JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

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



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Weekend Unthreaded

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.0/10 (13 votes cast)
Weekend Unthreaded, 8.0 out of 10 based on 13 ratings

178 comments to Weekend Unthreaded

  • #
    Don B

    You may not be as interested in US politics as some people are, but you might be interested in the media not reporting the biggest political story in the history of the United States.

    The video starts about 7 minutes in, and the good stuff is until about 25 minutes.

    https://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/09/26/will-the-majority-of-americans-see-through-the-fraud-attempt-of-biden-co/

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes, Biden is clearly just a stooge. Also memory holes are in full operation. It’s sad that they (and us too) have reached that stage so easily. Still, it takes two to tango. It appears more and more people have turned their brains off when it comes to politics, and rely too much on MSM for their source of reality. Western societies are becoming sicker and sicker. Let’s wait and see how far American voters have gone down the plug hole when the election is over. A landslide victory for Trump would prove the American psyche is still fine and they are climbing out of the plug hole. A landslide victory for Biden would prove the American psyche has deteriorated much more than I expected, and they are well and truly down the plug hole with little hope of escaping a crash and burn scenario.

      101

    • #
      Peter C

      Don B,

      I think you should have given a summary of that story. Consequently very few people watched it.

      the biggest political story in the history of the United States.

      Here is my very brief take. The video is by Scott Adams, a cartoonist who writes/draws the Dilbert cartoons. He is interested in politics. Until recently he was unconvinced by the story that a small cabal of people in the DOJ and the Intelligence Agencies actually tried to take down the elected President of the United States.

      However he has been looking at the documents and he has come to the conclusion that it is the Biggest Story in the History of the United States! But it is not the BSITHOTUS because the main stream leftist media has colluded and refuses to cover the story in any way. Consequently the story does not exist because the right side media is so weak. He names John Brennan (chief of the CIA) as the principal conspirator.

      For anyone who wants to see those documents some of them are exposed and collated here:
      https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/09/25/robert-mueller-investigative-agent-recently-testified-special-counsel-operation-was-intended-to-get-trump/

      50

  • #
    RicDre

    10 of 10 “highest-generating U.S. power plants were” not renewables.

    According to U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) data on power plant operations, 9 of the 10 U.S. power plants that generated the most electricity in 2019 were nuclear plants. These 10 plants generated a combined 230 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2019, accounting for 5.6% of all electricity generation in the United States.

    In 2010, the top 10 highest-generating power plants in the United States were a mix of nuclear and coal-fired generators.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/25/10-of-10-highest-generating-u-s-power-plants-were-not-renewables/

    60

    • #
      Graeme4

      The comments also include an updated list of domestic electricity costs around the world, which is a handy reference to compare Australia’s domestic energy costs.

      30

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I love this….

      https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/the-death-of-coal-has-been-greatly-exaggerated

      “According to the Global Infrastructure Hub USD$3.3 trillion will be spent on infrastructure within the next ten years.

      “Of this amount, over USD$420 billion is earmarked for rail, USD$71billion will be spent on building new / upgrading existing ports and USD$1.1 trillion will go towards building out the energy grid.

      “Interestingly, the consensus is that these figures aren’t anywhere near enough, with an identified global gap of USD$600 billion between now and 2030 across all major infrastructure sectors.

      10

  • #
    RicDre

    Wind turbines generate mountains of waste

    Environmentalists and wind energy opportunists (entrepreneurs who take advantage of overly generous tax credits and multiple other subsidies) want you to believe wind energy is as pure “green” as newly driven snow is white, and as cheap as Taco Bell.

    They never tell you about the costs – or the environmental destruction – that they have hidden from you for decades. But neither do most governments, news media or social media.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/26/wind-turbines-generate-mountains-of-waste/

    100

  • #
    Jojodogfacedboy

    And they now are DEMANDING more and more in towns and cities in Canada.
    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/09/26/disturbing-news-from-sudbury/
    Give me money…more and more.
    Putting the inclusion of other groups with the BLM demands, they will probably get it as it is what PM Trudeau wants as well.
    Extra grants and funding usually follows to what Trudeau wants.
    Such a corrupted system.

    20

  • #
  • #
    • #
      PeterS

      Even the simpler explanations will be rejected by those who believe strongly in the CAGW and other climate change nonsense. It’s called the illusory truth effect. It’s the same effect that’s making more and more people believe the earth is flat and doubt the manned moon landings ever happened. It’s in effect the same as the idea if a lie is repeated often enough more and more people will believe it to be true. Given the lies being told by the MSM, politicians and our schools have been coming out thick and fast, the real truth is now replaced by an illusionary truth. Add to the mix memory holes, which are now in full operation, anyone who can see through all this can understand why things are going pear shaped so rapidly. Even very intelligent people can be fooled into believing the lies. It’s hard for many to go against the tide. The real truth no longer matters to many people.

      70

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      There are some “girls” here too.

      10

    • #
      el gordo

      If the molecules don’t vibrate then the global warming fraternity have nothing to hang their hat on. Its essentially the core of the argument, but unlikely to get a run in the MSM.

      30

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      That’s interesting.

      Haven’t read any of Willis’s material before so am not sure where he’s going with the theory.
      Is he poking fun at the CAGW movement because it sounds like an analogy for the so called Atmospheric Greenhouse theory?

      At the moment the bigger picture is one of equilibrium when the full system is considered.

      The Earth’s core is almost 6,000°C at its highest and at the other extreme of the system surrounding space is one degree or so above absolute zero, which is minus 273.16C°.

      Midway between hot core and surrounding space, Earth’s surface seems to be at relative equilibrium with any fluctuations being controlled by the daily on off solar input and seasonal changes due to orbital mechanics.

      The transfer across the boundary at Earth’s surface is hard to estimate but core energy loss at the surface is given as about 0.1 W/m2.

      Not sure what Willis is trying to say in this picture he’s painted.

      KK

      00

      • #

        “but core energy loss at the surface is given as about 0.1 W/m2″

        The conductive heat flux of ~0.1 W/m^2 is not the “energy loss at the surface”. It’s a heat flux at some average depth. What depth? We are not told. What’s the temperature there? We’re not told.

        As for Willis: he’s making excuses FOR the greenhouse effect, which doesn’t exist, using fake physics, which doesn’t exist.

        85

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          “The conductive heat flux of ~0.1 W/m^2 is not the “energy loss at the surface”. It’s a heat flux at some average depth. ”

          Zoe, hello.

          So, conductive heat flux is present but somehow it stops just below the surface.

          If it didn’t transfer that moving energy onwards there could be No, Nil internal conduction.

          Good luck.

          10

          • #

            No, Keith, conduction stops at the surface.

            Keith, look at all the different profiles which have the same conductive heat flux:

            https://phzoe.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/geohf.gif?w=740

            Don’t you think they all have different consequences for the temperature at the surface?

            21

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Zoe, without a potential energy difference, created by the transfer of energy across the Earth/Air boundary there can be No Conduction.

              20

              • #

                You place a 1 cm thick piece of steel on top of an electric stove set to 204 degrees C. It’s big enough to cover the whole top coil. The bottom is guaranteed to be 204 degrees C.

                The conductivity coefficient is always constant 50 W/m/K. The conductive heat flux was measured to be 250 W/m^2.

                2 questions:

                What’s the final temperature at the top of steel slab?

                What will the top emit? (emissivity = 1)

                31

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      That’s interesting.

