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

Thursday Open Thread

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (22 votes cast)
Thursday Open Thread, 8.5 out of 10 based on 22 ratings

178 comments to Thursday Open Thread

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    We are pushed into a corner and kept there so that we cannot revolt against the introduction of Renewables.

    This is done under assumed truth.

    It is stated that human origin CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for an increase in Earth’s temperature.

    It is also stated that Renewables give electricity that has a lower CO2 burden than coal fired power per unit of Electricity production.

    Both of these assumed truths are deliberate deceit and are in fact the opposite of reality.

    Why is this situation allowed to go unchallenged.

    KK

    350

    • #
      Yonniestone

      My view is people are practising the definition of insanity, when voting they participate in a system that now offers no real alternatives that won’t impact their current lifestyle but is without them realising it, by participating they have unwittingly enabled shysters posing as their representatives to fleece the country they want to preserve.

      Until an en-masse boycott of the next state or federal election or a similar ongoing public protest against parliament the situation will continue to deteriorate for the people and improve for the sellouts, going by experience people won’t just turn up because its the right thing to do something that disrupts and affects their lives has to occur and a collapse of the electricity grids could wake them up.

      I say could as never underestimate the power of brainwashing.

      190

      • #
        PeterS

        What’s worse is if the climate emergency were real and urgent then there is only one solution that will reduce our emissions quickly, simply, cost effectively and efficiently – nuclear. The fact that they are not adopting that solution proves two things. The climate emergency is not real and the politicians are telling lies or don’t have a clue what they are talking about, which is just as bad.

        300

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Correct. And if you really want to tick off the greenie handlers, you ask them about nuclear…

          And when they waffle on you just keep pressing the point,…they will go ballistic eventually and reveal the lie…..

          80

          • #
            PeterS

            Which is why Morrison should adopt that tactic. It would expose the lies and smash the CAGW scam. Problem though he is not that smart or he is part of the scam. Either way it won’t happen, unless of course he is the former and does eventually see common sense. I won’t hold my breath.

            80

            • #
              Sceptical Sam

              Problem though he is not that smart or he is part of the scam.

              There are other options. And I prefer them.

              1. He’s a politician who has assessed that timing is everything, and now is not the time because the “Quite Australians” have not yet become sufficiently aroused about the long-term impacts on their hip-pocket nerve of the roll-out of unreliables;

              2. He is in a precarious position with a slim majority and a resurgent Labor Party under Albanese, that is looking to support coal and coal-miners in Queensland. Morrison needs a coal wedge for Labor. He hasn’t found it yet. But it may be coming shortly with a decision on a HELE coal-fired power plant. Give him time.

              21

              • #
                PeterS

                Yes they are possible options but they don’t make him a better man. Howard was different. For example he took the big risk of taking the GST to the election, and won. Morrison also can’t keep pretending cutting emissions is a good thing when common sense and logic dictates lowering emissions using renewables only (ie, without base load) will only make power more expensive and less reliable with zero impact on the climate. If he were rally honest about it (rare for a politician but not impossible) he would take the UK path and fast track nuclear.

                30

      • #
        Destroyer D69

        Unfortunately the best result of a vote boycott would be the denial of any claim to popularity.The result would still be decided by the valid votes cast, ie if only one vote is cast ,then that vote decides who the government will be.

        70

      • #
        Dave

        The NZ Govt has stated it will take 30% of private land for conservation in the next ten years.
        People will now just vote even harder.
        There was no change on the street today after massive land theft was announced.

        50

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Dave…that UN rewilding literally being shoved down you throats.

          You guys need to warn Kiwis it appears Ahern is a UN puppet.

          If she gets away with that, its camps not long after, as people will get rounded up…..

          How “convenient” they had someobe go beserk so they could pass highly restrictive gun control legislation and now this?

          Loud alarms bells screaming at you…..

          30

          • #
            Dave

            People are in a dream.

            10

            • #
              Dave

              The dream of BBQ’s, The All Blacks, Trumpet commercials from the 80′s, Cricket, those bad Aussies and that under arm bowl decades ago.
              Saving the birds (which were fin until 1080 was dropped on them), over worked underpaid, high rent, expensive mold pit homes, Winston’s going to fix things, the Kiwi Battler, Anzac’s, Beer.
              NZrs will eagerly walk into a shipping container on the back of a military truck.
              Just have the Dudes playing “drink yourself more…….

              20

          • #
            Dave

            Also likely in relation. Multi national war games have been taking place (quietly played down in the NZ media) for several years now.
            Set in rural South Island/ North Island locations.
            The simulation is based upon a “Two Island Pacific Island Nation” going into mass revolt in the countryside due to a deeply unfavorable new government policy.
            They have practiced blocking off small towns with military vehicles and weapons.
            Got some dim witted locals to take part in the simulation of their take down.
            And pissed off quite a few by showing up seemingly unannounced and blocking main roads.
            All links the this regular drill in NZ are now missing.
            I’ve tried changing browsers, yet searches only bring up stories about NZ and racism weirdly enough.
            The net is totally controlled.

            40

    • #
      el gordo

      Its time gentlemen please ….. three Commissioners for the RC because of the complexity of bushfires and climate change.

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-20/bushfire-royal-commission-terms-set-hazard-reduction/11982764

      50

      • #
        Dennis

        The Prime Minister said the three commissioners were well placed to investigate the broad range of issues.

        “I have asked a former judge, a former chief of the defence forces, and a scientist, a professor who has experience in dealing with climate change adaptation — so these are experts who can shed a lot of light on this.”

        Air Chief Marshal Binskin finished his term as chief of the Defence Force in 2018, while Dr Bennett retired from the Federal Court bench in 2016.

        She is now the chancellor of Bond University in Queensland.

        Andrew Macintosh is a professor of law at the Australian National University and a member of the university’s Climate Change Institute.

        He is also a member of the panel currently reviewing the Environmental Protection and Biosecurity Act, and whether it is putting too much “green tape” in the way of projects across the country.

        70

        • #
          el gordo

          Okay, so it has all the hallmarks of a whitewash. Morrison chose members of the Establishment to oversee this quasi-judicial process, we need to see the prosecutors before making a value judgement.

          70

          • #
            robert rosicka

            It’s now an enquiry not an RC so the report is currently being written .
            I was disappointed when I heard Scomo give the details saying the science was in .

            40

        • #
          el gordo

          Adaptation is the cornerstone of this government…. sigh.

          ‘Morrison said that the inquiry “acknowledges climate change, the broader impact of our summers getting longer, drier and hotter and is focussed on practical action that has a direct link to making Australians safer”. Guardian

          30

        • #
          el gordo

          Its not looking good for any hope that CO2 might get a pardon

          ‘Its terms of reference cover a range of complex questions including tackling rising bushfire risks created by global warming; what are the best land management techniques to adapt to the new reality; are new planning laws required; and how can the federal and state governments work together to improve emergency response and recovery for local communities.’ SMH

          30

      • #
        Deplorable Lord Kek

        well, at least he didn’t appoint tim flannery.

        30

        • #
          el gordo

          Flannery and other outspoken zealots maybe called to give their opinions on whether this drought and bushfire season are ‘unprecedented’ since the Medieval Warm Period.

          The terms of reference focus on green tape and arson, which will be a victory for us, but with climate change I don’t have a clue as to how it will turn out. We know its not unprecedented and so does Scott.

          ‘Scott Morrison’s royal commission into the unprecedented “Black Summer” bushfire season will aim to improve natural disaster management and make Australia more resilient to a changing climate, but will not examine emissions-reduction policies.’ Oz

          30

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      So CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Explain please

      216

      • #
        AndyG55

        NO, it is a radiative gas.

        “Greenhouse gas” is a misnomer, except that it is used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

        The whole definition of “greenhouse gas” is an anti-science farce.

        No gas acts to block energy transfer by convection.

        There is no empirical evidence that human released CO2, or in fact any sort of CO2, has any effect whatsoever on the atmosphere or climate.

        It is basically just a non-scientific fantasy.

        221

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          And what does it radiate? where does that radiation energy come from?

          210

          • #
            william x

            “where does that radiation energy come from?”

            I’d guess that it is the sun, roughly 150 million klms away.

            The big yellow ball of energy in the sky, that our planet orbits.

            101

          • #
            el gordo

            “where does that radiation energy come from?

            The interesting thing about the yellow orb is the solar cycle. While it languishes in minima, as it is now, the thermosphere and mesosphere cool and shrink.

            Next comes the stratosphere, which has been cool for a couple of decades, all coming up against the warm troposphere hugging the earth.

            This makes the jet stream meander and pick up speed (h/t wx) and creating blocking high pressure, which was a major factor in this Black Summer. Yes comrade, its climate change.

            60

          • #
            AndyG55

            You need to read up on radiative properties of gases.

            They all absorb and radiate, just in different ways.

            It is one of the many mechanisms for energy transfer in the atmosphere.

            Those energy transfers are regulated by the gas laws relating pressure, temperature and density.

            As such, there is no empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes any warming or has any affect on the atmosphere.

            You have continually shown that to be the case.

            61

            • #
              Peter Fitzroy

              You could answer the questions, instead of repeating those unproven assertions

              010

              • #
                Graeme#4

                What Andy and the others have said seems to make sense. While it hasn’t given you the complete story, just an outline, I’m not sure why you say that they didn’t answer your questions.
                The atmospheric gases do indeed exchange energy in a variety of ways, depending on the energy frequency and amount of the gases. This subject was again discussed in detail in a recent thread on this site, with many useful references.
                So I guess I’m asking “What’s the problem?”

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                You have no empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

                That is a proven FACT, not an assertion.

                Also proven is that the atmosphere is controlled by the gas laws.

                No spurious warming. Never observed, never measured.

                Time to stop your denial of science.

