde, the central bank’s president, who took office late last year, has pledged to put climate change on the bank’s agenda…
    “While we might not be ahead of the curve yet, we are not sitting on our bottoms doing nothing,” Ms. Lagarde said during a news conference on Thursday, noting that the bank’s employee pension fund is shifting investment to companies with lower carbon dioxide emissions…

    Ms. Lagarde acknowledged that some members of the Governing Council question whether fighting climate change is a central bank’s job.
    “I’m aware of all that,” Ms. Lagarde said. “I’m also aware of the danger of doing nothing.”…

    Climate change also takes central banks into uncharted territory. Think the subprime crisis in 2008 was bad? Imagine a real estate crisis caused by rising sea levels and coastal flooding that renders thousands of square miles of land uninhabitable or useless for farming…
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/business/climate-change-central-banks.html

    novel length, but nothing new!

    Updated 24 Jan: NYT: It May Be the Biggest Tax Heist Ever. And Europe Wants Justice.
    Stock traders are accused of siphoning $60 billion from state coffers, in a scheme that one called “the devil’s machine.” Germany is the first country to try to get its money back.
    By David Segal
    They made quite a team.
    One was an Oxford-educated wunderkind who handled the complicated math behind the transactions. The other was a beefy, 6-foot-2 New Zealander with an apparent fondness for Hawaiian shirts, who brought in clients and money.
    Martin Shields and Paul Mora met in 2004, at the London office of Merrill Lynch…

    Today, the men stand accused of participating in what Le Monde has called “the robbery of the century,” and what one academic declared “the biggest tax theft in the history of Europe.” From 2006 to 2011, these two and hundreds of bankers, lawyers and investors made off with a staggering $60 billion, all of it siphoned from the state coffers of European countries.

    As one participant would later put it, taxpayer funds were an irresistible mark for a simple reason: They never ran out…READ ON
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/business/cum-ex.html

    20

    • #
      AndyG55

      let’s fix that for them, shall we….

      Climate Change AGENDA Could Blow Up the Economy.

      31

    • #
      mikewaite

      “Climate Change Could Blow Up the Economy. Banks Aren’t Ready.”
      Perhaps we should put this (so far nonexistent) scare to one side whilst we tackle the very real threat from the
      latest Chinese virus. Reports from China are not very encouraging and it is worrying that
      2000 visitors arrived in the UK from Wuhan in the last few days and given the general incompetemce of parts of the
      UK NHS I doubt if any sources of contamination will be caught before it is too late.
      Surprised that this is not of concern to Australians given the number of Chinese business people and tourists that Autralia attracts.

      20

      • #
        hatband

        I saw an A4 poster for Coronavirus in a hospital the other day but that’s it.

        If it was heavily publicised in Australia, there’d be a lot of retail businesses shutting

        the doors, things are very quiet over here anyway.

        11

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I suspect the chinese are going to extreme measures to protect thier image which in turn protects investment….

        Its all about the money…..

        01

  • #
    pat

    open access:

    23 Jan: NYT: The Revolution Comes to Davos
    At the anti-capitalist capitalist event, radical sentiments erupt in unexpected places.
    by Tim Wu (professor at Columbia Law School; In 2016 Wu joined the National Economic Council in the Obama White House to work on competition policy – Wikipedia)

    Everyone at Davos this year really wants you to know that the corporate world is cleaning up its act. Yes, O.K., maybe they’ve said things like that before, but this year they mean it. Walking around, I thought at times that I had mistakenly wandered into a business-casual Bernie Sanders rally: unrestrained capitalism has gone too far; corporate greed has endangered the planet; the time has come for radical change. On the train into Davos, a representative of Philip Morris told me that the company was “dedicated to a smoke-free future.” I blinked; she said the company had “a duty” to millions of addicted smokers.

    Woke capitalism, in short, was the dominant motif at Davos 2020.
    Its visual symbol was a group of teenage girls and boys who were invited to Davos as “change-makers,” a gang of Greta Thunbergs-in-training. They provided a visual contrast to the great masses of aging men in bluish suit jackets, and they were a particular delight to photographers, who stalked them like rare animals, which in a way, they are. “The forum used to be made up of a lot of old, rich white men,” explained Naomi Wadler, a 13-year-old anti-gun activist, who perhaps was unaware that it still is. Though, to be fair, a record 24 percent of the participants this year were women…

    And in an official nod to the revolutionary spirit, the World Economic Forum itself, which runs the show, released a new “Davos Manifesto (LINK),” for the “fourth industrial revolution.”…READ ON
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/23/opinion/sunday/davos-2020-capitalism-climate.html

    30

  • #
  • #
    Zane

    Elon Musk plans to build Tesla’s Gigafactory 4 outside Berlin in Germany. Another billionaire who needs to keep the green subsidies flowing.

    30

  • #
    Graeme#4

    Back on 23rd Jan, ‘OriginalSteve’ stated that ‘Eucalypts can deposit 10 ton per acre’. This translates to 22.42 tonnes per hectare if I have my maths right and assuming a U.S. ton. Other commenters felt this excessive.
    I’ve just tracked down a 1973 study in Oakland California that provides details of an actual study of the eucalypt litter over many months, including its rate of decomposition, and the figure they come up with, if I’ve interpreted their data correctly and allowing for an annual decomposition of 14%, is an annual deposit rate of 8168 lbs/acre, or around 14 tonnes per hectare. That’s still a large amount of litter, and given that only around 14% decomposes in a year, that surely will amount to a very large quantity over a few years.