      Haven’t read any of Willis’s material before so am not sure where he’s going with the theory.
      Is he poking fun at the CAGW movement because it sounds like an analogy for the so called Atmospheric Greenhouse theory?

      At the moment the bigger picture is one of equilibrium when the full system is considered.

      The Earth’s core is almost 6,000°C at its highest and at the other extreme of the system surrounding space is one degree or so above absolute zero, which is minus 273.16C°.

      Midway between hot core and surrounding space, Earth’s surface seems to be at relative equilibrium with any fluctuations being controlled by the daily on off solar input and seasonal changes due to orbital mechanics.

      The transfer across the boundary at Earth’s surface is hard to estimate but core energy loss at the surface is given as about 0.1 W/m2.

      Not sure what Willis is trying to say in this picture he’s painted.

      KK

      10

      • #
        Another Ian

        Most recent Willis I’ve seen

        “Watts Available”

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/23/watts-available/

        00

      • #
        tom0mason

        KK,

        At the moment the bigger picture is one of equilibrium when the full system is considered.

        Eh? “equilibrium”?

        In a system that is driven by many non linear processes of many complex interactions with many chaotic parameters, and are also affected by many external cyclic and quasi-cyclic effects, ideas of equilibrium are BS!.
        In assessing this complex and naturally chaotic system the initializing conditions are not known or even referenced, EQUILIBRIUM at any moment in time is a mirage — a phoney argument! Within chaotic systems there ain’t any need for stinking EQUILIBRIUM (!) — none on a timescale that makes sense on a human scale. The energy to make coal or limestone was put into this system millions of years ago, only now is a small portion of it being released by both humans and nature.

        This system has been with us in one form or another for about 4 billion years, it could continue for another 4 billion — tell me why it should reach an ‘equilibrium’ and on what kind of timescale, when we can not be sure that we understand (or have measured) every relevant parameter to a very high accuracy and precision.

        Look at the approximated climate history (see http://climate4you.com/images/VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif) and tell me when the ‘system’ was at equilibrium. It has not been! Energy enters the system and is used, stored and released later in a myriad of different processes! The whole system is a mix of incoming energy plus energy from the past that is being released over many timescales.

        There ain’t no stinking EQUILIBRIUM! It is the fundamental flaw at the heart of ‘anthropological climate change’.
        Equilibrium will only be reached when the ultimate effects of entropy have completed — hopefully in billions of years from now.

        20

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          Tomo, this is hilarious. Zoe’s got everyone jumping all over the place.
          My comments have only ever related to one thing; her description of the core energy jumping across the surface boundary into the atmosphere.

          My wife and I have visited two major volcanic outbreaks at the Earth’s surface where equilibrium doesn’t seem to be in effect: the exploding caldera in Vanuatu and the incredible progress of molten lava down hill to the ocean in Hawaii.
          Despite their obvious disequilibrium these are minor aberrations considering the proportion of surface they occupy.

          At the other extreme I’ve walked on snow.

          The place I live in has a mild climate varying between 5 and 39°C. For me that’s equilibrium enough for the moment.

          In previous posts I’ve tried to get to understand what Zoe is talking about but it remains a mystery.

          Despite volcanoes, the transfer of internal core energy to the atmosphere is minimal averaging 0.1 W/m2.
          Consider that humans are losing about 25 W/m2 through their body surface that makes the Earth look very stable: you could almost describe it as equilibrium.

          Well done Zoe, another incredible mess. :-) :-) :-) :-)

          10

          • #
            tom0mason

            Kalm Keith,

            Yes, and the old question that has never been properly answered is as the human population of the world has risen from about a billion in 1850 to about 7 billion now has that not been a large store of (ultimately) solar energy? Or is the totality of life-required-energy on this planet ‘in balance’ so that as humans increased in number, all other life must decreased to maintain ‘balance’? Or does the totality of life on this planet expand and diminish as resources (including solar energy) dictates.

            20

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Yesterday I drove past a train with so many coal wagons in tow that it could have been a kilometre in length.

              All that retrieved energy is what’s allowing humans to flourish: along with lots of solar energy at the moment.

              Long ago there was even more solar energy than now and gigantic beasts resulted.

              Humans seem to be doing well now because we have worked out how to release some of the old energy that was stored.

              30

          • #
            tom0mason

            Kalm Keith,

            Yes, and the old question that has never been properly answered is as the human population of the world has risen from about a billion in 1850 to about 7 billion now has that not been a large store of (ultimately) solar energy? Or is the totality of life-required-energy on this planet ‘in balance’ so that as humans increased in number, all other life must decreased to maintain ‘balance’? Or does the totality of life on this planet expand and diminish as resources (including solar energy) dictates.

            10

    • #
      Jojodogfacedboy

      Very good in how water vapor defies our gravity conception.
      What is needed to be added is the different centrifugal velocities our planet has.

      http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations.pdf
      http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/lalonde-joe/world-calculations-2.pdf

      Nitrogen gas is another element that is not included which is highly reactive to heat.
      This is how explosive energy is released.

      10

      • #
        Jojodogfacedboy

        Explosive energy released in our compressed atmosphere.
        It is highly reactive and cannot burn, only expands and contracts and compresses like in plastic water bottles tak8ng the heat away, it compresses.

        00

    • #

      Hi Zoe

      A better analogy is water coming out of a tap, and going into a sink with the plughole open

      Water is coming out of the tap at a certain speed (say, 2 litres per minute)

      Initially not much water is going down the plughole (less than 2 litres per minute), so the water level in the sink rises

      As the water level rises in the sink, the water goes down the plughole faster (more liters per minute)

      When the same amount of water is going down the plughole as is coming out of the tap (2 litres per minute), then the water level in the sink stops changing

      This is a stable equilibium.

      If the water level rises in the sink for some reason (maybe you tipped a bucket of water into the sink), then more water will go down the plughole (more than 2 litres per minute) until the water level is back at the previous stable level

      If the water level drops in the sink for some reason (maybe you scoop a bucket of water out of the sink), then less water will go down the plughole (less than 2 litres per minute) until the water level is back at the previous stable level

      The key point of the equilibrium is that the water level in the sink is stable when exactly the same amount of water is coming out of the tap, and going down the plughole

      This is just like the temperature equilibrium of the Earth. For a stable temperature the same amount of energy must arrive at the Earth, as leaves the Earth (on average). Otherwise the temperature changes

      Now imagine that some hair clogs up the plughole. It is still open, but it is harder for the water to go down the plughole. The “hair” is the equivalent of greenhouse gases in the Earths atmosphere

      The water level in the sink starts to rise, because more water is coming into the sink, than is leaving the sink

      As the water level rises, it makes the water flow down the plughole faster

      The water level becomes stable when the same amount of water is going down the plughole as is coming out of the tap (2 litres per minute)

      But now the stable water level is higher than it was when there was no hair clogging the plughole

      No water is actually “trapped” in the sink. All water molecules that come out of the tap eventually go down the plughole. But the water level is higher

      The water level in the sink is analogous to the temperature level of the Earth

      The important question is, how high do you want the water level to be in your sink

      You don’t want water to overflow from the sink onto your floor

      But you want the water level to be high enough to be able to wash your face

      There is a range of water levels that are suitable

      A tiny change in water level won’t overflow the sink

      So you don’t have to pass a law making people have short hair

      We can still enjoy a variety of hairstyles, but you need to make sure that there is not too much hair clogging up the plughole

      How much hair is too much (or too little). That is the interesting question. See this article

      https://agree-to-disagree.com/gw-temperature-distributions-1

      42

      • #
        Jojodogfacedboy

        You missed one problem and that the drain water rotates opposite to each hemisphere.
        Our planet is shaped into an orb and rotated trapping gases that is a buffer to scooping our planet into a stable orbit. This generates downward pressure as centrifugal forces lift the water vapour.