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                “instead of repeating those unproven assertions”

                We are all still waiting for you to produce your empirical evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

                Your every post is based on unscientific, unproven assumptions.

                30

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Why do you continue to talk about “insertions”. Stick to the science.

                20

              • #
                James Poulos

                … and probably why nights are cooler than days… unless the atmospheric concentration of CO2 dissipates at night.

                40

            • #
              Brian

              Neither nitrogen and oxygen can absorb visible light of infrared. They can interact with radiation energy, but only in the extreme ultraviolet (Short-wavelength UVC). Rather than becoming excited and then re-radiating the energy they undergo photochemical dissociation. Just as well because this and the resulting oxygen radical to ozone process prevents dangerous UVC reaching the troposphere or surface. With the exception of trace greenhouse gasses the atmoshere is transparent to visible light and IR. Warming of the atmosphere by incoming solar radiation is due to the interaction with aerosol particles and water vapor. Incoming solar radiation has negligible IR frequencies.

              10

              • #

                thanks for stating some detail and debunking the relevance of assertions like, “all gases do this therefore blah”

                00

              • #
                Peter C

                Incoming solar radiation has negligible IR frequencies.

                No True actually. There is a lot of Infrared in the solar spectrum.
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

                However Gee seemed to like your answer.

                10

              • #
                Brian

                Incoming radiation is bounded to near IR where there are very limited (admittedly a better word than negligible) absorption windows. IR is radiated from Earth as longwave radiation covering the primary greenhouse absorption widows.

                00

              • #
                Reed Coray

                Brian wrote: “Incoming solar radiation has negligible IR frequencies.”

                If the IR band is defined by the frequency range 3×10^11 Hz to 3.9×10^14 Hz, then 44.47% of solar radiation is in the IR band.

                If the IR band is defined by the frequency range 3×10^11 Hz to 4.3×10^14 Hz, then 51.40% of solar radiation is in the IR band.

                Neither of these percentages seems “negligible” to me.

                30

              • #
                Reed Coray

                My 21 Feb 2020 at 2:58 pm comment is valid for a blackbody radiator at 5,778 Kelvin. To the degree the solar spectrum corresponds to a blackbody radiator at 5,778 Kelvin, the above numbers apply. To the degree the sun’s spectrum doesn’t match a blackbody radiator at 5,778 Kelvin, the numbers may change. However, I don’t believe the difference is all that significant.

                20

          • #
            tom0mason

            Maybe you can criticize this paper https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=97917 a paper that seeks to better explain the observations and where it says

            No object can heat itself to higher temperatures, when it is already in thermal equilibrium. The only radiation that matters is the one coming from the Sun, and it does not matter where and how it enters into the heat balance of the atmosphere. Heat creep (convection, evaporation and radiation) will redistribute the heat to result in the distribution given here (Figure 6); According to Sorokhtin 66.56% by convection, 24.90% by condensation and 8.54% by radiation [19]. An added process (by multiple absorption-emission) might, at best, speed up the equilibration. There is nothing CO2 would add to the current heat balance in the atmosphere, if the outward radiation no longer comes from the surface of the planet, but from a layer high up in the atmosphere.

            and later …

            To say it in another way, the best-case climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. The optical length of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 25 m. That is, 25 meters up in the air the radiation emitted by the surface in the spectrum of CO2 is already attenuated by a factor e. In this 25-m layer resides only 1/1773th part of the atmosphere (and CO2). The total transmission of the entire atmosphere is thus exp(−1773) which any calculator shows as zero. Doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere, will have no measurable effect, exp(−3546) ≈ 0. Heat had no chance escaping to the universe through this channel, and now even less so. As long as there is a sliver of the emission spectrum for which the atmosphere is transparent the effect of doubling agents such as CO2 that have a spectrum that is close to saturation is close to nil. This is the lower limit of the effect. It is exactly the reason that gave rise to Global Warming in a radiative greenhouse model, namely the strong absorptivity of CO2, that undermines the existence of further greenhouse effects in a thermodynamic-radiative analysis.

            and from

            7. Conclusions
            We have analyzed here the greenhouse effect, using fully analytical techniques, without reverting anywhere to finite-elements calculations. This gave important insight into the phenomenon. An important conclusion is that the analysis in terms of radiation-balances-only cannot explain the situation in the atmosphere. In the extreme case, a differential equation of layers with absorption coefficients, etc., gave the same results as a much simpler 2-box mixed chamber model. However, the underlying assumptions in these calculations are not physical.

            Therefore we set out to model the greenhouse effect ab initio, and came up with the thermodynamic-radiation model. The atmosphere is close to thermodynamic equilibrium and based on that we can calculate where and how radiation is absorbed and emitted. This model can explain phenomenologically and analytically how big the effect of the atmosphere is, specifically Equations (56) and (58).

            Continuing with the reasoning, we find that the alleged greenhouse effect cannot explain the empirical data—orders of magnitude are missing. There where Henry’s Law—outgassing of oceans—easily can explain all observed phenomena.

            Moreover, the greenhouse hypothesis—as presented here—cannot explain the atmosphere on Mars, nor can it explain the geological data, where no correlation between [CO2] and temperature is observed. Nor can it explain why a different correlation is observed in contemporary data of the last 60 years compared to historical data (600 thousand years). We thus reject the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis, both on basis of empirical grounds as well as a theoretical analysis.

            90

            • #
              Robber

              Interesting find.
              Will the IPCC ignore this paper?

              20

            • #

              thanks… I’ll add that to my alt-physics collection.

              11

            • #
              Brian

              Where to begin. This paper is fundamentally flawed and I can understand why it was published on SCIRP. Jeffrey Beall identified SCIRP in his 2014 exposure of predatory publishers. He stated:
              “The Chinese Publisher SCIRP (Scientific Research Publishing): A Publishing Empire Built on Junk Science. Another day, another report of a junk science article published by China-based publisher Scientific Research Publishing, or SCIRP. This publisher specializes in publishing junk cosmology and junk physics.

              For example: “25 meters up in the air the radiation emitted by the surface in the spectrum of CO2 is already attenuated by a factor e. In this 25-m layer resides only 1/1773th part of the atmosphere (and CO2). The total transmission of the entire atmosphere is thus exp(−1773) which any calculator shows as zero”. For a start this ignores both re-radiation by excited molecules and also the diminishing density of the atmosphere with elevation. The correct methodology is embodied in Schwarzchild’s Equation. This type of flawed reasoning is found throughout the paper.

              As far as the example of Mars is concerned the statement fails to address the primary variables. Firstly the atmosphere is Mars is what we would term an industrial vacuum and comparing the percentage of CO2 for Mars to the partial pressure on Earth is meaningless. However there are 15 to 20 times more CO2 molecules above each sware metre than on Earth. The variation is because on Mars the atmospheric pressure varies significantly during a year as in Southern and Northern winters CO2 freezes out at the poles. There is minuscule water vapor in the atmospheric column (less than 3 microns precipitable)so CO2 is the only greenhouse contributor and any warming of the atmosphere through solar irradiance is via dust. Because of the distance from the sun and reflection of solar radiation from the surface the average temperature of the planet is minus 60 degrees Celsius. At the equator the surface dust can heat up but thermal measurements by rovers have indicated that rocks have too much thermal inertia. So overall there is not a lot of IR being transmitted to fuel the greenhouse effect.

              00

      • #
        AndyG55

        CO2 is “meant” to “trap heat™” [LOL]

        Huge bush fires in NSW and Vic,

        Huge amounts of CO2 released.

        Huge amount of heat released.

        Where has all that “trapped™” heat gone to ?

        90

      • #
        FarmerDoug2

        No. You have to explain why it is.
        Proving the negative is pretty hard.
        Doug

        10

      • #
        James Poulos

        Hey Fitzeoy,

        CO2 does not provide the environment for a green house – a greenhouse provides the environment for CO2.

        71

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        You are yet to show your evidence that manmade CO2 is the primary driver of the mere 0.78 C degrees of global warming that the IPCC tells us the planet has experienced over the last 162 years.

        Until you do that you remain an irrelevancy.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

        Page 5.

        30

      • #
        sophocles

        I published the URLs for Allmendinger’s papers a couple of years ago. I published them a second time especially for you, Mr Fitzroy. If you had read them, or paid them any attention, you wouldn’t have had to ask that question, which makes it a S. T. U. P. I. D. question. You wonder why people get short with you and call you things like “Space Cadet” etc.?

        here’s one of them:
        https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-novel-investigation-about-the-thermal-behaviour-of-gases-under-theinfluence-of-irradiation-a-further-argument-against-the-greenh-2157-7617-1000393.php?aid=87335

        If I find the other paper, I may publish a link to it again but don’t hold your breath. Otherwise, search on ‘Dr. Thomas Allmendinger.’

        Who needs Space Cadets?

        10

    • #
      Dennis

      Dark side forces joined together, foreigners and citizens.

      The quiet takeover has been underway since the UN was established late 1940s after WW2, it was hijacked by leftists including the new world order socialist advocates that formed the Fabian Society in England late 1800s.

      Australia Labor Attorney General (one of the communists that within the ALP resulted in a split when further right or centre-left ALP members formed the Democratic Labor Party of Australia) “Doc” Evatt gave the UN officials the plan to have as many treaties signed with UN member nations as possible, treaties to enable compliant governments to get around constitutions and constitutional laws.

      The UN Lima Agreement signed by Whitlam Labor was the beginning of the end of our manufacturing industry, one of many examples of economic vandalism.

      Around 1990 the Keating Labor Government signed UN Agenda 21, later changed to Agenda 30 – Sustainability. Cooperating State governments and Councils are implementing the long list of agenda items. State land National Parks for example, locked up for future generations to protect the Parks & Wildlife with unforeseen consequences resulting from poor land management, wild fires. Timber industry locked out, no new dams for people, farming and bushfire fighting water supplies, no mining or extraction of natural gas like shale oil gas etc.