    50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Its possible i had hectares and acres interchanged…..this study seems to support the figure youre quoting of around 8-14 tonnes per hectare.

      https://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/WF9970099

      However in this publication, figures of up to 25 tonnes per hectare are quoted, so not sure if you would have to do fire calculations based on forest type, as the litter loads seem to vary by locations?

      Article below is useful, has multiple science paper references in its bibliography and has fire thermal output figures.

      http://www.ecosmagazine.com/?act=view_file&file_id=EC07p3.pdf

      USA prescribed burning paper
      www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch13/final/c13s01.pdf

      https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib0203/03Cib08

      “Current Issues Brief no. 8 2002-03
      “Bushfires: Is Fuel Reduction Burning the Answer?
      “Bill McCormick
      “Science, Technology, Environment and Resourses Group
      “10 December 2002

      “Eucalypts shed a great deal of material, leaves, bark and branches, which supplies the bulk of fuel in dry and wet sclerophyll forests. While live shrubby fuels of less than four millimetres in diameter contribute four tonnes per hectare (t/ha) in Jarrah forests, the dead bark on the tree trunks may add another 10 t/ha.(23) Fuel accumulates increasing with time since the last fire until it reaches some sort of equilibrium quantity. For example in tall shrub land it will take 20 years to reach the maximum fuel potential.(24) Ranges of accumulation of such quasi-equilibrium fuel levels vary between 11 and 24 t/ha while those in the wet forests in WA reach equilibrium levels at around 35 t/ha.(25) It should be noted that research has found that doubling the fuel in the forest will double the rate of spread and quadruple the fire intensity.(26)”

      The more I read the more it seems to depend on the forest type and location for fuel loads.

      40

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        In Australia, this is considered the definitive study
        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ecog.00445
        As with everything ecological, the answers are complex, but the author’s point out repeatedly that you can not consider one variable, like fuel load, in isolation.

        Of course it would be nice to work in a 2 dimensional world, but that is not what we live in.

        13

        • #
          Graeme#4

          There are MANY definitive studies Peter. I believe the best ones are by those folks such as David Packham, Vic Jurkis and Roger Underwood, who have worked closely for many years with both forestry and other bush management government groups to establish workable management schemes. I believe that WA has a Red Book” which is used for bush management, especially in the eucalyptus forests of SW WA. It seems to be working, since WA now don’t have as many major problems with their bushfires as is happening in some other states. Today’s The Australian contains an article on how the fire management practices by local indigenous groups up north have reduced the incidence of disastrous bushfires and enhanced wildlife in the area.

          20

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            The one I quoted has the most citations according to Google Scholar, that would make it definitive. That is a better metric than publishing the same old story multiple times in the non peer reviewed mastheads.

            10

            • #
              Graeme#4

              Difficult to believe that we are having this same discussion about the use of Google Scholar as a valid reference Peter. Can’t you remember that we pointed out that based on its usage, distinguished scientists such as Einstein would be poorly rated? Sheesh. Do you ever learn?

              00

              • #
                Graeme#4

                And I should have added, the article in today’s The Australian talks about a fire management approach that WORKS. The locals up north are putting into practice their ancient fire management techniques and it’s working. Even the local wildlife folks agree. A bit hard to argue with success.

                00

      • #
        Graeme#4

        That for your comments and additional links Steve. One is paywalled but will look at the others.
        The reference I referenced was “Eucalyptus Fuel Dynamics, and Fire Hazard in the Oakland Hills”; J.K. Agee, R.H. Wakimoto, E.F. Darley and H.H. Biswell; California Agriculture 1973. Link: http://calag.ucanr.edu/archive/?type=pdf&article=ca.v027n09p13. In particular, look at Tables 1 and 2 and Graph 3.
        Graph 3 supports one of your statements about the fast build-up of the litter, due to the fact that it doesn’t really rot away. I also found many warnings about adding eucalyptus litter to compost heaps for the same reason.
        Also looking at the 2015 submission by David Packham to Victoria’s inquiry, page 15, David advises than you can only control bushfires when their intensity is below 3 MW/m on the Byram fire intensity scale. But with large fuel loads, bushfires can rapidly exceed 70-80 MW/m within minutes, so almost immediately becoming uncontrollable. I believe David Packham and Roger Underwood recently reaffirmed this on Sky News.

        20

        • #

          I have been looking at these figures for weeks. Post in draft, though complicated because some report in /m2, others in m, others in BTU and /f. Have been in touch with Underwood who is always very helpful.

          10

          • #
            Graeme#4

            Also easy to make mistakes when converting Jo. May I suggest using a spreadsheet to enter in data and obtain instant conversions to a common base of tonnes per hectare.

            20

      • #
        robert rosicka

        That sounds a lot better in hectares original Steve .
        Judging by what’s falling over the fence from the neighbors gum trees I can easily relate to those figures .

        00

    • #

      We need to be careful of the stunt that mathematizes what needs to be observed and felt. That line of dried grass which can be put out with a spit has more flash power than tonnes of branches loaded with oil and dried to perfection by drought. Especially when the spring rains fail in NSW and the inland spring winds persist, that scrap of next-to-nothing is a wick waiting for a spark.

      It’s called “kindling”. Not only do you have kindling but you have kindling for kindling. Never mind tonnage and BTU to tonnage. A bit of blady grass has fantastic surface exposure. That minuscule thing’s power is only momentary, but all it needs is a moment to pass on its flare to another bit of dried grass with fantastic surface exposure. And so a twig and some leaf litter can ignite. To hell with maths and measurements which are just complicated enough to bewilder but too simple to explain reality. Gawd, haven’t we copped enough of all that?

      Don’t let the cranks who brought us the emissions show bring us the fire load show. They say “it’s complex” when they want to stymie, they say “it’s simple” when they want to shill.