        31

        • #

          The water may drain in opposite directions in each hemisphere, if you let the water sit for a long time before you pull the plug

          But it is very sensitive to the motion of the water from when you filled the bath/sink

          But the different hemispheres do have real physical effects. It is easier to do a right hand turn in a car in the Southern Hemisphere, but easier to do a left hand turn in a car in the Northern Hemisphere. Because of the centripetal forces :)

          31

      • #

        Sheldon,
        The universe is composed of matter, energy and space.

        Energy is DIFFERENT from matter.

        Creating an analogy where you treat energy like matter leads to an absurdity. It’s not PHYSICS.

        Energy is not and will never be matter.

        Energy is matter in motion. Energy is motion.

        And you never can get more molecular vibration out of placing an equal-or-lesser vibrating molecules next to it (separated by space).

        Water is not motion, and your analogy is useless for thermodynamic purposes.

        A more apt analogy could use a waterfall. Not the water, but the fall. You can capture water in a cup, but you can’t capture the phenomena of falling water in a cup.

        Say you have a 100 meter waterfall.

        Willis believes you can dam up this waterfall at 100m level and cause water to fall from 200 meters.

        81

        • #

          Zoe

          Energy may be different from matter (but Albert Einstein might disagree with that, E=MC^2, matter can be considered to be another form of energy)

          The important thing is that both energy and matter obey conservation laws
          - conservation of matter
          - conservation of energy
          - there are also other conservation laws, like conservation of momentum

          Something that obeys conservation laws can be used as an analogy for something else that obeys conservation laws

          It is easy for you to say that my analogy is absurd, but can you point out something that proves that it is absurd? What does my analogy predict, that is not true in the real world?

          My analogy is PHYSICS (spelt with capital letters or small letters)

          I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are feeling guilty for clogging up the plughole with your long hair

          22

          • #

            I should have added, that most people find it easier to imagine conservation of matter, rather than conservation of energy, because energy can change into many different forms

            Conservation of matter is simpler, but just as valid

            That is why my water/sink analogy is so useful

            10

          • #

            “Albert Einstein might disagree with that, E=MC^2, matter can be considered to be another form of energy)”

            Wow.

            f = ma

            Therefore force can be considered as a mass

            d = m/v

            Therefore density can be considered as mass

            See what I did there?

            e = mc^2

            If mass was REALLY like energy, and vice versa then you can substitute them in the formula, like so:

            m = ec^2
            m = mc^2
            e = ec^2

            Does that make sense? No!
            They are not equal. Though they can be said to “equivalent” in the sense that it’s easy to convert them back and forth, since c^2 is a constant.

            “Something that obeys conservation laws can be used as an analogy for something else that obeys conservation laws”

            Matter in = Matter out
            Energy in = Energy out

            Therefore Matter and Energy can be treated the same?

            Non-sequitur

            “It is easy for you to say that my analogy is absurd, but can you point out something that proves that it is absurd?”

            Yeah. A molecule and its vibration rate is not the same thing.

            Here’s a better analogy:

            Get a trampoline. How high you can jump is your energy level. Get another trampoline (same brand and model!). Jump between them. Can you jump higher now?

            Why not? You doubled the matter! According to you, the jump height should double as well! Because, you know, energy is like matter.

            91

            • #

              Zoe

              What are you on?

              Can I get some?

              You need to take a deep breath and slow down

              Adding another trampoline is NOT obeying conservation laws

              25

              • #

                Excuse yourself.

                Manufacturer made two trampolines, you bought them both. Conservation of matter.

                Trampolines were made from fixed matter. Their construction also obeyed conservation law.

                That’s like saying adding a shell to a core is not obeying conservation law.

                What are you smoking?

                It’s making you stupid. I don’t want it.

                31

              • #

                Zoe

                You are jumping all over the place, and introducing irrelevant things

                I never mentioned anything about a molecule and its vibration rate

                In the equation E=MC^2
                C^2 is a constant, an exchange rate between Energy and Mass

                You compared this to f = ma
                but f, m, and a are all variables. None of them are constants

                So your logic is absurd

                What prediction does my sink/water analogy make, which is wrong?

                I am happy to discuss this with you, but I am having trouble keeping up with your logic jumps

                21

              • #

                “What prediction does my sink/water analogy make, which is wrong?”

                That molecular vibration is additive.

                It’s maximal, not additive.

                A photon can be absorbed and NOT raise electron level, i.e. make a molecule vibrate more intensely, i.e. get hotter.

                See my answer to Reed Coray.

                Your analogy fails because water (matter) can accumulate, but temperature (thus radiation) can NOT.

                Temperature is an INTENSIVE property, not an EXTENSIVE property.

                “I never mentioned anything about a molecule and its vibration rate”

                The nuclear core will cause molecular vibration. It is this vibration that causes EM radiation. You can’t take this radiation and return it back via another object and expect more vibration. It doesn’t work like that.

                Look at the trampoline analogy again. It’s the proper analogy.

                30

              • #

                My analogy says nothing about molecular vibration.

                I never even used the word “vibration”, or said anything about its properties.

                I never said anything about photons or electrons.

                Temperature is a property based on energy. Energy can accumulate. Just like matter.

                Temperature is not just radiation. It can take many forms.

                I never talked about trampolines, you did.

                I think that you need some lessons in Stage 1 Physics.

                11

              • #

                Pay attention, Sheldon.

                Did you even read my article or Willis’?

                What is he claiming?

                That the temperature and radiation of inner core will INCREASE.

                Now it’s true that the inner core will produce 235 Joules every second. After 100 seconds that will add up to 23500 Joules.

                Great! But it will never produce 470 Joules per second. Got it?

                So you can accumulate all the water you like, the flow rate into your system will not double.

                “Water is coming out of the tap at a certain speed (say, 2 litres per minute)”

                You will never have 4 liters per minute coming in.

                The question is the in-flow rate, not the water level.

                Your analogy is not original to you. It’s a well known inappropriate analogy designed to trick you.

                10

              • #

                Zoe

                I quickly scanned you article and Willis’ article

                I thought that it was easier to see what happens with a simpler model (my sink/water model)

                There are several important points that apply to my model and the real Earth
                - the input is relatively constant (2 litres per minute, or solar insolation = 1,361 watts per square meter)
                - what determines the water level (or temperature) is how easily the water (or energy) can leave the system
                - I am not trying to increase the flow rate of water coming out of the tap
                - I am trying to determine the water level (the equivalent of temperature)

                You said, “The question is the in-flow rate, not the water level”

                No. No. No. The question is the water level. At equilibrium the in-flow must equal the out-flow (water or energy)

                The water level is the equivalent of temperature in the Earth/temperature system.

                I never claimed that I was the only person to use the sink/water model.

                Other people have used it, because it is a good simple model for the Earth/temperature system.