      130

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Kalm Keith
      February 19, 2020 at 11:17 pm · Reply
      Renewable Energy.

      The whole enabling theory behind the use of, so called, Renewables is that less CO2 per kWh of generated electricity will be “emissioned” than with coal fired power stations.

      Any qualified person would look at total mass of each material used in construction, its CO2 “carry on” and lifespan within the two systems being examined.

      Cradle to grave analysis for renewables to put out A/C of equivalent amount from coal fired plants would be illuminating.

      Why hasn’t it been done?

      The economies of scale inherent in Coal Fired power stations are obvious, and yet the ridiculous claim that Renewables produce less CO2 is allowed to continue without criticism!

      KK

      40

    • #

      Kalm Keith wrote:
      “It is stated that human origin CO2 in the atmosphere is responsible for an increase in Earth’s temperature.
      It is also stated that Renewables give electricity that has a lower CO2 burden than coal fired power per unit of Electricity production.
      Both of these assumed truths are deliberate deceit and are in fact the opposite of reality.”

      My comment:
      many “truths” are assumed, but that does not mean they are wrong.

      CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas in a laboratory.

      It should act as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

      That’s a decent assumption.

      How much warming CO2 actually causes is unknown and unknowable.

      All the warming since 1975 could be natural, or all from CO2, or somewhere between.

      So the correct answer is 0% to 100% of warming since 1975 is manmade?

      That’s not precise, but it is accurate.

      More important — was the warming good news or bad news?

      I say good news — most warming was in higher, cold latitudes, mainly in the six coldest months of the year and mainly at night.

      So, are warmer winter nights in Alaska bad news?

      I’ve never been in Alaska, but I’d guess good news.

      Concerning “renewables”:
      They would be MORE CO2 emissions while being manufactured and installed, along with the mining of minerals for electric vehicle batteries.

      But in time they will have lower CO2 emissions than fossil fuels.

      Based on real science, however, more CO2 in the atmosphere accelerates plant growth, which will allow our planet to support more life.

      So more CO2 in the atmosphere is good news when fossil fuels are burned with modern pollution controls — ask any modern greenhouse owner.

      The history of our planet clearly shows more life is supported with higher CO2 levels, and a warmer climate in the higher latitudes.

      So, if you are pro-science, and pro-life, more CO2 in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels with modern pollution controls is 100% good news.

      Without modern pollution controls, the cost of real air pollution is worse than the benefit of adding CO2 to our CO2 starved atmosphere
      ( ask any green plant about that ! )

      The “existential threat” from CO2 is a fairy tale from anti-science leftists, and other dingbats.

      62

  • #
    Annie

    There’s an excellent letter re science in our local Leader paper. No link but I find it very heartening.

    60

    • #
      Yonniestone

      You or your good man must have written it Annie. :)

      60

      • #
        Annie

        No, we can’t take the credit! Someone else in the area. Good that we are not alone, which we know as we have met others of like mind. Time for that belated get-together; put off by too much else going on.

        80

    • #
      Peter C

      The Leader Newspapers have been publishing a series of articles by Dr Allie Gallant (Climate Scientist Monash University). These articles do not include much science. A recent one was “Summer Blackout Risks”, which links electricity blackouts to Climate Change!

      Her articles are about shared experience and creating a narrative or story telling.

      I hope you have found something better Annie. If you can recall the title I can probably find the link. The Leader News papaers are online.

      70

      • #
        Annie

        It’s in the local Leader paper. There is a Yea version and ours, The Alexandra and Eildon Standard. Paywalled when I attempted to read it online a while ago and I buy the paper version each week anyway; so I haven’t gone for an online subscription.

        30

      • #
        Annie

        The heading to the letter is ‘Science versus Opinion’.

        30

        • #
          Peter C

          My error. Leader Newspapers are free in Melbourne and they are published on the Leader website. That does not apply to the Eildon Standard.

          10

  • #
    pat

    Viv in American Thinker:

    19 Feb: AmericanThinker: The looming collision between electric vehicles and green energy
    By Viv Forbes
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/02/the_looming_collision_between_electric_vehicles_and_green_energy.html

    40

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Great minds think alike…I have often used the road train analogy to expose the stupidity of EVs….

      The numpties who think up the EV nonsense clearly have never lived outside a capital city nor probably ever hanged a car tyre in their entire lives….

      10

  • #

    It’s Thursday?

    The thread is open?

    I don’t have to be on topic?

    33

  • #
    pat

    TWEET: Arizona Republican Party
    Thousands of Arizonans already lining up — SIX HOURS before the show starts — for the chance to hear President @realDonaldTrump at tonight’s rally in Phoenix
    This is a MOVEMENT!
    VIDEO 2m17s
    19 Feb 2020
    https://twitter.com/AZGOP/status/1230218703880491008/video/1

    19 Feb: ArizonaCentral: Trump rally updates: Supporters file into the coliseum as doors open
    Robinson, who lives in Canada part-time, is hoping to convince Trump to trade places with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau…
    7 a.m.: How to get tickets to the rally
    Some people were already in line Tuesday, nearly 30 hours before the rally was scheduled to start….

    Youtube: 9m16s: 12 Feb: Border Wall Construction Revealed by Drone
    posted by Kenneth Frantz, Summit Peak Drones
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJ6FX1_yXJU

    30

    • #
      yarpos

      I did rather enjoy the Airforce 1 pass over the Daytona race track, followed by the Pres Limo leading the field around on a parade lap. Too much you think? nah. It looked like one giant middle finger to the left wing establishment.

      30

  • #
    Ian Hill

    Just sorting through my vinyl LPs and came across an album by 10CC in 1975 “How Dare You!”

    One song in particular is poignant “I Wanna Rule The World” written by Creme, Godley, Gouldman.

    A couple of the verses:

    To our rally come along
    Come along to our rally
    Come along to our rally come along

    (repeated)

    and

    So wait for the army of kiddy-winkies
    And terrible tiny tots
    In armoured school buses
    Firing poison pea-shooters
    And sinking their milk teeth into your thighs
    Delapsus resurgent! when I fall I shall rise!

    How appropriate for what we have seen in the past year in particular!

    70

    • #

      Ah, 10cc (lower case, and I think we have canvassed how the band got their name before) a great band, and this was their last album before Kevin (Godley) and Lol (Creme) departed. This was a band which had all four members as genuine songwriters, so they were always going to make good careers even if half the band (as was the case here) departed, as happened with the ongoing 10cc, Graham (Gouldman) and Eric (Stewart) who went on to record the only album of theirs which I have, Bl00dy Tourists, with Dreadlock Holiday and the wonderfully quirky From Rochedale to Ocho Rios (and then on to Dorking, and back to Rochedale) on it. The departing Godley and Creme also went on to have a good career, and one of their songs was the amazing Cry from 1985. I have the clip linked to below, and as you watch it, imagine that something like is commonplace these days, but this was first recorded in 1985, and was a sensation at the time, for the ingenious way they filmed the video.

      Link to the music video for Cry

      Tony.

      61

      • #
        Ian Hill

        Correct Tony, lower case.

        I recently watched them on YouTube performing Rubber Bullets and for the first time matched the faces to the voices.

        I also watched the amazing song Donna and my first album of theirs had those two hits, an import from Great Britain called 10cc 100cc in red against a black background.

        10

  • #
    pat

    19 Feb: Australian: States at war over Murray-Darling ‘water grab’
    By Ean Higgins
    A water war that has included the use of covert satellite surveillance has escalated in the ­Murray-­Darling Basin over de­cisions by Queensland and NSW to let their irrigators take water from newly flowing rivers rather than let it flow downstream.
    As revealed by The Aust­ralian, so concerned was the NSW government about the practice to its north that it recently secretly analysed satellite images of water storages and rivers in southern Queensland to track it, but has since allowed its own farmers to do the same.

    On Wednesday, Victorian Water Minister Lisa Neville ­attacked both states to her north…
    “We need consistent applic­ation of rules across the basin to get fair outcomes — this includes for irrigators, communities and the environment,” Ms Neville said…
    Her NSW counterpart, Melinda Pavey, defended the lifting of embargoes on pumping from “first flows”, saying it had to be done for practical purposes to mitigate flood damage by letting farmers take water into storage…READ ON
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/states-at-war-over-murraydarling-water-grab/news-story/16835c61560155432bbc9e75be0597fe

    20 Feb: The Hill: Trump signs order diverting water to California farmers against state wishes
    By Rebecca Beitsch
    President Trump on Wednesday signed an order in California to re-engineer the state’s water plans, completing a campaign promise to funnel water from the north to a thirsty agriculture industry and growing population further south.
    The ceremonial order comes after the Department of the Interior late last year reversed its opinion on scientific findings that for a decade extended endangered species protections to various types of fish — a review that had been spurred by the order from Trump.

    Trump said the changes to the “outdated scientific research and biological opinions” would now help direct “as much water as possible, which will be a magnificent amount, a massive amount of water for the use of California farmers and ranchers.”
    “A major obstacle to providing water for the region’s farmers has now been totally eliminated by the federal government,” Trump said Wednesday in Bakersfield, Calif., flanked by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), as well as Interior Secretary David Bernhardt, who helped shepherd the changes to the state’s water policy….
    “It would be different if you had a drought,” Trump claimed, ***despite concerns the state may be headed into another drought. “You don’t have a drought. You have tremendous amounts of water.”

    The state is expected to fight the order.
    “California won’t allow the Trump Administration to destroy and deplete our natural resources,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said in a statement after the speech. “We’re prepared to challenge the Trump Administration’s harmful attack on our state’s critical ecosystems and environment.”