      It’s a chore, but we have to stop what hot burns we can by freeing up people and agencies. We don’t need to replace the green police with the torch police. They’ll probably be the same theory-spouting people…this time with matches.

      40

      • #
        Graeme#4

        Like the locals up north? They seem to be having a lot of success “running around with matches”.

        10

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          So your logic asserts that Australia is homogeneous over all of its geography, and that a system used in grassland during the wet is appropriate for the whole country.

          Instead of clickbait, on The Australian, it might help to read something like this https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0222328

          11

        • #

          Ian, those are the guys we need. People who are doing it frequently and who know their own country. And there are people in WA who have been part of long-running maintenance, at least till recently.

          But can you imagine what some new burn-off army will be like? Armed with inspection powers, quotas, goals, programs, statistics and theories? I don’t think we’re really disagreeing here. It’s just that I’m concerned about certain types who thrive in remote bureaucracies that used to be mostly on-ground services.

          If forestry and owners are allowed to clear, make windrows for burning, do more felling and thinning, burn a compartment or two in winter etc etc gradually things will improve. Right now there is paralysis in much of Oz. I strongly suspect that a recent local event around here was a back-burn, but nobody is allowed to say as much, even though it was probably the right thing. Organising a winter burn-off is no longer the friendly on-ground event it used to be. In fact, it tends not to happen at all any more.

          10

          • #

            Sorry. Meant Graeme. When I was growing up everyone was either Graeme or Ian, so they’ve somehow merged for me. (Felt odd being the only Mosomoso in the class.)

            10

            • #
              Graeme#4

              Yes, I think we’re on the same page, but frankly I doubt that anything worthwhile will come out of any govt inquiry. After all, nobody from any bureaucratic organisation is going to admit to failure on their behalf.
              No worries about the name, Ian was my father’s name. All good Scottish names, though I don’t claim to be a Scot.

              30

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Good one Mosomoso, this one is worth reading twice.

        10

  • #
    jack

    In the dance for world domination, the game is advancing.
    White Rook (World Banking) Ra1 to Ra4.
    The Bank for International Settlements have created a tinted Black Swan.
    “The green swan: central banking and financial stability in the age of climate change”
    See here for the implications.

    20

    • #
      diogenese2

      The black swan, which is a native of Australia, in something which is not thought to exist although there is no reason why it should not! Hence the surprise that it occurs. Another event is one that is constantly predicted but never occurs. This latter has just occurred- with extraordinary rapidity an anticipated catastrophe may be occurring. The spread of the latest Chinese Mutated Virus beats anything in previous history. The Black Death took four years to spread from China to Europe and never reached the America’s ( or Australia for that matter). This has encompassed the world in 4 weeks! Fortunately we have enough rational science left and the resources to contain it, but the social and financial effects is going to change everything.
      Here at least is a focus away from the delusional threat of “climate Change”.

      10

    • #
      diogenese2

      by the way Ra1 – Ra4 means white has castled queen side so can be countered by Pb7 – Pb5. If white hasn’t castled then his playing with fire.

      01

      • #
        ianl

        > ” … Ra1 – Ra4 means white has castled queen side …”

        Nope. White has castled king side, or should soon.

        Moving the rook up the a-file (a rook “lift”) precludes Q-side castling, as the Q-side rook has then moved.

        00

    • #

      Cute how the fake tan brigade have come up with their variation on a hot intellectual fad. The fashionable chatter is all Taleb and Black Swans…so let’s try out Green Swans! Cute.

      Cute. But utterly sinister, of course.

      20

  • #
    WXcycles

    Areas around Townsville just got a forecast for ~915 mm over the next 3 days.

    Don’t believe it, but we could get a nice bit of rain over the period. ;-)

    30

  • #
    Annie

    Sky News on WIN were advertising two hours of Outsiders this evening. No sign of it, just interminable sport. Very disappointed after waiting weeks for it to return. It is on the menu on the box, on the programme details when you turn to the channel and on the programme guide online, so where’s ‘my’ Outsiders?

    20

    • #
      robert rosicka

      Not sure what’s going on with Sky at the moment Annie , usually you get a one hour encore Sunday night which we did but this morning the show started 19 minutes late .

      30

      • #
        Annie

        Couldn’t watch the first hour as we had visitors but OH tuned in before 8pm and it was already on sport. Still saying Outsiders when we turn over to ch 84 so had hoped to see some and also been hoping that we’d get the full two hours in future as we can’t watch on Sunday mornings.

        30

    • #
      WXcycles

      Same here Annie.

      Advertised again at midnight.

      10

  • #
    • #
      PeterS

      Actually the title itself its not too far off the mark even though the Guardian story is BS. We aussies are cowards for not sending a strong message to the Morrison government that enough is enough. We don’t want appeasers and hypocrites. We need a party that cuts through he crap and makes Australia great again. Stop supporting the Paris Agreement. Stop supporting renewables. Start supporting coal and nuclear like our greatest emitter, China. Either way our impact on the climate will be virtually zero even under the most extreme view of climate change models. We need to stop strangling our economy to death and get it on the move at full speed.

      21

    • #
      Another Ian

      “So I decided to read The Guardian, as a negative truth barometer. This article, written with an air of calm reason, is them downplaying the epidemic.”