                10

              • #

                Zoe

                Rather than concentrate on the differences between energy and matter, you should concentrate on the similarities

                Both matter and energy can “flow” and “accumulate”

                And both follow conservation laws

                The sink/water model shows how “flow” and “accumulation” work

                You can apply how “flow” and “accumulation” work to the Earth/temperature system

                That is why the sink/water model is a good analogy to the Earth/temperature system

                10

              • #
              • #

                Zoe

                I have had another quick look at your article

                I think that I have identified a problem with Willis’ model

                But my sink/water model is valid

                It is incorrect to radiate back 100% of the energy coming out of the core. If that was true (no energy can escape the steel shell) then the temperature inside would tend to infinity.

                There must be some percentage of energy that can escape from the steel shell, otherwise it is totally unrealistic (a true runaway greenhouse effect).

                The steel shell has no “intelligence”. It can’t reflect back 100% of the first lot of energy, but then let some of the later energy escape.

                But I repeat, my sink/water model is valid

                10

              • #

                “But my sink/water model is valid”

                No it’s not. You have 2 flows and 1 stack.

                Upwelling IR is a flow!

                You need an analogy with 3 flows.

                [SNIP] Play nice please Zoe.]AD

                00

              • #

                To moderator (AD):

                The analogy is a fraud, not the person making it. The analogy is not even original to Sheldon, so there should be no problem calling it a fraud.

                You can analogize W/m^2 as water flows (volume/time), and then claim a water stack (volume) has anything to do with W/m^2.

                00

              • #

                Correction:
                You can NOT analogize W/m^2 as water flows (volume/time), and then claim a water stack (volume) has anything to do with W/m^2 (radiation from a temperature).

                Energy is not temperature.

                Energy is EXTENSIVE, Temperature is INTENSIVE. Radiation is INTENSIVE.

                00

        • #
          Kalm Keith

          E=mC2.
          But only on Mondays.

          00

    • #
      Reed Coray

      Zoe Phin, in my opinion Willis is right and you are wrong–or more precisely, Willis is more right than you are. In Willis “steel greenhouse” I’m going to assume (a) the inner core is a spherical object whose surface absorbs and radiates energy like a black body, (b) the shell is a co-centered, infinitely-thin, spherical shell whose inner and outer surfaces absorb and radiate energy like a black body, (c) the region of space between the surface of the inner core and the shell is a vacuum, and (d) the region of space external to the shell is a vacuum. If these conditions exist, when the steel greenhouse is in “energy rate equilibrium (i.e., when all temperatures have ceased changing with time),” then for both objects (the inner core and the shell) and for the system as a whole (the combination of the inner core and the shell) the rate energy enters the object/system must equal the rate energy leaves the object/system.

      Since a vacuum exists between the inner core and the shell, (a) the only way energy can leave the inner core is via radiation from its surface, and (b) the only way energy can leave the inner surface of the shell is via radiation. Since the space exterior to the shell is a vacuum, the only way energy can leave the outer surface of the shell is via radiation. For a black body surface, knowledge of (a) temperature of the surface and (b) the area of the surface is sufficient to determine the rate energy is radiated from the surface. If thermal energy sources other than radiation are present (e.g., friction between moving surfaces or radioactive decay) knowledge of the surface area and the rate energy is absorbed by a surface is by itself NOT sufficient to determine the temperature of the surface. The rate energy leaves a planar, black body, differential surface is proportional to the product of (a) the fourth power of the differential surface’s Kelvin temperature and (b) the area of the differential surface. The constant of proportionality is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

      If both objects (the inner core and the shell) are devoid of an internal source of thermal energy and no source of thermal energy exists either between the core and the shell or external to the shell, then in energy-rate-equilibrium the temperature of both objects will be the backgound temperature of space surrounding the objects, which for the sake of this discussion I will treat as being zero Kelvin.

      The energy-rate-equilibrium temperature of the surface of each object will be determined by the rate that object must rid itself of energy to insure neither object nor the system as a whole absorbs more or less energy than it radiates. [Note: I am going to argue by symmetry that (a) the surface temperature of the inner core will everywhere be the same, (b) the temperature of the infinitely thin shell will everywhere be the same, and (c) these temperatures may or may not be the same.] If the inner core has a source of internal energy at a fixed rate and the shell did not exist, then the energy-rate-equilibrium temperature of the inner core’s surface will be such that the rate energy is radiated from the inner core’s surface will be equal to the fixed energy rate of the inner core’s internal source. That temperature can be determined by applying the Stephan-Boltzmann law to the surface of the inner core. Let that temperature be T_core_only.

      If the inner core has a source of internal energy at the same fixed rate and the shell exists but is devoid of an internal source of thermal energy, then the energy-rate-equilibrium temperature of the shell’s surface will be such that the rate energy is radiated from the outer surface of the shell will be equal to the fixed energy rate of the inner core’s internal source of thermal energy. That temperature can be determined by applying the Stephan-Boltzmann law to the outer surface of the shell. Let that temperature be T_shell. If the radius of the shell is only infinitesimally larger than the radius of the inner core, then T_core_only = T_shell. If the shell’s radius is larger than the inner core’s radius, then T_core_only will be larger than T_shell with the temperature ratio being proportional to the square-root of the ratio of the radii.

      The assumption that the shell is infinitely thin implies the temperature of the shell’s inner surface is very close to the temperature of the shell’s outer surface. Thus the inner surface of the shell will radiate energy at a rate equal to the rate the outer shell radiates energy. When the radius of the shell is infinitesimally larger than the radius of the inner core, almost all of the energy radiated from the inner surface of the shell will be directed towards and absorbed by the inner core. Thus, the rate energy enters the inner core is the sum of (a) the inner core’s internal energy source rate, and (b) the rate the inner core absorbs energy radiated from the inner surface of the shell. The total rate energy enters the inner core IS NOT a function of the temperature of the inner core’s surface; but the total rate energy leaves the inner core IS a function of the temperature of the inner core’s surface. To rid itself of both the energy from its internal source and energy from the inner surface of the shell, the temperature of the inner core will have to be larger than T_core_only. How much larger will be a function of the ratio of the radius of the inner core to the radius of the shell. When the shell’s radius is much larger than the radius of the inner core, the temperature increase will be small. However, when the radii are nearly the same, the temperature of the inner core in the presence of the shell will be a factor of the fourth-root-of-two larger than the temperature of the inner core in the absence of the shell.

      All three objects (the inner core, the shell, and the system comprised of the inner core and the shell will be in energy-rate-equilibrium. Energy enters the inner core from both its internal source and the shell. For an infinitesimally larger radius shell, these rates are equal–so that when the shell is present, energy enters the inner core at twice the internal source rate. The increased inner core surface temperature radiates energy at this rate.

      Energy enters the shell via radiation from the inner core and via radiation from the inner surface of the shell. When the two radii are almost equal, radiation from the inner surface of the shell that is directed towards the inner surface of the shell is negligible–so that energy enters the shell at the rate energy leaves the inner core, which is twice the fixed internal energy source rate. Energy leaves the shell at twice the fixed internal energy source rate because each surface (inner and outer) radiates energy at a rate equal to the fixed internal source energy rate.

      Taken as a whole, energy enters the system at the fixed internal energy source rate and energy leaves the system only via radiation from the OUTER SURFACE of the shell. Radiation from the INNER SURFACE of the shell is absorbed by the system–either by the inner core or the inner surface of the shell.