    Critics fear the new plan, which would allow large quantities of water to be diverted from the San Francisco Bay Delta to the Central Valley in order to irrigate farmland, would ultimately harm chinook salmon and the delta smelt, a finger-sized fish that for three decades has stood in the way of the diversion…

    McCarthy also praised Trump for fulfilling his campaign promise to divert more water to farmers in California.
    “Isn’t it great to have a president who understands farming is not easy?” he said before the president came on stage. “Isn’t it great to have a president who keeps his promises?”
    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/483754-trump-order-redirects-california-water-supply-after-reversal-from

    30

  • #
    pat

    20 Feb: Daily Mail: Extreme blasts of cold weather hitting Europe and the USA are NOT caused by a warming Arctic changing the way the jet stream moves
    •Previously it was thought a warming arctic was changing the jet stream waves
    •The new research found fluctuations in the jet stream may be warming the arctic
    •They found that any link between the two was over years not a longer period
    By Ryan Morrison
    Extreme blasts of freezing weather hitting Europe and the USA in recent years aren’t caused by a warming Arctic changing the jet stream, as previously thought.
    Research by the University of Exeter disputes earlier studies suggesting a warming Arctic was creating a ‘wavier’ jet stream and linked to climate change.

    They found it’s more likely the other way around with random fluctuations in the jet stream warming up the Arctic over decades.
    While there is evidence of a link between the Arctic warming, climate change and a wavier jet stream over the short term – it doesn’t apply long term…

    In this study, published in Science Advances, Dr Blackport and his team studied climate model simulations and observations of conditions going back 40 years.
    They found that the previously reported trend towards a wavier circulation during autumn and winter has reversed in recent years.
    The team say this is despite continued Arctic warming, further suggesting that the two are not linked…
    The research has been published int he journal Science Advances (LINK).
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8021267/Cold-weather-hitting-Europe-USA-NOT-caused-warming-Arctic.html

    40

  • #
    RicDre

    A very nice action by the NSW Rural Fire Service:

    Australia Thanks U.S. Volunteer Firefighters with Giant Times Square Billboard

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/19/australia-thanks-u-s-volunteer-firefighters-with-giant-times-square-billboard/

    10

    • #
      yarpos

      Recycling some of the donations it seems, good to see acknowledgements like this and I hope they did something for our other friends and neighbours who helped out. I think everyone was taken aback by the loss of the water bomber crew. People forget this type of flying is right up there in terms of danger.

      There is a bit of controversy starting to bubble up about the management of funds and the web of rules and regulation that protect funds but impede progress.

      20

  • #
    TdeF

    Of great relevance to the idea of a man made 50% CO2 increase is equilibrium. The story is that it is all our fault and we need to stop eating hamburgers and everything else.

    I would like to explain how equilibrium works with CO2 between air and the water. Temperature is the average speed of the molecules, in the air or the water. Some are faster and some are slower. They bang around. They impart energy. The hotter they are, the faster they all go. And 98% of the earth’s free CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. The oceans are unimaginably huge.

    And CO2 is very soluble, even under slight pressure as everyone knows. Soda water, lemonade, beer, champagne, yeast, bread making. And very compressible. Remove the lid on lemonade or champagne or beer and the bubbles come from the bottom. Put the lid back and they stop. Cool it and they stop. These are the rules.

    So CO2 will certainly go into the ocean. And CO2 will come out of the ocean. The hotter, faster CO2 molecules in the air can enter the water. The hotter, faster CO2 molecules in the water will escape into the air. So does all the CO2 leave the water leaving none in the ocean? Or does all the CO2 in the air get absorbed? No, so what determines how much is in each, that is the equilibrium level?

    Henry’s Law says that higher pressure and more CO2 is dissolved. Higher temperature and more will leave the water. It’s very simple. It’s an almost obvious law. You see it when you boil water, bubbles of steam. You see hot beer go flat. You can make soda water in a soda stream with compressed CO2.

    And for a given air pressure say 1 atmosphere, how much is in the air and how much is in the water, the equilibrium level is determined by only one thing. Surface temperature.

    Where the ocean surface gets hotter in the tropics or in summer, CO2 leaves the water. Cooler arctic water absorbs CO2. Untold millions of tons of CO2 pass each way, every minute, cycling. And oxygen. Fish breathe. Waves pound air into the water. And surface phytoplankton release half our the planet’s oxygen and gobble CO2. Every living thing needs oxygen and outputs CO2. Many under the water. It is eternally being aerated.

    So if you put more CO2 in the air by burning fuel, more is absorbed by the water. The equilibrium level is maintained, rapidly. Of course this completely defeats the idea of man made CO2 levels. It is the forbidden topic.

    Can we tell how fast CO2 is absorbed on a world scale? Yes. Radioactive C14 was doubled in 1965 and this permeated the world’s CO2. Only one in a trillion CO2 molecules had C14 instead of C12.
    We watched as the C14 plummeted in rapid perfectly smooth curve.

    Now the massive excess of bomb infected air is nearly all gone. And C14 is almost back to the normal level of the last 50,000 years, according to ANSTO. What this means is that all the CO2 from 1965 has utterly disappeared. C14 cannot disappear. It is easily detected and lasts for 5400 years before it is half gone. So where has it gone? There’s only one place. The giant reservoir of CO2 in the deep ocean where it is only 2% of the total.

    As CO2 equilibrium levels are controlled by the ocean surface temperature only, the very idea that mankind is responsible in any way for world CO2 levels is anti science.

    So why is there 50% more CO2 in the last 120 years? Simple. The sun has been a bit stronger. And that is the only reason we can live on what would otherwise be a frozen lump of dirt. As Monty Pythons says, ultimately “the sun is the source of all our power”. The idea that CO2 has somehow warmed the oceans is desperately illogical, the reverse of the truth.

    Now everyone I have written to has ducked this. Climate Commissioner Chemist Dr. Will Steffen gave me no answere and just referred me to the IPCC. Of course.

    And the IPCC reports say that the man made CO2 either (a) stays in the air for thousands of years or (b) takes 80 years to be half absorbed. And they state without proof that the deep oceans cannot release CO2 for thousands of years, which is not our experience in life. Bubbles come from the bottom.

    Last week the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology spokesman replied to my letter that I am completely wrong (NON OFFICIAL), but is prepared to talk privately, if he can find the time and I can make it to his office in Canberra. Nice.

    The ABC science guy denied the whole idea and said I didn’t have a clue about radiation and C14.

    And everyone who disagrees with man made CO2 driven Global Warming wants to debate whether CO2 warms anything. Which is not the point.

    Equilibrium is a concept unknown to most non science people. Chemist Annie would know it. It is known to everyone who has studied chemistry. It’s why there are double arrows in a chemical equation.

    Release CO2 into the air and it just gets absorbed. In fact the more you release, the faster it vanishes. And Earth is 75% covered in very deep water at an average of 3.5km, which means 350x the weight of water and 1400x the heat capacity. Upper atmosphere scientists like James Hansen are missing the big picture on Climate. Sun and oceans. Otherwise it is a closed system. Gravity is our bottle top. Nothing escapes. A few men heading to the moon. The odd probe. And Helium.

    In 100 years, mankind has perhaps added 1% to the world’s CO2 in the closed system. And if, as the CSIRO admit, the world is greener, plants cover substantially more, why isn’t CO2 going down? Because the plants don’t count. We humans don’t count. The CO2 levels are set by equilibrium from a massive reservoir in the oceans.

    There is almost no man made CO2 in the air at any time. This is expected, provable and obvious science. CO2 levels are controlled by equilibrium, not us. Which is exactly why the UN,IPCC bang on about ‘emissions’ because if we really seriously believed excess CO2 warmed the planet and was man made, we would be measuring the impact $2Tn a year is having on CO2 levels. None at all.

    200

    • #
      Chad

      Isnt the contention from the warmists that the CO2 levels in the oceans are also increasing ?
      I have never seen any data to verify or disprove that

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        When all our output corresponds to only 1% of total CO2 and 98% of that is already in the oceans, it is fantasy. Henry’s Law tells us that how much gas is in water is not determined by anything but temperature. What science is being used to argue that hotter water absorbs more CO2 is not known. A mystery to me. But having seen all the bikini clad CO2 researchers on the island of Bora Bora, I was tempted to agree.

        50

    • #
      el gordo

      The fertilising effect of human induced emissions is clear to observe, CO2 falls close to where its emitted, with China and India leading the charge.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/28/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-today-than-20-years-ago-thanks-to-china-india/#c23f546e135b

      30

      • #
        TdeF

        Yes and I make the point repeatedly that CO2 is not a fertilizer. It is the food for all plants and becomes the plant. There is no hole around a 50 tonne Oak tree.

        CO2 and H2O and sunshine are all that is required, plus a few metals and nitrogen, a mix we call fertilizer but they would only add up to 1% of a tree. The rest is entirely CO2.

        The same with humans. Dried we burn like logs. “Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements: potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.”

        by mass by number
        Oxygen 65.0% 26
        Carbon 18.5% 10
        Hydrogen 9.5% 61
        Nitrogen 3.2% 1.5
        Calcium 1.5% 0.2

        Mathematically H2O would match the Oxygen and 52 out of 61 hydrogens to form water, from which 60-90% of the cells are made
        leaving 9 hydrogens and 10 carbons. CH chains from which the hydrocarbons are made.

        There is precious little room for anything else. We are basically trees. Like the Ents in Lord of the Rings.

        100

        • #
          TdeF

          Carbohydrates are literally ‘hydrated carbon dioxide’, the stuff of all life. The chemical formula is very simple (CO2)m(H2O)n. It means humans are pure pollution, emissions, to be eliminated as one English Professor just argued. Humans are the problem and need to disappear. I disagree. A large number of University Professors need to get a real job.

          100

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘It is the food for all plants and becomes the plant.’

          I like your reasoning, what we eat today walks and talks tomorrow.