      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2020/01/26/chinese-novel-coronavirus-outbreak-2019-ncov/#comment-123108

      10

  • #
    Another Ian

    “And now you know why the new push on paper bags: More than 13.9 million trees felled in Scotland for wind development, 2000–2019″

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/01/26/we-dont-need-no-stinking-giant-fans-27/

    The solution to Australia’s bushfire problem – more wind farms? (/s)

    30

  • #
    PeterS

    The class action lawsuit that appears to be levelled against the Morrison government for climate change inaction is perhaps the thing that will wake him up and pull his finger out to react in the only way he must; call out the whole CAGW alarmists story as pure crap. I doubt he will though given he believes staying with he Paris Agreement is a worthwhile achievement. Hypocrite and appeaser may not be exactly his characteristics but they will do. I do hope the class action goes ahead only to see how it pans out for the appeaser. A new leader for the LNP with a strong and honest conviction against the alarmist crap would be nice. Trouble is I suspect the LNP itself would not be willing to support such a leader even if the public are starting to wake up.

    10

  • #
    TedM

    Just looked at the nem watch widget. SA the state of renewable energy at 6.30 CST has a demand of 1214 MW. Wind providing just 77MW. What a total farce. Are we really that stupid that we are still building power systems that only work some of the time.

    50

    • #
      yarpos

      The fuel mix view over 12 months for SA is telling. Despite having 2 or 3 times demand in nameplate wind, they fail dismally delivering capacity required. Thats without considering instability and complexity.

      10

  • #
  • #
  • #
    robert rosicka

    Must be illegal to carry an AUSTRALIAN flag on Australia Day in the people’s republic of Victoriastan.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR3yqe_iaWZ6KJ9APFmXhMWQsY-Wx37GgWwLqMIy7RGHcqg4vwaR_ZQBa4Q&feature=share&v=BwRLOEtsqbI

    30

  • #
    robert rosicka

    hope this one doesn’t end up in moderation as well .

    This Monty Python skit reminds me of the CAGW debate .

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?fbclid=IwAR0yDqugK5RenmtxF6crrt-7NmBhtsjycsCNuhr6xhVKIKNzmzF27cRB4tk&v=LFrdqQZ8FFc&feature=youtu.be

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I thought you lot would have already commented on this story about one of the Australia Day honours recipients.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-26/oam-recipient-says-award-insignificant-amid-ongoing-bushfires/11900262

    No? Good, that just means it’s my chance to make the easy joke first.

    It requires some background. Here’s the setup from 9 January. Please note that Dr Dickman quite unscientifically uses the word “animals” to refer exclusively to non-human animals, an abbreviation which I will also employ.

    Professor Dickman said the aftermath may mean “species that are rendered extinct, ecosystems that have been eroded to the point where they are completely changed, and habitat in a state of widespread impoverishment”.
    “The loss of life we’ve estimated for NSW is 800 million terrestrial animals, including birds and reptiles. But that figure doesn’t include frogs, fish, bats and invertebrates,” he said.
    “Combining these figures [it] is likely well over a billion animals lost.
    Professor Dickman said invertebrates — which include butterflies, spiders and earthworms — hold a critical place in the ecosystem, providing pollination, seed dispersal, soil health, nutrient recycling and an essential food source for a large number of marsupials, birds and over 90 per cent of all lizards.
    “It’s impossible to estimate the loss of life of invertebrates, but it’ll be undoubtedly in the hundreds of billions,” Professor Dickman said.

    The 2019/2020 bushfires death toll on humans: 25 as at 5 January.

    For those keeping score at home, the figures are:
    Dead humans: _____________ 25. (Fact)
    Dead animals: 100,000,000,000. (Estimated)

    Now for the punchline.

    Today, the Bermagui resident received an Order of Australia Medal for significant service to women and children and to social justice, but she said it did not feel notable at this time.
    “When you’re faced with existential crisis for the country things like a little award for work you’ve done in the past seems quite insignificant,” Ms McFerran said. “It doesn’t seem so important if we don’t have a beautiful country to live in, in which we can breathe the air, drink the water, and enjoy the forests.”
    “I do feel so angry that we, as Australians, we invaded the country and in 200 years we’ve brought it to this,” Ms McFerran said.

    “We really face a risk of there not being a country fit for human habitation.

    :-D

    Wow.

    If an outfit like The Onion was writing this article as parody, the headline would be:

    100 Billion animals killed, Humans most affected.

    11

  • #
    Zane

    Worth mentioning Elon Musk and Tesla again. Despite the hoopla and surging share price, Tesla loses much money on manufacturing its electric cars. However it receives billions in pollution credits from compliant governments, which it then sells to other corporates who need carbon offsets for cold hard cash. Elon needs to keep the scam going, and many European nations are assisting by mandating zero emissions requirements for future car companies, car taxes based on CO2 emissions (Ireland and France have these already) and the like. The hoax must continue or Elon’s snake oil becomes worthless and Tesla crashes to earth. Tesla’s current stock market capitalisation is higher than Ford and GM combined, although its fundamental finances are a joke.

    The silliness is shown with French car companies forced to build family SUVs with 1 litre engines, underpowered vehicles necessitated by adherence to green imposed government regulations.

    Fiat Chrysler are owned by the Agnelli family, who also own the influential Economist magazine, which every week pushes renewables and climate change pseudoscience.