      Note: With a non-zero fixed-rate source of internal energy, the system is NOT in thermal equilibrium. But energy is conserved because in energy-rate-equilibrium the energy generated by the internal source does not disappear, it becomes energy in space in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

      20

      • #
        Reed Coray

        Just one additional comment. Just because I argue that Willis’ steel greenhouse will lead to an increased inner core temperature, does not mean that I argue that Willis’ steel greenhouse proves there will be a “greenhouse effect.” Among other things, in the steel greenhouse example, radiative heat transfer is the only form of thermal heat transfer of heat from the inner core. In the case of a gaseous atmosphere, both thermal conduction and especially thermal convection in combination with evaporation transfer massive amounts of heat away from the earth’s surface. So I don’t want anyone claiming that I believe Willis’ steel greenhouse proves CO2-based global warming. It can be shown, that if thermally conducting rods exist between the inner core and the shell, it is possible for the presence of the shell/thermally-conducting-rods to lower, not increase, the temperature of the inner core.

        40

      • #
        Peter C

        I would love to see the steel greenhouse experiment performed, instead of the ‘thought experiment’.
        The maths seem correct but are they the right maths?

        I tried to construct something but the required vacuum was too difficult for me. It would be easy to prepare an experiment to be performed at the International Space Station but I doubt that any agency would be prepared to do it.

        30

      • #

        Reed,
        Take your smartphone and place it in front of a mirror. The light emerging from your phone and the light reflected back from the mirror should add up and cause your screen to be brighter. How’d that work out for you?

        The sun emits 63MW/m^2. ~950 W/m^2 can reach your eyes on Earth’s surface at zenith.

        Have you noticed that you can see like half the sun and not just 1 square meter?

        There’s so many square meters delivering 950 W/m^2 to your eyeball !

        What does that add up to?

        “The average luminance of the Sun is about 1.88 giga candela per square metre, but as viewed through Earth’s atmosphere, this is lowered to about 1.44 Gcd/m2″

        Wow, that’s a lot!

        But for THERMODYNAMICS, only the MAX matters.

        You don’t add up the fluxes if the spectrum is the same!!! You use the OR operator.

        Willis can’t add 235 W/m^2 to 235 W/m^2 and get 470 W/m^2 ! Period.

        “Zoe Phin, in my opinion Willis is right and you are wrong”

        With 10 concentric shells Willis can melt steel. He oughta be a rich man.

        Using a battery-powered core plus 1 shell, he ought to generate enough internal energy in the steel, that when the battery runs out he can remove the steel, attach it to a cold reservoir with a thermocouple in between and – essentially create a battery that lasts twice as long as the original.

        The technological implications of Willis’ experiment is boundless !

        Too bad it’s a cracked pot.

        41

        • #
          Jojodogfacedboy

          Zoe,
          Their are many people who do not question our government designated experts and century old theories in books are facts and the laws of physics created by men long before the computers can never be questioned…
          Welcome to the old failed system.
          Believe me, academics hate change and never wrong even when they are 100% wrong, it never changes.

          10

          • #
            Jojodogfacedboy

            We truly live in a very fascinating highly complex bio-diverse system with billions of other species in plants, animals, insects and chemical compositions.
            A tiniest blip in time when compared to the Universe.
            Opening your mind to its complexities is just a small part to research.
            Just take a small part that you know like or human body and just one part like the eyeball and the complexity in its function, chemicals compositions, movement of nerves and visual focus and muscles and blood flows and functioning pressures…
            A tiny part of the whole in complexities.

            20

        • #
          Reed Coray

          In what follows, Zoe’s comments are in italics, my responses in normal text.

          Take your smartphone and place it in front of a mirror. The light emerging from your phone and the light reflected back from the mirror should add up and cause your screen to be brighter. How’d that work out for you?

          It works fine–think of a flashlight. First, light is electromagnetic energy and can be generated in ways other than thermally—i.e., radiation from an object because the object’s temperature is above zero Kelvin. If you think the light that you see from your smart phone comes from temperature differences over the surface of your smart phone, you’re mistaken. The light you see from your smart phone is dominated by the non-thermally generated radiation. Second, reflected electromagnetic radiation does not have the same “directional” properties as thermal radiation. Third, only a small fraction of the light from the smart phone that is reflected by the mirror will directed back toward the source of the light (the smart phone). If the mirror is flat and the reflection is specular, then for all practical purposes only an infinitesimal portion of the light from a point source is reflected back towards the point source; and as such will not make the point source appear to be appreciably brighter. Note however that if you put the point source of light at the focus of a highly reflective parabolic surface and you view the system (light source/reflecting parabola) from a distance far removed from the system, you will see a brighter light if your observation point is on the axis of the parabola (same side of the parabola as the light source) than if your observation point is “off axis.” So yes, reflected light can and does make light sources appear brighter.

          The sun emits 63MW/m^2. ~950 W/m^2 can reach your eyes on Earth’s surface at zenith.
          Have you noticed that you can see like half the sun and not just 1 square meter?
          There’s so many square meters delivering 950 W/m^2 to your eyeball !
          What does that add up to?
          “The average luminance of the Sun is about 1.88 giga candela per square metre, but as viewed through Earth’s atmosphere, this is lowered to about 1.44 Gcd/m2″
          Wow, that’s a lot!
          But for THERMODYNAMICS, only the MAX matters.
          You don’t add up the fluxes if the spectrum is the same!!! You use the OR operator.

          Nonsense. Your own discussion of light from the sun arriving at your eyeball contradicts your claim that: “You don’t add up the fluxes if the spectrum is the same!!!” With the possible exception of directionality, the spectral properties of thermal radiation from each square meter of solar surface are essentially the same. Thus your rule that “You don’t add up the fluxes if the spectrum is the same!!! You use the OR operator” applies. This means that the only radiation reaching your eyeball is the radiation from a single square meter of solar surface—the “OR” operator in operation. Yet to get the total solar radiation reaching your eyeball you sum (the AND operator) the radiation (fluxes) from all square meters of solar surface having line-of-sight visibility to your eyeball. Which is it, sum (AND operator) or select (OR operator)?

          One of the principles of electric and magnetic fields is the principle of superposition. That is, if you have a point electric charge, that electric charge will create an electric field at all points in space. The electric field at a point in space is a vector quantity (magnitude and direction) whose magnitude decreases as the inverse of the square of the distance from a point charge. If you have many point charges, the electric field at a point in space is the vector sum of the electric fields from all point charges. As a point charge moves in space, the electric field created by that point charge at other points in space changes both in magnitude and direction. This motion, in conjunction with a corresponding changing magnetic field, is the source of electromagnetic waves (light). The direction of energy propagation at a point in space is the cross product of the changing electric and magnetic fields at that point in space. If at a point in space the radiation fields from multiple moving charges combine incoherently (random phases), then the total power is the sum of the individual powers (fluxes).

          Willis can’t add 235 W/m^2 to 235 W/m^2 and get 470 W/m^2 ! Period.

          Again, nonsense. If two sources of microwave energy are each radiating 235 W/m^2 of power directed at a single object, then 470 W/m^2 of power will be incident on the object. I think what you meant to say is that a single source of power at a density of 235 W/m^2 can’t magically create power at a density of 470 W/m^2. But this is also nonsense. Radar antennas do exactly that. In particular the radar’s electromagnetic energy source may generate electromagnetic energy at a rate of say 50 W and this power may be emitted uniformly in all directions. For these conditions, at a distance of say 1,000 meters from the source the power density will be approximately 4×10^-6 W/m^2. With a properly constructed reflecting surface, the power density at 1,000 meters can be much higher and much lower than 4.10^-6 W/m^2. The total radiated power integrated over the entire surface of a sphere of radius 1,000 meters cannot exceed 50 W, but the power density for portions of the spherical surface can exceed 50 W/m^2. Nowhere in Willis’ steel greenhouse is there a violation of “power.” The net rate of energy into/out-of the inner core is the same as the net rate of energy into/out-of the shell is the same as the net rate of energy into/out-of the system as a whole.