          30

        • #
          Serp

          Would we burn well TdeF? Mummified cats were an object favoured for pitching into steamship furnaces; I warrant you’ll have us hacked into cat lengths before deployment as fuel. Mummified eh!

          10

    • #
      Aussie Pete

      TdeF
      Forgive me, I am not a scientist, just the man on the Clapham Omnibus. Very interested in your post but need some help where you say “Release CO2 into the air and it just gets absorbed. In fact the more you release, the faster it vanishes”.

      30

      • #
        TdeF

        Equilibrium is like a pendulum, the further from equilibrium you swing, the faster it comes back. Or the more out of balance it is, the more violent the return to zero.

        40

  • #
    David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

    Afternoon all,
    Morrison has announced a Royal Commission. Doesn’t sound good to me, but hope I’m wrong.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-20/bushfire-royal-commission-terms-set-hazard-reduction/11982764

    Cheers
    Dave B

    30

    • #
      TdeF

      It’s all politics, classic Yes Minister. The alternative is a committee of experts. All lawyers with one scientist present, perhaps Alan Finkel. And he knows what they want to hear, like all Chief Scientists in history.

      60

    • #
      Aussie Pete

      Neither the Federal Government in general nor Scott Morrison in particular had anything to do with the cause of the fires. The process of federal assistance to the States was found to be problematic if not archaic and Morrison did the best he could under circumstances well beyond his control. His RC should attend to those processes while the States should examine their own failures and accept responsibility where appropriate.

      40

  • #
    Lance

    Reality has the last laugh.

    In the interim, one is subject to an endless list of reasons why:

    Citizenry need governance
    Governance knows best
    Elect “US” and “we” will take “care” of “you”, but you will pay for it and we won’t.

    Experts know more rightly than you do about anything. Just ask them.
    We only hire “experts” and they all agree with whatever we pay them to say. Just ask them.

    In short, Liberty is sacrificed in small parts over some period of time until there isn’t any left.

    AU has less Liberty than ever in its history. As does the US or any Western nation.

    Affordable, Reliable, Sufficient, Energy isn’t a Government Allocation or Managed Resource. It is a Property Right of a Free and Independent People, At Liberty to Choose and Pay for what benefits them most by virtue of their own economic choices.

    All of the imaginary boogeymen and closet monsters are no justification for losing Liberty.

    At the next Election, please send the hucksters packing and reclaim your Liberty.

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      ‘emission’, climate, gender, LGBTI, racism, borders, immigration, white supremacism, explorers were imperialists and history is irrelevant. Everything in Western Democratic societies is under siege by the media and the universities, packed with people who all agree with each other that Western society is immoral, corrupt, racist and needs to be overthrown and the Boy Scouts should be wiped out because they outlawed gay Scout Leaders. And the basis of this attack is that they didn’t outlaw them early enough.

      90

    • #
      PeterS

      The Sphinx knows best. Be prepared to have your memory erased.

      30

    • #

      Affordable, Reliable, Sufficient, Energy isn’t a Government Allocation or Managed Resource. It is a Property Right of a Free and Independent People, At Liberty to Choose and Pay for what benefits them most by virtue of their own economic choices.

      It’s a lot like water now, access to electricity. It has become an absolute necessity for life. It always HAS to be there no matter what. You cannot do without it, from the very second you wake up in the morning, and if you wish to wake up at a set time, then you need that electrical power even while you sleep.

      It must be there, all the time.

      People are so complacent about it, and I understand that, as it’s not all that easy to understand, but the people are being fed incorrect information. My impression is that when the time comes when that correct information does get ‘out there’, (and it will eventually) then there will be a backlash against all those people who have given false information, and that might not be very pretty.

      At the moment, because it is always there, then the complacency continues. No one really wants to find out. It’s just like water. In fact even water needs electricity to bring it to your tap.

      Life revolves around access to electricity. When it stops, there’s nothing.

      Tony.

      130

      • #
        PeterS

        Hmmm, you make a good case for the nationalisation if energy and water supply. Well the armed forces are for national security reasons so why not energy and water? I’m certainly not an advocate of nationalisation of production and the like but perhaps there can be valid exceptions. Trouble is I like competition. Remember PMG? It was a disaster. I feel the only answer is to create a level playing field and let market forces do their job, with the condition that power and water MUST be reliable, affordable and available. Hang on a minute! Wasn’t that the platform the LNP used to launch their energy policy? What happened? They tell lies.

        10

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          PeterS,
          Sorry, I have to disagree.
          You seem to assume that nationalization leads to greater security of supply. In my hands-on experience, this is bass_ackwards.It is dangerous and negative to place more control in the hands of people with less competence, experience and accountability for failure.
          Here in Oz, we have a growing list of incompetencies, from the SA electricity case, to the non-nuclear submarine, to the bans on fracking in some States, to the effective bans on nuclear energy, the allowed growth of forest fuels, the loss of manufacturing in general and so on. Geoff S

          60

      • #
        Maptram

        I agree. Some time ago someone had the bright idea that water could be saved by catching water in a tank and using the water to flush the toilet. But the means of getting the water to the toilet is an electric pump which doesn’t work without electricity.

        30

        • #
          Another Ian

          “But the means of getting the water to the toilet is an electric pump which doesn’t work without electricity.”

          Amazing that.

          From experience with a rural house system which was originally rain water tanks and a gravity bore water system.

          A pressure pump tarts the system up no end. It also finds every weak point in the gravity system and you eventually get sick of leaks and replace the lot.

          Then you rot out a solar hot water system with bore water and have to go rainwater, which means a second pressure pump and pipe network. They have to be constant pressure ones if you don’t want a shower that scalds/freezes you as pressure tanks will.

          Then you find you’ve rotted out a second solar hot water system so we went Rinnai gas.

          Which all don’t work if the power is off, though we still get a trickle of cold water as the bore water side still has the old high tank and runs the higher demand side without a bucket brigade.

          And if you used rural grade poly pipe for that first upgrade after about 10 years that system starts to split the pipe at the fittings and you are back to leak chasing again. In our sandy loam it takes about 10,000 gallons to pinpoint a leak.

          And so we’ll likely have to replace that with metric poly.

          A friend’s summation of the difference between rural and urban living – he never realised how much time you spend in the bush looking after yourself.

          50

          • #
            robert rosicka

            We have two Rinnai gas hot water heaters and they are good , just dial up the temp you want so only one tap to turn on no mixing hot and cold .
            Saves a lot of water but yes out in the sticks it’s electric everything .

            10

            • #
              Another Ian

              There is another approach. One bloke out here put his tank on a 70 foot stand so no need for pressure pumps.

              He described in great detail how he got the tank up.

              One of his neighbours (with a wicked sense of humour) quietly commented

              “He did it twice you know. The first one blew off before he got water into it”

              40

  • #
    Bulldust

    The Great Barrier Reef has seconds left to live!!!1!1

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-20/scientists-warn-potential-bleaching-great-barrier-reef/11984626

    Even the greenies at the beeb felt the need to use scare quotes around “disaster.” Maybe they saw the move to remove the BBC licence fee and think ScoMo will get ideas.

    40

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    Response to another poster on an earlier thread, for the current questioner above”

    “Your uninformed comment exemplifies the whole problem brilliantly.

    As Jo says above;
    you are offering scientific opinion.

    I am sure that a thermodynamic analysis of the daily atmospheric churn created by the combined effects of the Earth’s rotation and exposure to the Sun is the answer.

    Three things;

    Temperature variations of the atmosphere over the 24 hour cycle show no evidence of the activity of that Devil Gas CO2.

    Known atmospheric physics places CO2 as an integral component of the “atmosphere” above 30 metres altitude.

    Below that point the “atmosphere” is picking up energy from conduction with the ground and possible absorption of ground origin IR, in the case of the greenhouse gases.

    Above 30 metres it is simply one component of a gas following the universal gas laws.

    Individually it cannot “trap” heat, it behaves exactly as one component among many until through convection it is at altitude where humans would freeze to death.

    Then things change and CO2 may unload any spare energy it holds as a gift to space.

    There’s no room in this process of solar induced atmospheric churn for CO2 to cause any kind of heating let alone “catastrophic” heating.

    My previous rough analysis under the title “IF” shows that CO2 is thermodynamically inconsequential.

    And that’s the troof.

    Any contention that CO2 is dangerous, made at this moment in human history, when we understand so much of the intricacies of science, is downright Evil and is evidence of massive corruption of our Democratic Process.

    What is the motive in all of this?

    KK

    90

    • #
      Brian

      Keith, that is an extremely amusing send-up of the pseudo-scientific rubbish found on dodgy sites. Very clever. Nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

      [ Instead of drive by inane comments maybe you could show KK where he is wrong, using science ] AD

      13

  • #
    pat

    19 Feb: Breitbart: Donald Trump: ‘Mini’ Mike Bloomberg ‘Hates the Farmer’
    by Charlie Spiering
    President Donald Trump on Wednesday met with farmers in California to discuss ongoing issues regarding water use rights, referring to disparaging comments about them made by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
    “Devin and Kevin set it up long before we heard that mini Mike hates the farmer,” Trump said as the crowd booed. “Long before we learned about his hatred of the farmer and disrespect of the farmer.”

    In a 2016 speech, Bloomberg mocked farmers as unskilled workers who were not suited for the modern world.
    “I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer,” Bloomberg said. “It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that.”
    Bloomberg said that the “information economy” required a different level of education.
    “You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter,” he said…

    Trump ridiculed Bloomberg but indicated that he did not think the former mayor of New York City would win the Democrat nomination.
    “I don’t know, I don’t think he’s going to be the candidate anyway, to be honest, we’ll have to start working on crazy Bernie pretty soon,” Trump said…
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/02/19/donald-trump-mini-mike-bloomberg-hates-the-farmer/

    wow. even Snopes has to admit it is correct:

    18 Feb: Snopes: Did Mike Bloomberg Say ‘Anybody Can Be a Farmer,’ Tech Work Requires ‘More Gray Matter’?
    South Dakota’s Republican governor accused the 2020 presidential candidate of “pompous ignorance” for remarks he made in 2016.
    by Dan MacGuill
    In 2016 Mike Bloomberg said he “could teach anybody to be a farmer” but information technology required “a lot more gray matter.”