    10

  • #
    pat

    TDS at the Beeb:

    AUDIO: 52m59s: 26 Jan: BBC Newshour with James Menendez
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172wq54vx499ky

    Trump signed the pledge at Davos to plant a trillion trees (I have no opinion on that); therefore it is automatically ALL BAD as far as the Beeb’s chosen guest is concerned:

    38m57s to 42m45s: presenter: James Menendez: Davos, trillion trees, even got backing of Trump, who is notoriously sceptical about climate change. but scientists are sceptical about this plan. Guest: Dr. Caroline Lehmann, tropical biologist at Royal Botannical Gardens in Edinburgh.

    on the other hand, this is ALL GOOD
    45m02s to 49m34s: seaweed for sheep on Scottish Island; less methane; reduce greenhouse gases. could lead to greener farming; good for all livestock, more sustainable agriculture. research continuing.

    earlier:

    14m to 22m42s: BBC: accusations Unis have a strong liberal bias. divisive political climate in the US & elsewhere, experts often derided & senior govt advisors comfortable talking about alternative facts.
    prestigious Harvard has been giving a lecture at equally well-regarded uni, Cambridge.Harvard President, Larry Bacow: some inclination to lean left.
    BBC: is there a truism that, if you are more educated, you lean left?
    ends with Bacow suggesting the heartland (Trump-land) has its share of Harvard alumni as well.

    10

    • #
      hatband

      Trump is a rogue, phony as a $3 bill.

      The BBC is careful not to say it, but a Trillion Trees means the Oligarchy gets the

      contracts, and the money disappears.

      17

    • #
      pat

      ***funny how BBC would choose Lehmann!

      29 Sept 2019: TheNationalScotland: Plan to plant trees in bid to stop climate change is short-sighted
      by Dr. Caroline Lehmann
      ***Yet, there is not even any scientific agreement on whether extensive areas of new forests will warm or cool the planet. Trees have darker canopies than grassy vegetation, absorbing more sunlight and heating the land surface, a problem not yet included in the calculations of afforestation advocates…

      With Africa on the brink of rapid urbanisation and industrialisation, there are other ways to positively impact our environment.
      Support renewable energy, energy-efficient buildings, electric cars, solar heating and cooling and other means of reducing GHG emissions…
      https://www.thenational.scot/news/17934307.plan-plant-trees-bid-stop-climate-change-short-sighted/

      26 Jul 2019: TheConversation: When tree planting actually damages ecosystems
      by Kate Parr, Professor of Tropical Ecology, University of Liverpool and
      Caroline Lehmann, Senior Lecturer in Biogeography, University of Edinburgh
      Disclosures:
      Kate Parr receives funding from the Royal Society, National Geographic, and the Rufford Small Grants.
      Caroline Lehmann receives funding from the Royal Society, Darwin Initiative, Newton Fund, National Environmental Research Council, and the University of Edinburgh.
      https://theconversation.com/when-tree-planting-actually-damages-ecosystems-120786

      Harvard’s Bacow is perfect for the Beeb:

      Wikipedia: Lawrence Bacow, President, Harvard University
      On March 1, 2010, President Barack Obama announced that Bacow was appointed to the board of advisors for the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities…

      Harvard president (Bacow) denounces Trump immigration policies in welcome e-mail to students
      Boston Globe – 4 Sept 2019

      30

  • #
    pat

    whatever:

    26 Jan: UK Independent: Australia fires: Yearly greenhouse gas emissions nearly double due to historic blazes
    The Met Office says that the Australian fires could account for 1 to 2 percent of the acceleration in the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2020
    by Andrew Freedman
    Guido van der Werf, who helps maintain the Global Fire Emissions Database, says the fires in New South Wales and Victoria in particular have emitted around 400 million tons of carbon dioxide so far, “pushing country-level estimates for all of 2019 to a new record in the satellite era” of about 900 million tons of carbon dioxide…

    According to the Global Carbon Project, in 2018, Australia emitted 421 million tons of carbon dioxide, making it the 16th-largest emitter worldwide, ranking just above the UK. Typically, fire-related emissions are not included in annual estimates of a country’s emissions, since such pollutants tend to be reabsorbed over time.
    In a typical fire year in Australia, large amounts of grasslands burn in sparsely populated areas. The carbon emitted by these fires tends to be reabsorbed during the following wet season.

    However, this year, vast forest ecosystems that serve as long-term carbon savings accounts, having taken in carbon and stored it in biomass, went up in flames, such as in the Blue Mountains of New South Wales. This carbon was released into the atmosphere during the fires, and it could take decades for the forests to recover to the point where they are net absorbers of such quantities of carbon dioxide once again.
    In fact, full recovery may never happen, particularly if more fires burn in these forests in rapid succession, Mr van der Werf noted.

    In another indication of the climate change implications of the bush fires, the UK Met Office said on Friday that the Australian fires could account for 1 to 2 percent of the acceleration in the growth of the global concentration of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere in 2020…

    Niels Andela, a research scientist at NASA who also works on the fire emissions database, says two independent examinations of greenhouse gas emissions from the 2019-2020 bush fires both reached relatively similar conclusions, bolstering his confidence in the numbers…
    Mr Andela said the uncertainty involved in near-real-time estimates could be as high as 50% due to questions about historic estimates of fire emissions. In the case of the Australia bush fires, he says, the uncertainty is high because no one has ever seen fires burn like this in these ecosystems under such historically hot and dry conditions.
    This could throw off assumptions in the model about how much of the forests burned.
    Last year was the hottest and driest year on record in Australia, and December saw the country shatter its record for the hottest-ever day nationally…

    With climate extremes becoming more severe and common worldwide as the global temperatures increase, real-time wildfire emissions estimates are likely to take on added importance. In 2019, for example, there was a spate of fires throughout the boreal forest in the Arctic (Siberia)…

    In Australia, a debate is taking place over whether to thin out forests to make them less fire-prone, although scientific evidence shows the biggest drivers of fire risk is heat and drought, not forest density. Climate change heightens both of these risk factors…

    Rob Jackson, a professor of Earth system science at Stanford University, said it’s possible that by the time the bushfires are finally extinguished, the emissions from this fire season will be close to a billion tons of carbon dioxide. This would be below the fires that burned in Indonesian peatlands in 1997-1998, but roughly on par with the peat fires there of 2015-2016…
    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australia-fires-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel-a9301396.html

    20

  • #
    disorganise

    Was poking around BOM and found a list of tropical cyclones
    http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/tropical-cyclone-knowledge-centre/history/past-tropical-cyclones/

    For ease of consumption, I copied the data into excel, extracted the year, and plotted a graph. (In case it doesn’t embed properly, here’s a direct link https://i.imgur.com/Hyvgm6W.png)

    Pretty clear that cyclone count has declined.