          With 10 concentric shells Willis can melt steel. He oughta be a rich man.

          I don’t know where you get the number of 10 concentric shells, but it’s a stretch. The melting temperature of steel is approximately 1,500 centigrade or 1,783 Kelvin—see https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html. Let the inner core be a sphere of radius 0.1 meters with a blackbody surface. Let the internal rate of energy be 1,000 Watts. In isolation the surface temperature of the inner core would then be approximately 612 Kelvin. Assuming the radii of the shells are infinitesimally the same, with the radius of the inner shell being 0.1 meters, for “n” concentric shells the surface temperature of the inner core will be (n+1)^0.25 times 612 Kelvin. To reach an inner core surface temperature of 1,783 Kelvin there would have to be approximately 72 shells. The volume of a sphere of radius 0.1 meters is 4.2×10^-3 meters (4.2 liters). If you think you can get rich by taking a 0.1 meter radius sphere of steel, inserting a 1,000 Watt heat source into the steel, surrounding the steel with 72 concentric blackbody radiating shells, waiting for energy-rate-equilibrium to be reached, and recovering 4.2 liters of molten steel—have at it.

          Using a battery-powered core plus 1 shell, he ought to generate enough internal energy in the steel, that when the battery runs out he can remove the steel, attach it to a cold reservoir with a thermocouple in between and – essentially create a battery that lasts twice as long as the original.

          Where do you get the “twice as long” claim? The life of the battery will depend on how rapidly its stored energy is depleted. Short the battery and the energy is quickly dissipated. Leave the battery in its original wrapper and the battery can last for years. As far as recovering the energy from heated material, (i.e., heat engines that convert thermal energy into mechanical energy by moving heat from a high temperature side to a low temperature side) are efficient only if the temperature difference is large. Most of the energy that is extracted from the high-temperature side ends up as thermal energy in the low-temperature side, not as work done. Look up Carnot heat engines. So your claim about creating a battery that lasts twice as long as the original is so much gobbledygook.

          The technological implications of Willis’ experiment is boundless !

          I don’t even know where to start analyzing that claim—so I’ll just let to go.

          Too bad it’s a cracked pot.
          No, it’s not a “cracked pot.” Vacuum thermos bottles work on the same principle—but instead of causing the temperature of material with an internal heat source to increase, vacuum thermos bottles increase the time required for thermal energy present in heated matter placed in the vessel from leaving the matter. Surround a vessel with a vacuum and a shell-like surface that maintains that vacuum and the vessel will maintain the temperature of heated material placed in the vessel for a longer period of time than the vessel without the vacuum and the shell-like surrounding.

          22

          • #

            “Again, nonsense. If two sources of microwave energy are each radiating 235 W/m^2 of power directed at a single object, then 470 W/m^2 of power will be incident on the object. ”

            OK, so add 1361 W/m^2 from all the square meters of the sun that you see …

            00

  • #
  • #
    Peter C

    Trump Nominates Amy Barrett fro the Supreme Court Vacancy

    Conrad Black thought she would be nominated last time, but Trump picked Brett Kavanagh instead.
    Black gets it right second time around.
    http://www.conradmblack.com/1410/nominating-amy-barrett-would-be-political-genius

    40

  • #
    • #
      Sceptical Sam

      I’d like to read the paper. However, that link is won’t give it to me.

      10

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      I searched for the filename portion of the link and found a copy here
      http://downloads.hindawi.com/archive/2017/9251034.pdf

      I don’t understand the paper but I see some good signs in it.
      For example, he cites Shaviv for the evidence that TSI is not enough to explain solar contribution.
      Harde also requires any model developed to explain cloud cover changes and references Svensmark and co.

      I was a bit concerned that in Eqn 22 he introduces a function for the sun to alter cloud cover, but unlike the Svensmark-effect it is not being tied to magnetic activity directly, it’s instead tied to the change in insolation over the solar cycle. That’s assuming the radiative flux and the mystery cloud-altering signal are correlated closely enough that the “solar constant” flux is an adequate substitute. I guess the fact the end result was compatible with other estimates is reassuring though.

      10

    • #
      Jojodogfacedboy

      With our government promoting climate change policies, any crackpot theory can be promoted and published without question.
      How do you think all these programs get government grants and sponsorships?
      By promoting this terrible doctrine policy.
      Driving kids crazy with this indoctrination in schools…

      41

  • #
    David Maddison

    An honest look at Once Great Britain’s COVID-19 numbers.

    Comments?

    https://youtu.be/FuxoR-Ub8Eo

    11

  • #
    David Maddison

    Another failed testable prediction.

    NEWS
    We’ve got 5 years to save world says Australia’s chief scientist Professor Penny Sackett

    Olga Galacho, HeraldSun

    December 4, 2009 12:00am

    THE planet has just five years to avoid disastrous global warming, says the Federal Government’s chief scientist.
    Prof Penny Sackett yesterday urged all Australians to reduce their carbon footprint.

    Australians – among the world’s biggest producers of carbon dioxide – were “better placed than others to do something about it”, she said.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/weve-got-5-years-to-save-world-says-australias-chief-scientist-professor-penny-sackett/news-story/614a7441983b090314f05f7f705a1d5a

    91

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes but listening to Angus Taylor’s speech on Sky News today demonstrates without a doubt that the LNP is in effect no different to the ALP and Greens wrt reducing our emissions. They are all out to destroy our economy even though they don’t realize it. So, nothing has really changed since Rudd/Gillard on the energy front. I find it extraordinary not much is said about that, and we still have people defending LNP’s energy policy as though it’s totally different to the ALP’s policy, which in the end clearly is not.

      110

      • #
        David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

        G’day PeterS,
        I share your disgust with Angus Taylor’s presentation, and have sent the following my local MHR:

        I regret to advise you that I consider I can no longer support the coalition, having heard Angus Taylor announcing his “Energy ‘Roadmap’ “, which is a complete failure.

        . A long term approach to a global problem – There is no such problem;
        .”…our emissions reduction agenda” – waste of money; CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a plant food. And even the IPCC cannot provide a reliable sensitivity value for the warming they claim, for which they also claim “the science is in”. Where?
        . “clean hydrogen” !! – political crap; use lots of energy to produce less, very explosive;
        . “electricity from storage” – implies generation, which it is not; very expensive;
        . “low carbon steel and aluminium” !! – tell that one to the engineers;
        . ” carbon capture and storage” – hasn’t worked anywhere in the world; v expensive to even try;
        .” as required by the Paris Agreement” – that con job; we should be withdrawing from it, not pandering to it. Isn’t it a non-binding agreement? Any warming “since the start of the Industrial Revolution” is actually warming “since the end of the Little Ice Age”.

        Frankly, I’m disgusted.

        In despair,
        Dave Beach

        Leaves me with the problem of how to vote and declare three parties equal last.

        50

        • #
          PeterS

          Good to see I’m not the only one here who has decided to place LNP equal to the ALP and Greens on the energy front. Even “green” steel is being touted. What utter nonsense. Both major parties are embarking on a slow death spiral for our economy. It’s about time more people realised it instead of sticking their heads in the sand and pretending the LNP is on our side.