    Rating: Correct attribution

    Bloomberg: We just — more and more, if you think about it, the agrarian society lasted 3,000 years, and we could teach processes.
    I could teach anybody — even people in this room, no offense intended — to be a farmer. It’s a [process]. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that. Then you have 300 years of the industrial society. You put the piece of metal on the lathe, you turn the crank in the direction of the arrow and you can have a job…
    Now comes the information economy. And the information economy is fundamentally different because it’s built around replacing people with technology, and the skill sets that you have to learn are how to think and analyze. And that is a whole degree level different. You have to have a different skill set, you have to have a lot more gray matter.

    Snopes invited Bloomberg’s presidential campaign to provide any background, context or additional information which might alter a viewer’s understanding of his remarks, and we also asked whether Bloomberg still stood by his comments and the manner in which he expressed his arguments during the Oxford speech.
    In a statement, a spokesperson said: “Mike wasn’t talking about today’s farmers at all,” and highlighted the fact that Bloomberg mentioned “3,000 years” of the “agrarian society.” However, this claim does not comport with the fact that Bloomberg was clearly speaking in the present tense about farming and low-skilled industrial labor, and the present-day dilemma of how to provide a new skill set to “those that are already out in the work force.”
    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bloomberg-farmers-gray-matter/

    40

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Re-posting from Climate Etc blog, this reference by Phil Salmon (above in Climate Etc) needs to be read because it has the potential to alter some fundamental ideas about the mechanisms of heating of gases including greenhouse gases.
    https://www.allphyscon.ch/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Allmendinger_Behaviour-of-Gases_IJPS-rev.pdf

    The last part of author Allmendinger’s conclusions is “Surprisingly, and contrary to the expectation of the greenhouse theory, the limiting temperatures of air,
    pure carbon-dioxide and argon were nearly equal, while
    the light gases neon, and particularly helium, exhibited
    significant lower limiting temperatures. Thanks to this
    empirical evidence, the greenhouse theory has to be
    questioned. Instead, the warming-up of the lowest layer
    of the troposphere has to be understood as the result of
    the warming-up of the Earth’s surface, mainly
    depending on its albedo (Barrett, 1995). ”

    Papers like this with a capacity to make or break entrenched ideas deserve expert commentary and responsible follow-up. Geoff S

    40

  • #
    Another Ian

    I see that Queensland has signed up for megabucks for their very own flying tanker for fire fighting.

    On which basis I might upgrade my agricultural prognosis.

    I had already gone biblical, as we must have har the seven lean years just past and was looking forward to the seven fat ones.

    Now the hiring of that tanker likely means the fat seasons are coming and it will sit and cost as with most government enthusiasms.

    On the Hanrahan side the fat seasons will promote production of fuel load for the next “unprecidented fire season (UPFS)”.

    But by then the bean counters will have deemed the tanker wasted expense, so it will be cracked off just before the next “UPFS”

    40

  • #
    pat

    ***how differently the authorities treat protesters who oppose CAGW policies:

    19 Feb: NYT: Dutch Farmers Protest in The Hague Against Emissions Policy
    By The Associated Press (Mike Corder)
    THE HAGUE, Netherlands — Thousands of angry Dutch farmers converged on The Hague on Wednesday in the latest protest against the government’s plans to rein in emissions of nitrogen oxide.

    As tractors poured into the city, ***the Dutch military parked large trucks across strategic roads to prevent farmers from driving into the business and shopping center…

    The demonstration comes a day before a debate in parliament on how to rein in emissions of the pollutant nitrogen oxide. Farmers believe they are being disproportionately targeted by lawmakers, saying that aviation, construction and other industries also are major polluters.
    “Our government sweeps farmers from the countryside and plants houses on the places where farmers’ barns are demolished and memories of agriculture are erased,” Van Keimpema said.
    Ype Reinsma, a farmer who traveled to the protest from the northern province of Friesland, said lawmakers should “give the sector a chance to use far more effective ways to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, which we’ve already been doing for years,” said .
    “Why is everything aimed at the farmers?” he added…

    Police issued tickets to a small number of farmers across the Netherlands for driving their tractors on highways and police in The Hague arrested a 33-year-old protester for ignoring their instructions and creating “a dangerous situation on the road.”Another man was detained at the end of the protest as police blocked roads to prevent a couple hundred demonstrators approaching the agriculture ministry…

    ***Among measures being considered by the government are a multi-million euro fund to buy out farmers who voluntarily want to close their farms and moves to encourage the modernization of farms…

    Farmers argue that the government’s plans are based on inaccurate readings and calculations by the government-funded National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. New measurements are set to be released on Thursday…

    The Dutch farming lobby is powerful because of the economic significance of agriculture to the economy. The Dutch farmers’ organization, LTO, says exports from the country’s nearly 54,000 farms and agriculture businesses were worth 90.3 billion euros ($98.3 billion) in 2018.
    https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2020/02/19/business/ap-eu-netherlands-farmers-protest.html

    60

    • #
      pat

      again, note the double standards when it comes to anti-fossil fuel protesters!

      19 Feb: Hotair: Canadian rail companies lay off more than 1000 workers, court grants injunction against protests
      by John Sexton
      Canadian rail companies have announced temporary layoffs because of the ongoing protests against a natural gas pipeline which has shut down much of the country’s rail system for nearly two weeks. Today, VIA Rail announced it would lay off 1,000 workers (LINK)…

      That’s the second set of layoffs announced this week. Yesterday, CN Rail said it would lay off 450 employees (LINK)…

      There’s no immediate sign that protesters intend to stop blocking rail lines but even if they did it would take weeks for industries dependent on rail transportation to recover. Already business groups are warning of massive losses as a result of the blockade (LINK)…

      Protesters have said they won’t stop until both police and construction workers leave the site where a natural gas pipeline is being built. A court order issued in December said construction workers had to be given access to the site but protesters have been setting up roadblocks anyway. The RCMP came in and arrested some protesters but now the situation once again seems to be a stalemate. Yesterday Prime Minister Trudeau called for patience (LINK) so the two sides can negotiate a solution.

      That’s easy for Trudeau to say because he’s not going to lose his job (at least not immediately) if this drags on for another week or two. The same can be said for the protesters sitting outside to block the rail lines. But for the 1,450 people who were laid off this week, the situation is a bit more serious.

      As I’m writing this, I see that CN Rail has apparently received some sort of injunction from a judge. Police were on hand as protesters were served the injunction and the material placed on the tracks was removed by counter-protesters…READ ON
      https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/02/19/canadian-rail-companies-lay-off-1000-workers/

      50

  • #
    sophocles

    Finally got an unobstructed view of Orion tonight.
    Rigel and Saiph were in the clear.
    Bellatrix looked as though it was dim in sympathy with Betelgeuse but it could have been a bit of high level haze. Whatever it was, it didn’t go away while I was watching.
    Betelgeuse is still quite dim. Quite a change.

    40

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Another passenger train derailed between Melbourne and Wodonga , last one was around three weeks ago which closed the tracks for a few weeks .
    100′s of millions upgrading the track not that long ago and it mostly all needs to be ripped up or fixed at a cost of probably 100′s of millions more .

    60

  • #
    pat

    who says the CAGW mob are all doom and gloom?

    VIDEO: 3m06s: 19 Feb: BBC: How overseas stag parties are hurting the environment
    About half of the flights taken last year by 20-45 year-old men were for stag dos, and that generates a lot of emissions. So what can be done?
    https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-51546085/how-overseas-stag-parties-are-hurting-the-environment

    behind paywall:

    Stag-do explorers leave a big carbon hoofprint
    UK Times – 19 Feb 2020
    Do you need to fly a thousand miles for a pub crawl and watch your friend make a fool of himself in a frilly dress? That is what the environmental charity Hubbub is asking people who fly abroad on stag and hen dos after uncovering their carbon footprints…

    seems UK Times thought it warranted an editorial:

    The Times view on the carbon footprint of stag dos
    UK Times Editorial – 19 Feb 2020
    A new survey points to an easy way for the UK to shrink its carbon footprint. It finds that just under half the flights taken by men aged 20 to 45 in 2019 were for stag dos…
    Surely some stags can be persuaded to celebrate in Britain instead. After all, the UK has plenty to offer the discerning lad on tour…

    19 Feb: BusinessGreen: Should stags and hens fly? Study shows how pre-wedding trips are fuelling Britain’s flying habit
    by Michael Holder
    The British trend for celebrating stag and hen parties in foreign climes is fuelling carbon-intensive flying habits, yet many reluctant participants regard taking weekend trips abroad as an expensive and unnecessary folly, polling commissioned by environmental charity Hubbub has revealed.

    A survey of 2,000 young adults carried out late last year by Censuswide found nearly half of all flights taken by men aged between 20 and 45 were solely for stag dos, while just over a third of flights taken by women in the same age bracket were for hen parties, results released yesterday show…

    Indeed, a third of those polled felt resentful about the high cost of flying abroad, with the research revealing an average spend of £421 per person for a foreign trip, compared to £261 for UK-based stag or hen party, Hubbub said.
    In fact, 60 per cent of people in the survey said they would prefer to go on stag or hen dos within the UK, due to domestic trips being cheaper and easier, as well as offering more flexibility, the survey found…

    Working with US climate offset specialists ***Carbon Credit Capital, the charity calculated that if 10 people opted to travel from London to Brighton rather than Barcelona for a stag or hen do, it could reduce their carbon emissions by as much as 98 per cent. That is the equivalent of one person in the group switching to a vegan diet for 2.2 years, or avoiding driving a petrol or diesel car for 1.4 years, it said.