    20

  • #
    hatband

    American loudmouth Virtue Signaler John MacEnroe cancels Margaret Court on

    the 50th anniversary of her 1970 Grand Slam year, Australia buckles the nut:
    https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/australian-open-2020-john-mcenroe-hits-out-at-margaret-court/ar-BBZlTDQ

    43

    • #
      pat

      yesterday, bad boy McEnroe got praised once more for pledging $1,000 for the bushfire fund (apparently the Red Cross, whose logo is flashed all around the court a zillion times a day) for every set won by our bad boy Kyrgios.

      after a pause, bad boy Mac said. “climate change…do something about it”.

      128 in the men’s draw, 128 in the women’s draw, mostly from overseas, plus all their entourages; the qualifiers & their smaller entourages; all the fans who fly in from overseas; thousands of FakeNewsMSM personnel (not only the “journos”).
      sponsorship by Emirates Airlines, Kia motor cars.

      yes, McEnroe is entitled to lecture us on CAGW!

      p.s. I love tennis but, if they continue to pretend to be woke about CAGW, and about equality, when sport is competitive and hierarchical by its very nature, I’ll be switching off.

      70

      • #
        pat

        apologies to all the specialist doubles players and their entourages for not including them. lol.

        20

      • #
        toorightmate

        pat,
        You have McEnroe and I’ll have Margaret Court – any day of the week.
        The media carries on as though she is a pariah. At least 40% of Australians voted against gay marriage. Are we all pariahs?

        21

        • #
          yarpos

          To a fair chunk of the population probably yes

          02

        • #
          hatband

          Gay Marriage was just a Distraction Squirrel the Liberal Party and the ALP ran for

          years to distract attention from their Sellout of Australia and adamant refusal to do

          anything to further the interests of Australians that weren’t already Billionaire$.

          It possibly helped the National Party with the yokel vote, but most Australians saw

          through the charade and ended it when given the opportunity.

          23

          • #
            Graeme Bird

            Its worse than a distraction. Its ripping people off. The tax free threshold should be much higher, and to promote familial co-operation a fellow should be able to have registered dependents. The registered dependent cedes his tax three threshold to the head of the household so that everyone is incentivised to look after each-other. This gay marriage was a complete scam. They gave no tax advantages to the gay couple. Which allowed them to give no tax advantages to any co-operative household. Whether that household involved developmental disorders or not. So they gave no tax incentive for someone working hard to help his brother through university. Or to help the brother who was wanting to do pre-production to start a family business. There was nothing there to help us look after each-other. The whole thing was to do with using peoples developmental disorders in order to fail to help anyone.

            21

  • #
    pat

    VIDEO: approx 10m: 26 Jan: Sky News: NSW govt ‘has failed the state on bushfires’ and should be ‘called out’
    Fire Brigade Employees’ Union of New South Wales Secretary Leighton Drury says the NSW government has “failed” the state this bushfire season, as he called for a federal royal commission into the issue.
    Mr Drury told Sky News host Sharri Markson the NSW government have been “stymieing” Fire Rescue NSW’s budget, which has led to “less professional fire fighters” than seen in previous years.
    “Since they’ve got into power, they have cut budgets that has led to the problem that we’re now seeing,” Mr Drury said.
    “We need a royal commission into this … we need an absolute overview of this, a federal overview,” he said…

    Mr Drury said the state government “have failed this community of New South Wales for the last eight years and it should be absolutely shown up”.
    He also called for enhanced fire reduction burns to be undertaken by “a professional work force,” saying professional firefighters from Fire Rescue NSW should be responsible for conducting enhanced control of hazard reductions as opposed to volunteers.
    https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_6126603853001

    40

    • #
      Dennis

      Once again this is a union stunt being performed in Queensland and Victoria as well, note this comment;

      “Mr Drury said the state government “have failed this community of New South Wales for the last eight years and it should be absolutely shown up”. He also called for enhanced fire reduction burns to be undertaken by “a professional work force,” saying professional firefighters from Fire Rescue NSW should be responsible for conducting enhanced control of hazard reductions as opposed to volunteers.”

      Get rid of volunteers and pay for a full time workforce including bushfire fighting, the union says.

      The RFS Budget was not cut, the NSW Treasurer has already explained how the creative accountants at the unions have fudged a budget cut by adding to previous budget expenditure items that were not budgeted items as if they were budgeted, so with the previous year inflated by the extraordinary expenditure the next budget appears to have been cut.

      Certain expenditure not provided for in a budget must of course be accounted for when spent, but is once off. Items of expenditure that could not be foreseen are of course not included in future budgets.

      00

  • #
    pat

    thinking of shorting, George?

    23 Jan: CNBC: George Soros warns Trump of potential economic doom before election
    by Thomas Franck & Brian Schwartz
    The longtime investor’s comment came on the heels of fresh record highs in the U.S. stock market and amid the longest bull market in American history.
    “Trump’s economic team has managed to overheat an already buoyant economy,” Soros warned his guests at an informal dinner at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
    “The stock market, already celebrating Trump’s military success, is breaking out to reach new heights,” he said. “But an overheated economy can’t be kept boiling for too long. If all this had happened closer to the elections, it would have assured his reelection.”