          30

    • #
      David Maddison

      According to Wikipedia: “On 18 February 2011, in a letter to fellow scientists, Sackett announced her intending departure from the post of Chief Scientist, citing professional and personal reasons.”. Not sure what she does now, if anything.

      11

    • #
      Another Ian

      I wonder if they ever stop, review and think that just maybe the world doesn’t want to be saved their way?

      40

    • #
      Mal

      Australia produces approx one molecule of co2 to 10 million parts of atmosphere
      In a hundred years based on worst case scenario modelling we would delay warming by 15 minutes
      We are totally irrelevant on a global scale
      We don’t have to act at all
      The only thing we need to do is build coal fired power stations and move towards nuclear

      90

  • #
    PeterS

    I find it extraordinary how both major parties are pushing their respective polices to reduce our emission significantly. Whether they realize or not, they are both embarking on the destruction of our economy, lock stock and barrel. If voters keep returning either to majority rule then as far as I’m concerned, we deserve to crash and burn. Ignorance is no excuse.

    70

    • #
      el gordo

      I find it extraordinary that we are still discussing this, we cannot stop the juggernaut until the weather changes and the MSM is forced to question why is it so. At that point the precautionary principle goes out the window and both majors will be singing from your song book.

      There is nothing wrong with our parliamentary system of government, its more stable than the US version of democracy.

      64

      • #
        David Maddison

        When the climate does change, likely by cooling, the Left will just say their destruction of Western Civilisation worked and they avoided catastrophic global warming.

        51

        • #
          el gordo

          Most likely they will ignore the climate changing until its undeniable, but we still have to convince the brain washed masses that solar forcing is the main driver of climate.

          13

          • #
            Chad

            No.. when it starts to cool, or even if it doesnt, the Greenies will claim it was the actions of closing coal plants, etc, that has succeeded and even further actions are necessary to maintain the cooling!
            They will just manipulate the argument to suit their agenda.

            40

      • #
        PeterS

        There is nothing wrong with our parliamentary system of government

        el gordo, I didn’t day there was something wrong with it, and in fact I’ve praised it many times. The problem rests with how voters use it, in other words the voters themselves have allowed things to get as bad as they are now. If you can’t understand that then you must have a very weird understanding of how our democratic system works.

        11

        • #
          el gordo

          We cannot blame the electorate if they have limited choice. Our best chance is to elect a charismatic personality to the senate, who will singlehandedly unite all the independents into a fighting force to smash up the duopoly.

          This charismatic personality is out there and should be easy to recognise when he eventually goes out onto the hustings.

          01

    • #
      Jojodogfacedboy

      And with the destruction of your economy by politicians, no one is accountable.
      They just move on with their fat pensions and well finances from good investments from donors…

      00

  • #
    Greg in NZ

    The first day of our official Summer Daylight Saving has dawned and – surprise! – the year’s YUGEST and BIGGEREST (and coldest) Antarctic-borne snow blizzard has arrived, with heavy snow falling on both South and North Island ski areas this morning (with more to come).

    Metservice prognostications are calling for ‘snow to sea level’ in the deep south and snow on the hills as far north as the East Cape of the North Island, even around Rotorua in the Bay of Plenty, up on the plateau just inland from me – yeehaah!

    Sure is going to be fun listening to ‘the experts’ explain this one away.

    100

    • #
      el gordo

      Natural variability momentarily overwhelms regional warming, but surely its only an aberration, some kind of weather anomaly.

      01

      • #
        Curious George

        Cold events are just weather. Only warm events qualify as climate.

        90

        • #
          el gordo

          That is the general perception, so we have to prove that climate change signals can be found in weather anomalies. They already believe droughts, wildfires and high world temperature are indicative of global warming, how hard would it be to turn the story on its head.

          02

          • #
            Sceptical Sam

            We keep making the mistake of thinking “they” don’t know all that.

            They do know it. They’re not fools – although they clearly act that way.

            It’s not about “climate”. That is just a convenient tool that “they” use to push another hidden agenda.

            That agenda is about de-industrialization, the over-turning of the free-market Capitalist system and the imposition of the socialist authoritarian (fascist) state.

            40

            • #
              el gordo

              All that you say might have some truth in it, but the AGW facade will collapse when the weather changes to a cool regime. Think of all the academics who have included AGW in their hypothesis, they will have to consider their future.

              Don’t agonise over hidden agendas by dark forces, its a figment of your imagination. Having said that, there is little doubt that Premier Xi is the antichrist.

              22

        • #
          Greg in NZ

          I’m surprised there’s no retorts from the usual suspects claiming the 1 degree Celsius, over 140 years, of (beneficial) catastrophic warming has caused this anomalous aberration / outbreak of frigidity.

          When you’ve played & worked in the elements as long as I have, you learn to roll with whatever weather the climate throws at you, and remember, don’t panic.

          On a more somber note, at least 2 deaths (so far) have been attributed to this storm: a mountaineer died on Mt Ruapehu and a car plunged into a river. The question remains: will these be blamed on climate change or corona virus…

          30

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Australian and other governments and “scientists” have lied that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when used to treat COVID-19 by itself or in combination with other drugs even though it has been regarded as one of the safest of all drugs for many decades. People are dying because of the politicisation of this drug by those with Trump Derangement Syndrome. I don’t care if people with TDS don’t want to use it, but don’t deny it to those patients and their doctors who do want to use, most appropriately according to the Zelenko protocol.

    This is just the latest study showing it’s safe for treatment of C-19.

    QUOTE
    Conclusion
    HCQ administration is safe for a short-term treatment for patients with COVID-19 infection regardless of the clinical setting of delivery, causing only modest QTc prolongation and no directly attributable arrhythmic deaths.

    https://academic.oup.com/europace/advance-article/doi/10.1093/europace/euaa216/5910968?searchresult=1

    121

  • #
    el gordo

    BoM is predicting more rain in October across the east of the country, in the run up to harvest. On the ground they are holding their breath.

    Mr Tomlinson said an “inch wouldn’t be detrimental” but multiple days of wet weather could bring undone his best crop ever.

    “It’s potentially the best crop I’ve grown [in nearly 20 years]. Over the whole area, every paddock is good. Usually you have one paddock that lets you down, but I haven’t found that this year.

    “It’s the days of rain causes wheat to get downgraded, more so than the amount we get in a short period. You try not to worry about it but it’s always in the back of your mind that a big rain event could be just around the corner.”

    Weatherzone

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Steel is an essential and most basic component of industrial civilisation so it’s no surprise that steel is the latest thing that the Left is at war against.

    If you Google “green steel” you will find an enormous number of references.

    Reduction of iron ore to iron without carbon from coal is a hugely expensive and not economically viable process. Hence the Left promoting this production method.

    121

  • #
    David Maddison

    As we transition to the next glaciation, what is the likely climate for Australia?

    I assume there’ll be little glaciation in the southern hemisphere due to the relatively larger amount of ocean to keep the hemisphere warm.

    There is evidence of glaciation in Australia but from ancient times and Australia would have been in a different geographic position then.

    https://southaustralia.com/products/fleurieu-peninsula/attraction/glacier-rock

    51

    • #

      Glaciers still exist in NZ. In Tasmania there are recent glacier remnants in the Hartz mountains. Lake Pedder is a glacial remnant

      20

      • #

        Glaciers still exist in New Zealand

        But NZ glaciers like to be different

        At least 58 New Zealand glaciers advanced between 1983 and 2008, with Franz Josef Glacier (Kā Roimata o Hine Hukatere) advancing nearly continuously during this time.