    The new campaign from the charity – dubbed Why Wing It? – comes amid growing concern about the impact of flying on the climate, with the global aviation sector estimated to be responsible for around two per cent of global emissions and rising, although when the impact of plane contrails are taken into account the figure could be as high as 3.5 per cent.
    Decarbonising flight is a major challenge however as low carbon fuels and technologies remain in their infancy…

    ***The survey results mark the start of a series of campaigns on the issue, said the charity, which is also supporting calls for a ‘frequent flier levy’ that would see people who fly the most pay a higher charge…

    The move comes amidst growing predictions from airlines and investors that the fledgling ‘flight shame’ movement, which sees people consciously reduce the number of flights they take in response to environment concerns, could quickly expand and impact future demand for aviation.
    https://www.businessgreen.com/news/4011071/stags-hens-fly-study-pre-wedding-trips-fuelling-britain-flying-habit

    10

  • #
    pat

    read all. full-on Reuters’ CAGW activism:

    20 Feb: Reuters: Fires and climate fears rattle Australia’s giant coal lobby
    by Joe Brock in Sydney and Melanie Burton in Melbourne; Additional reporting by Simon Jessop in London
    SYDNEY – As bushfires and floods fuel public concerns in Australia about global warming, the country’s powerful mining lobby is facing increasing pressure from investors to drop support for new coal mines, according to a dozen interviews with shareholders in global mining companies…
    Australia’s devastating bushfire season has fueled public anger toward powerful lobby groups that support new coal mines, such as the Minerals Council of Australia (MCA) and New South Wales (NSW) Minerals Council, and their close association with Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s government…

    While some in Australia remain skeptical of a human connection to global warming, the devastating fires that raged across the country recently are hardening public attitudes against coal.
    A survey of 1,056 respondents in a new poll taken between Feb. 6 and Feb. 9 by Essential Research, a leading market research firm, found that 62% of Australians favored banning political donations from fossil fuel companies, with the same number opposed to new coal mines.

    In a November 2019 poll by Essential Research, 60% of respondents said they thought Australia was not doing enough to address climate change, up from 51% in March…READ ALL
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-australia-lobbying-ins/fires-and-climate-fears-rattle-australias-giant-coal-lobby-idUSKBN20E0FE

    30

  • #

    Most airports closed by 2030!

    This should get people’s attention. Same for all other countries of course.

    David

    https://climatenewsnetwork.net/uk-airports-must-shut-to-reach-2050-climate-target/
    UK airports must shut to reach 2050 climate target
    February 18th, 2020, by Paul Brown
    All UK airports must close by 2050 for the country to reach its target of net zero climate emissions by then, scientists say.
    LONDON, 18 February, 2020 − If it is to achieve its target of net zero climate emissions by 2050, all UK airports must close by mid-century and the country will have to make other drastic and fundamental lifestyle changes, says a report from a research group backed by the government in London.
    With the UK due to host this year’s round of crucial UN climate talks in Glasgow in November, a group of academics has embarrassed the British government by showing it has currently no chance of meeting its own legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to nothing within 30 years.
    Their report, Absolute Zero, published by the University of Cambridge, says no amount of government or public wishful thinking will hide the fact that the country will not reach zero emissions by 2050 without barely conceivable changes to policies, industrial processes and lifestyles. Its authors include colleagues from five other British universities.
    All are members of a group from UK Fires, a research programme sponsored by the UK government, aiming to support a 20% cut in the country’s true emissions by 2050 by placing resource efficiency at the heart of its future industrial strategy. The report was paid for under the UK Fires programme.
    As well as a temporary halt to flying, the report also says British people cannot go on driving heavier cars and turning up the heating in their homes.
    “The UK is responsible for all emissions caused by its purchasing, including imported goods, international flights and shipping”
    The government, industry and the public, it says, cannot continue to indulge themselves in these ways in the belief that new technologies will somehow save them – everyone will have to work together change their way of life.
    Because electric or zero-emission aircraft cannot be developed in time, most British airports will need to close by the end of this decade, and all flying will have to stop by 2050 until non-polluting versions are available.
    Electrification of surface transport, rail and road, needs to be rapid, with the phasing out of all development of petrol and diesel cars immediately. Even if all private cars are electric, the amount of traffic will have to fall to 60% of 2020 levels by 2050, and all cars will have to be smaller.
    The report also suggests that ships, currently heavy users of fossil fuels, need to convert to electric propulsion in order to allow for necessary imports and exports.
    Not enough time
    The reasoning behind the report is that technologies to cut greenhouse gas emissions, like carbon capture and storage, will not be developed in time and on a large enough scale to make a difference to emission reductions by 2050.
    Nor is it any use exporting energy-intensive industries like steel-making, because the emissions will still take place abroad.
    Instead, homegrown industries need to be developed that use no fossil fuels but are powered by electricity. The report says blast furnaces need to be phased out and replaced by existing technologies that recycle steel using renewable electricity.
    It calls for public debate and discussion about the lifestyle changes that will be essential. Although such luxuries as flying away on holiday and driving large cars will have to be foregone, and eating beef and lamb curtailed, the scientists say that life could be just as rich as today.
    They say: “… sports, social life, eating, hobbies, games, computing, reading, TV, music, radio, volunteering (and sleeping!) We can all do more of these without any impact on emissions”.
    Offsets won’t work
    They want the public to help by lobbying for airport closures, more trains, no new roads and more renewable electricity.
    The report insists that the government should not try to hide any of its emissions by importing goods: “The UK is responsible for all emissions caused by its purchasing, including imported goods, international flights and shipping.”
    Nor can there be any meaningful “carbon offsets.” The only short-term option we have of reducing emissions – at least by 2050 – is to plant trees. “Even a massive increase in forestry would only have a small effect compared to today’s emissions.”
    The authors comment: “There are no invisible solutions to climate change. We urgently need to engage everyone in the process of delivering the changes that will lead to zero emissions.” − Climate News Network

    70

    • #

      Here is the Absolute Zero report:
      https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/299414/Absolute-Zero-digital-280120-v2.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y

      This Absolute Zero report really helps show how nuts Net Zero is. Absolutely nuts.

      It is not getting much press play so I am sending this article to folks in the airline industry. As I have been pointing out for some time, there are now two different alarmist camps, which I call the moderates and the Action Now radicals. The airline industry had a 2050 net zero deal with the moderates. It uses 30% offsets and unproven technologies, like bio jet fuel. The Absolute Zero report is part of the radicals rejecting that deal. Greta’s gorillas.

      BoJo wants to make 2050 net zero the focus of COP 26 in Glasgow. With 20,000 people flying in for it they may think again. The hypocrisy is hilarious.

      70

  • #

    Battery powered junk:
    https://www.energy-storage.news/news/rio-tinto-becomes-latest-mining-giant-to-tap-solar-plus-storage

    “Mining giant Rio Tinto is to develop a large-scale solar-plus-storage system at an iron ore mine in Western Australia, continuing a trend of hybrid renewables-plus-storage projects in the region. Announced earlier this week, Rio Tinto is to combine 34MW of solar PV with a 12MWh energy storage system at a cost of US$98 million.”

    20 minutes of storage is not backup.

    70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      That Press Release (and that’s all it is) says “The storage facility will be constructed in the nearby town of Tom Price and will provide spinning reserve generating capacity.”

      What will be spinning, the solar panels or the battery?

      60

      • #

        Very funny! They probably mean grid stabilization but do not want to mention that touchy issue.

        30

      • #
        Brian

        The spinning reserve are the gas and diesel generators included in the system that have the capacity to provide all the mine’s power requirements. The battery storage provides a short term backup and is necessary to compensate for variable renewables output. Basically the installation reflects the need for renewables to be backed uo with baseload.

        30

        • #

          Given that solar only generates about 8 hours a day the base load is not backup, it is front up. Unless the mine only operates one 8 hour shift a day.

          30

          • #
            Geoff Sherrington

            DW,

            Back in the 1980s, my employer ran a number of mines including the Robe River iron mine in the Pilbara of WA. Through accidents of historical development timing, we ended up with ownership of the fossil fuelled power station that supplied the whole of the Pilbara through an adequate grid.
            We then had some luminaries like Charles Copeman AO, Herb Larratt, Dr Ernest Miller, Ian Macrae and several others managing union discontent. Something was bound to come to a head. It did.
            One weeked in August 1986 IIRC, there was a lightning strike at a sub-station that tripped an electrical overload switch. One of the mine staff wandered into the shed and flicked the switch back on. Horrors! Demarcation! This was an act only a unionist could do. So the union called a strike.
            After fruitless negotiations, Charles as CEO of Peko-Wallsend (my mob) decided to sack the whole 1,200 workforce at Robe River, with the rider that all could return if they agreed to have no further action involving unions. In the outcome, most of them did re-enlist under these terms. Productivity shot up, profits were up 40% in 2 years and the safety record went well under half of previous.

            In those days, there was no sissy business about girlie renewables. Fossil fuel developed our national wealth in the outback then and it will do so in the future. I pine for strong managers. They seem absent on duty these days. Geoff S

            60

        • #
          Graeme#4

          Lots of gas at reasonable cost to power everything in the Pilbara. The NW grid is totally separate from WA’s SW grid.

          20

  • #
  • #
    AndyG55

    China and India .. a run-away Coal Train :-)

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/20/china-and-india-rejecting-renewables-for-coal-fired-futures/

    600+ new ones on the drawing board.

    And Australian politicians are SO STOOOPID they won’t even build 2 or 3 new ones to stabilise the electricity supply

    DUMB !!

    60

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      DUMB is such an appropriate word and not only for describing the politicians but also for the voters who put them in.