    “His problem is that the elections are still 10 months away, and in a ***revolutionary situation, that is a lifetime,” Soros said.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/23/george-soros-warns-trump-of-potential-economic-doom-before-election.html

    25 Jan: WashingtonTimes: George Soros, 89, is still on a quest to destroy America
    by Cheryl K. Chumley
    George Soros is 89 years old, but by gosh, before he dies, he’s going to see to the internal destruction of America.
    At least that’s how it seems.

    How else can we listen to his words in Davos, Switzerland, track his funding of American political races and pay attention to what he says about President Donald Trump, capitalism, and the leftist causes he backs and the leftist Open Society Foundations he runs, and come to any other conclusion?

    In the last few years, Soros has taken to trying to take over local law enforcement agencies by pumping massive amounts of money into candidates he favors in key district attorney races.
    “George Soros’ quiet overhaul of the US justice system,” Politico reported, way back in August of 2016.
    It continues in present day…READ ON
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/25/george-soros-89-still-quest-destroy-america/

    40

  • #
    pat

    first 18mins is on the “impeachment”.

    18m25s to the end: Peter Schweizer on the Bidens, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders & wind farm, etc.

    Youtube: 38m48s: 26 Jan: Fox News: Life, Liberty & Levin 1/26/20 | Mark Levin
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm5nub2LAhE

    26 Jan: Townhall: Fact-Checkers Only Looking At One Side
    by Debra J. Saunders
    Google “fact-check Senate impeachment” and you can read about all the factual errors made by President Donald Trump’s team of lawyers. What about those of the House impeachment managers? Apparently, this week, head prosecutor Adam Schiff and his colleagues cannot tell a lie. Or even a half-truth…READ ON
    https://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2020/01/26/factcheckers-only-looking-at-one-side-n2560094

    26 Jan: Townhall: Fact-Checkers Only Looking At One Side
    by Debra J. Saunders
    Google “fact-check Senate impeachment” and you can read about all the factual errors made by President Donald Trump’s team of lawyers. What about those of the House impeachment managers? Apparently, this week, head prosecutor Adam Schiff and his colleagues cannot tell a lie. Or even a half-truth…READ ON
    https://townhall.com/columnists/debrajsaunders/2020/01/26/factcheckers-only-looking-at-one-side-n2560094

    25 Jan: Breitbart: Fact Check: AP Says Biden Getting Ukrainian Prosecutor Fired to Protect Hunter Is ‘False Narrative’
    by Robert Kraychik
    The AP echoed similar news media outlets’ mischaracterization of the above-mentioned event, including the New York Times, Snopes, NPR, USA Today, Vox, and the Washington Post…
    In January 2018, Joe Biden joined a discussion panel at the Council on Foreign Relations and admitted his pressuring of Ukraine to terminate Viktor Shokin in his former capacity as vice president and “point person” on Ukraine (transcript via RealClearPolitics)…

    (excerpt Biden) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time…
    https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/01/25/fact-check-ap-says-biden-getting-ukrainian-prosecutor-fired-to-protect-hunter-is-false-narrative/

    25 Jan: ConservativeTreehouse: Opening Argument – Patrick Philbin Explains an Unconstitutional Origin to The House Impeachment, And Why It Matters…
    by sundance
    White House Counsel Patrick Philbin explains why House subpoenas were illegitimate: the subpoena power was never authorized; the initiating subpoena power was never voted on…
    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/25/opening-argument-patrick-philbin-explains-an-unconstitutional-origin-to-the-house-impeachment-and-why-it-matters/

    10

  • #
    pat

    24 Jan: Washington Examiner: Devin Nunes: John Bolton was warned about Obama holdovers who ‘spy’ in Trump White House
    by Daniel Chaitin
    House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes said on Thursday that he warned Bolton, whom Democrats want to testify in the Senate impeachment trial against President Trump, of an anti-Trump spying operation by members of the National Security Council. The California congressman also said he told H.R. McMaster, who preceded Bolton, and Robert O’Brien, the current national security adviser, to take steps to cull what he called a “den of thieves.”

    “I have said this over and over and over again. I said this to McMaster, I said it to Bolton, and I said it to the new national security adviser, O’Brien, that they just need to get all those people out of there,” Nunes told Fox News host Tucker Carlson. “If you were there and worked for Obama and you were a holdover, just, you know, get a used building somewhere on the other side of the Potomac. Just get them out of there. They have done so much damage to the presidency. I couldn’t agree with you more.”

    Carlson asked why it appears to be so difficult to remove these officials when a new president is elected and a new government is set up, to which Nunes replied, “I have no idea.”
    “That’s why I think I gave them very good advice, which is there is plenty of empty buildings, just say, ‘Look, thank you for your service, but just get off the premises,’ because they do nothing but spy on them,” the congressman added…READ ON
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-john-bolton-was-warned-about-obama-holdovers-who-spy-in-trump-white-house

    20

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Quebec Politician Praises the Chinese Corona Virus: “Wuhan will Meet its GHG Targets” ”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/26/quebec-green-praises-the-chinese-corona-virus-wuhan-will-meet-its-ghg-targets/

    20

    • #
      PeterS

      Typical of the insane left. Their hope is for millions of people to die and economies to collapse in the hope of solving the so called climate change catastrophe, which is a scam. If only people like PM Morrison told them where to go instead of remaining silent and trying to appease them in the vain hope they will behave themselves, which they won’t, and perhaps even get their votes, which he won’t. Stupid is as stupid does.

      10

      • #
        hatband

        Some bad news, PeterS:

        There’s nearly 8 Billion people in the World.