      Voters have to think outside the square.

      KK

      20

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    This post reveals the massive resources available through academia, politics and the media to provide ongoing distraction from the real issue.

    The fact is that core issue of CO2 Potency in the Atmosphere is chronically avoided by the Climate Change > Global Warming Political Industrial Complex and this avoidance has a reason associated more with the maintenance of a superior publicly funded lifestyle than with any concern for the environment.

    The recent appearance of the Group of Retired Firechiefs is but the latest mob who see a life of well funded international conferences ahead of them, all at public expense.

    There’s little doubt that CO2 is a thermodynamicly impotent component of the atmosphere even if the weird “heat trapping and water amplification” mechanisms were real;
    and they aren’t.

    Let’s try a little “thoughtie” to get an overview. Most of us old white men played marbles as kids: before TV and mobile phones were invented. Let’s imagine 10,000 marbles all at room temperature, and put them in a plastic sealable container. Now we boil up some water in a Billy can and carefully set 4 marbles in the boiling water until they are at 100°C. Scoop them out, add them to the other 10,000, seal the container and agitate gently. After 10 minutes remove several marbles and take their temperature with a modern thermometer “gun”.

    Imagine!

    In reality the CO2 in the atmosphere is constrained by the well established PV=nRt relationship; it’s just a small component of a gas known as the Atmosphere.

    Any proper scientific analysis would show that the CO2 meme is junk science: but an outstanding propaganda coup for the troubling, gouging, skimming Elites.

    MalEx444 thanks you for your indulgence.

    KK

    [KK - this became quite unrelated to the thread about jet streams. Please be careful to keep the top #5 comments relevant!@ - Jo]

    241

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      “troubling” arrh. troughing.

      20

    • #
      Brian

      I am having difficulty following your ideal gas law and marble analogy with respect to infrared active molecules aka greenhouse gasses Keith. I agree completely that the ideal gas law applies to the atmosphere as a first order approximation but it is based on the kinetic energy with respect to elastic molecule collisions and does not encompass the re-radiation of energy from CO2, water vapor etc. Oh there will be some transfer of absorbed energy from collision but the overwhelming process is radiation.

      14

      • #
        farmerbraun

        “Overwhelming”.

        So, worse than we thought?

        30

      • #
        toorightmate

        Brian,
        I think you have nailed it.
        The Laws of Thermodynamics, Charles, Boyle and Einstein all wrong. Bloody nincompoops.

        40

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Yes, I can see you are having difficulty.

        20

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        For the “difficult” among us just imagine that the “marbles” were drops of water, each the size of a marble.

        To the plastic container, add 10,000 drops of marble water, then add the “boiled” drops, 4 only. Shake gently so that the drops iniquity and mix well.

        Are you seriously going to tell me that a thermometer placed in the water is going to register any change. Try litre of water and 0.4 ml of boiled water mixed. Seriously.

        The IPCCCCC are trying to tell us that 400 molecules in one million is significant?

        To make things worser for the UNIPCCC, only 16 of those 400 are of human origin.

        In marble terms, that’s 0.16 human marbles.

        If you believe that 0.16 human marbles in 10,000 is dangerous the someone has lost their marbles.

        KK

        80

        • #
          robert rosicka

          I just love this clear and simple analogy KK , thank you and mind if I steal it .

          50

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Thanks.

            30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            But Robert, there’s more.

            In real life the CO2 marble don’t actually heat up once they leave the immediate surface. By that I mean they don’t heat up any more than the other atmospheric gases surrounding them.

            Andy could be more specific there. Conduction with ground/water surfaces is the basic atmospheric heating mechanism?

            20

        • #
          mobihci

          400ppm is not insignificant. the starting point should be 4% of the atmosphere which are watervapour etc at the highest in the tropics to the low at the poles. then you must consider that Co2 has some important absorption lines on its spectrum ie the 15um notch at which it will absorb much better than water vapour and is already nearly saturated. more Co2 will just increase the edges of this notch until it is completely saturated.

          so while 4 in 100 would still look like a small amount, if you picture that water vapour could only be double Co2 and the Co2 marble itself is larger. water vapour is more important because of its broader spectrum and will always trap more heat, but Co2 has a some very important narrow lines that cant be ignored in the atmosphere.

          06

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            No: it’s 4 in 10,000 of which only 0.16 is of human origin and 3.84 is nature big noting itself.

            The rest is equally wrong and totally incoherent.

            But thanks anyhow.

            KK

            40

            • #

              KK – be careful with simple arguments purely based on size/ proportions. C’mon. If it were that simple the debate would be over.

              Little things can cause great damage.
              Eg Ricin: The inhalation median lethal dose (LD50) is 3-5 µg/kg. That’s 0.005ppm.

              Tiny things repeated over vast areas and long times can cause great damage.
              Eg. running water destroys granite.

              An extra 3W of energy per meter2 continuously accumulating hour after hour, year after year of thousands of sq km would become a problem.

              I thought this line of the debate was long past done. I’m with mobichi. Co2 does absorb infra red. It does warm some parts of the atmosphere. The thing that matters is how the atmosphere responds to this and whether that energy accumulates or mostly escapes.

              The dominant role of water vapor is a worthy line of attack. The simple amount of CO2 is not.

              14

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Can anybody see anything coherent or meaningful in this?
            It seems to be just an agglomeration of “ideas” that loosely fit together.

            KK

            00

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Six days, give or take, have gone by and I am still astounded at the impact that this comment and it’s follow-up have had on me.

            10

            • #
              robert rosicka

              Cheer up KK I’ve learned a lot from you and others since I started visiting this blog , and originally I was a believer in whatever the media said about CAGW .
              I now believe that although CO2 levels are low that any effect of warming would be insignificant .

              10

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                Thanks Robert.

                We all learn from each other.

                It pains me to see Australia in the situation it’s in.

                I’m currently in Vietnam, 90 plus million people and everyone seems to have something to do that gives them purpose for each day.

                In Australia the government bought millions of votes by telling everyone they are intelligent and sending them off to university.
                Enough said there.

                Reality avoidance at work that doesn’t help the individual or the country.

                Back in Vietnam most people seem content but of course I don’t get the full picture. There’s corruption at high levels but personal safety is good because the government insists very strongly that they want it.
                The tourist dollars are important.

                Back to the atmosphere; I’ve collected some Cp and Cv values for air and CO2 at stp and when I get some time I’ll try to fit it together.

                KK

                20

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                The main thing that is confusing for me is the absorption of energy from the ground.

                Which mechanism, ground conduction or IR absorption is active.
                Once a parcel of the atmosphere has absorbed enough energy to expand, lose density and begin rising, it becomes that coherent mass of air that I assume is bound to follow the PV=nRt guidelines.

                Previously I’ve ignored focusing on the ground exchange process but I remember Andy mentioning stuff that was relevant to this.

                It’s a big thing when you look into it.

                KK

                10

              • #
                robert rosicka

                It does my head in too which is why I rely on the likes of people such as yourself and even Peter who gives the AGW side .
                Trouble is the debate gets heated sometimes which then ruins the value of what is being said but I do love the debate side of it which helps me form an informed opinion rather than just agree because I believe now that CAGW is pure religion nothing more .

                10

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            Mobihci,
            One of the things that differentiates atmospheric water from CO2 is that it undergoes phase changes at various points in the atmosphere.

            CO2 is bound by the thermodynamic constraints imposed on it by its partners in the atmosphere.

            It cannot just suck in more IR energy from the ground and carry that extra energy around. It is forced to immediately equilibrate with its surrounds.

            Some of your numbers become confused when you are variously describing water and later CO2.

            The whole point of the noise surrounding CO2 in the atmosphere is that it can somehow trap heat and disperse it to ground later. CO2 must be in equilibrium with all its neighbours.

            KK

            00

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              The only point that needs emphasising about CO2 “IF” it selectively absorbed ground origin IR once above ground is this: It cannot hold onto or trap that “heat”.

              Equilibration with surrounding “air” molecules must be immediate, this gives rise to warming and consequent expansion of the parcel of atmosphere involved, which leads to vertical movement of that parcel: convection.

              The moving parcel will rise until it reaches surrounding air at the same level of internal energy aka the same temperature.

              Given that in this scenario it is obvious that the temperature of the gas parcel is in a process of reduction, it is ridiculous to suggest that stored “photons” are going to be sprayed towards the ground to cause any amount of the magical “Global Warming”.

              KK

              00

      • #
        AndyG55

        Data proves that the gas laws are the over-riding control of the atmosphere.

        There is no case or evidence to be made for warming by atmospheric CO2.

        It is simply not possible in a gravity thermal controlled atmosphere.

        10

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Thank you for that final and definitive statement Andy.

          One component of the atmosphere cannot take in more energy than the controlling environment determines.

          KK

          10

  • #
    william x

    We are going to get a Royal commission into the Australian Bushfires.

    Scott Morrison Quoted below

    “This royal commission accepts, it acknowledges, it understands the impact of climate change more broadly on the climatic conditions that Australia is living in,” Mr Morrison said in Sydney.

    “What this royal commission is looking at are the practical things that must be done to keep Australians safer and safe in longer, hotter, drier summers, in the conditions in which Australians will live into the future.”

    end quote.

    It disappoints me that “climate change” is already accepted that it is a cause.

    I believe the royal commission is already a lame duck. To make an assumption that climate change is a driving factor in the bushfires before any investigation by the commissioners is a gross dereliction in investigative process.

    Councils, State and Federal governments and their agencies will not be held accountable as they have already found their scapegoat.

    This is totally wrong. All cause and effect needs to be thoroughly investigated. Nothing should be assumed beforehand as it can prejudice judgement and findings. I believe the RC will not be a report that finds the truth. I fear that It will be a report that protects the backsides of those that may be responsible.

    I have seen it before.

    I despair.

    30