        Even The Greens were saying Australia could only support 12 million and

        that was when there were only 22 Million of us.

        It’s just sad, but some people are only good at making babies and not much else.

        Problems that can’t be solved reasonably will be solved anyway, and there’s

        nothing you or me or any power on Earth can do to change that,

        31

  • #
    Furiously curious

    This has a real ring to it, doesn’t it?
    ‘Noted climate doomster Greta Thunberg……….’
    I came across the term ‘doomster’, in the comments on some blog earlier, and it seemed like the perfect term. That is way better than ‘warmests’ I reckon?

    20

  • #
    Graeme#4

    Have just finished watching this video from Montana, about the problems of federally-regulated land being allowed to overgrow and not being thinned out, thus more bushfires, loss of both native animals and farming properties. Sounds a very familiar story. Worth watching – 22 mins: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TJYudILc4wk#

    10

  • #
    pat

    27 Jan: Andrew Bolt Blog: WARMIST SCIENTIST BLAMES BUSHFIRES ON MORE LEAVES. IS THAT BAD?
    You may remember Professor Pitman, the director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes. He last year was recorded admitting to fellow warmists that droughts — like this severe one that’s fed the fires — are NOT caused by global warming.
    “As far as the climate scientists know there is no link between climate change and drought,” he said.
    “There is no reason a priori why climate change should make the landscape more arid.”
    Indeed, despite the drought, Australia’s rainfall over the century has increased, not fallen.

    Pitman and the ABC were naturally mortified when I and others started to quote him. Pitman is now furious that former prime minister Tony Abbott last week quoted his admission, too, in The Australian.
    But in his anger, Pitman let slip a fact that sceptics like me have tried for years to point out.
    LINK FULL ARTICLE BEHIND PAYWALL..
    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/warmist-scientist-blames-bushfires-on-more-leaves-is-that-bad/news-story/2843f550bfb3722067f6a90b7d9d1575

    27 Jan: SBS: ‘He’s cherry picking with intent’: Here’s what the climate scientist Andrew Bolt keeps quoting would like you to know
    In his latest column, Andrew Bolt draws on quotes from climate scientist Professor Andy Pitman to argue that global warming is actually a good thing. Professor Pitman says that Bolt is “cherry picking with intent”.
    By Sam Langford
    Bolt’s argument, which suggested that rising CO2 emissions have fuelled plant growth and helped to create “a greener planet”, relied on a number of quotes from climate scientist Professor Andy Pitman, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes at UNSW.
    However, Professor Pitman told The Feed that the quotes Bolt selected were incomplete and misleading, misrepresenting his point of view.
    “He’s cherry picking with intent,” Professor Pitman said, adding that he believed “he’s actively and consciously misrepresenting the science.”…

    It’s correct that Pitman uttered these words at a talk in June 2019. However, Pitman also issued a clarification after that talk, to express that he meant to say “no direct link”, not “no link”…

    Where is Bolt getting the idea that global warming is creating a “greening planet”?…
    Crikey summarised Pitman’s explanation as follows: “High carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, in some places, leads to ‘greening’, meaning more vegetation — like leaves, branches and even trees — growing above the soil. When you are hit with a drought, the vegetation become stressed and drops to the ground or dries out, becoming fuel for fires.”
    Bolt uses this and a similar quote from climate sceptic physicist Freeman Dyson (who is not a climate scientist) to suggest that “global warming is greening the planet and that this is, overall, a good thing”…

    Unfortunately, as Professor Pitman explained today, it’s not quite the full story.
    “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessed this, and found that currently, areas of greening outnumber areas of browning, but it’s a trend we don’t expect to continue,” he said.
    A 2019 IPCC report projected that several regions will see browning instead of greening going forward, as the climate warms…
    Pitman: “Even if it were true that CO2 was fuelling a long term greening trend, heat and heatwaves kill. The farmers are not seeing a benefit.”…
    https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/he-s-cherry-picking-with-intent-here-s-what-the-climate-scientist-andrew-bolt-keeps-quoting-would-like-you-to-know

    10

  • #
    Hanrahan

    G’day I’m back.

    Sitting here listening to light but continuous rain and the frogs croaking. What do they do when it never rains?

    But this is the first real rain since our biblical flood nearly 12 months ago. We would not have had 10 mils in that time until a week ago.

    Dorothea knew what she was talking about.

    90

    • #
      yarpos

      I read a funny attack on Dorothea a while ago, not sure if it was on here. The classic ad hom attack, apparently you dont just read the words they are somehow devalued because she was a rich white girl. They really get pathetic when they have no rational arguments.

      31

      • #
        hatband

        ..a rich white girl..

        Now called a Wokester.

        During the 14/18 War, they were handing out White Feathers

        to blokes minding their own business.

        Before that, Suffragettes.How’d that work out for Australia?

        Bottom line:

        Rich white girls are a menace to the Civilised Order.

        00

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Speaking of Ad Hom attacks
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IcW4eo4uM
        It has english subtitles.

        Alice Elisabeth Weidel is a German politician and has been the Leader of Alternative for Germany in the Bundestag since October 2017. She has been a member of the Bundestag since the 2017 federal election during which she was the AfD’s lead candidate together with Alexander Gauland. Wikipedia
        Born: 6 February 1979 (age 40 years), Gütersloh, Germany
        Partner: Sarah Bossard
        Parents: Gerhard Weidel
        Party: Alternative for Germany (This is supposedly the wacky, evil RIGHT WING Nazis according to the Left Wing Media. Make up your own mind).
        Education: Bayreuth University (2011), Bayreuth University

        00

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>