        “Glaciers advancing is very unusual—especially in this period when the vast majority of glaciers worldwide shrank in size as a result of our warming world,” says lead-author Associate Professor Andrew Mackintosh from Victoria’s Antarctic Research Centre.

        “This anomaly hadn’t been satisfactorily explained, so this physics-based study used computer models for the first time to look into it in detail.

        https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/news/2017/02/explaining-new-zealands-unusual-growing-glaciers

        The real reason, is that Kiwis (New Zealanders) just like to be different
        - Kiwis are the only bird in the world to have nostrils at the tip of the beak
        - They have almost no evidence of wings
        - And their feathers are more like fur

        Kiwis are not the only unusual bird in NZ
        - Keas (most NZ bird names start with the letter “K”) are the only alpine parrot in the world
        - Global warming is leading to a shortage of the Kea’s normal food supply (tourists who come to NZ on skiing holidays), and they have started eating cars

        60

    • #
      RickWill

      The northern hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere glaciations occur at different times.

      Northern hemisphere glaciation is related to reducing orbital eccentricity. Water evaporated during the austral summer increases the atmospheric water vapour that gets transferred to the northern hemisphere and deposits as snow. When eccentricity is reducing year to year, the snow accumulates because the heat input during the boreal summer is significantly less than the heat input during the Austral summer.

      Southern Hemisphere glaciation is a function of low orbital eccentricity. The heat input during the austral summer is at its lowest.

      The Southern Hemisphere dominates the energy storage for the climate system. Land does not store thermal energy. Water stores thermal energy. 80% of the Southern Hemisphere is water compared with only 60% in the northern hemisphere and a good deal of the surface water is within the poles. The ocean surface ratio is 1.33.

      At maximum eccentricity the peak insolation is 1522W/sq.m and minimum is 1212W/sq.m. The ratio is 1.25. The peak occurs in early January at the present time.

      Combining the variation in heat input with the variation in absorber surface, gives 1.66. So at the peak of eccentricity the Northern Hemisphere absorbs 60% of the energy of the Southern Hemisphere; a huge difference. The global heat distribution system is not fast enough to avoid glaciation in the northern hemisphere when the eccentricity is reducing. Right now the eccentricity is quite low but reducing slowly so more likely to have Northern Hemisphere glaciation than southern but that should already be occurring if it was happening this cycle. The next minimum in eccentricity, in about 15kyr, is very low so that should see glaciation in the southern hemisphere. Peak heat input during austral summer will be about 36W/sq.m lower in 15kyr than it now.

      12

      • #

        RickWill said, “The northern hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere glaciations occur at different times”

        Yes. Northern glaciation occurs in the northern winter.

        But Southern glaciation occurs in the northern summer.

        Also, Australians are standing upside-down :)

        10

        • #
          RickWill

          Glaciations, by definition, means ice accumulation over a period spanning thousands of years.

          A glacial period (alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances.

          11

          • #

            A journey of 1000 km consists of many small steps

            Accumulation of snow, and melting of accumulated snow, happen every year

            The growth or shrinking of a glacier over many years is the cumulative effect of many individual years.

            00

  • #
    David Maddison

    Comments please.

    Sweden shows lockdowns were unnecessary. No wonder public health officials hate it

    By Dan Hannan

    September 14, 2020 – 12:00 AM

    You know who isn’t worried about a second wave of COVID-19? Sweden. The stolid Scandinavian kingdom has just carried out a record number of COVID-19 tests and found a positive rate of just 1.2%, the lowest since the start of the pandemic. As Sweden’s case rate drops below Norway’s and Denmark’s, those commentators who spent April and May raging against what a Washington Post op-ed called its “experiment with national chauvinism” and predicting colossal fatalities have suddenly gone quiet.
    “Sweden has gone from being one of the countries with the most infection in Europe to one of those with the least infection in Europe, while many other countries have seen a rather dramatic increase,” says Anders Tegnell, the state epidemiologist.

    True, and it has happened not despite the absence of a lockdown but because of it. Sweden encouraged people to work from home, made university courses remote, and banned meetings of more than 50 people but otherwise trusted its citizens to use their common sense. The authorities judged that since hospitals could cope, there was no need to buy time by ordering people to stay indoors. That judgment has been amply vindicated.

    Go to link for full article.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/sweden-shows-lockdowns-were-unnecessary-no-wonder-public-health-officials-hate-it

    41

    • #
      RickWill

      It’s nonsense. They still do not have crowds at sporting events. Australia has had crowds for months now – not full stadiums but thousands of people. Sweden will permit ‘crowds’ with 2m seated separation from October. They will also permit open door visits to aged care homes in October. Lets see what happens by mid November.

      For this week, daily case average is 384 and death daily average is 2.14. Go back 20 days and that 2.14 deaths corresponds to 143cases/day. So death rate still above 1%. Expect over 4 deaths per day in 3 weeks and it will rocket up as the case numbers soar once crowds are permitted at sporting venues and visitors to aged care.

      Sweden has already killed off 600 people per million and about 20% of the population should have some level of immunity. Most people will know someone who has had a tough time with the virus and that makes individuals more cautious. Those factors bode well for reduced rate of spread. But then winter is approaching.

      It is quite clear that Taiwan had an effective pandemic response. Dan Andrews aside, Australia has done quite well so far. The outcomes of different approaches will be clearer looking back on 2020 maybe by the middle of 2021.

      04

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Country_______ Infection rate RANK________ Death rate RANK
      Singapore_______ 30_________________________ 1
      Australia_________ 2 _________________________ 4
      Norway _________ 6 _________________________ 7
      Denmark________ 12 ________________________ 14
      Sweden_________ 27 ________________________ 30
      Germany ________ 8 _________________________ 15
      Brazil ___________ 36 ________________________ 35
      USA ____________ 10 _______________________ _30
      UK _____________ 21 ________________________ 32
      France __________ 23 ________________________ 27
      Italy ____________ 16 ________________________ 32

      Infection rate is cases per million, Death rate is Deaths per million (population).
      The RANK is best to worst (higher + worse).
      NOTE: These are not definitive merely related to a subsection of countries.
      NOTE the excellent performance by Singapore

      30

    • #
      dadgervais

      After listening to a local news reader claim that false positives are not a problem because the tests are 99% accurate (which I doubt), so the 1% overcount is statistical noise, I decided to run a few numbers. Strange that I can’t find hard data on the real accuracy of the various tests being used.

      If a test has an accuracy of a (0.50 < a < 1.00) for both positive and negative results, and the true rate of positives is p (0.00 < p < 1.00), then the true rate of negatives is 1-p, and the rate of false results is 1-a.

      The positive test results, r = p*a + (1-p)*(1-a). i.e. p = (r-1+a)/(2*a-1).

      For a test with symmetrical accuracy of .99 for both positive and negative results, the actual number of real positives is correct only when p = 0.50. As p approaches 0.01 (that is 1%) the false positives approach 50%.

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    Trump and his nominees just can’t win. Now the Left are attacking Judge Amy Barretts due to her adopted children.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8775773/Trolls-target-Amy-Coney-Barretts-adopted-children-Haiti-ahead-potential-Supreme-Court-pick.html

    41

  • #
    beowulf

    Time to outlaw all cows. Cows across Australia could be serial koala killers, trampling them to death.

    “For years veterinarians, farmers and wildlife carers across Australia have been reporting serious injury or death of koalas due to cow trampling,” Mr Jiang said.
    “This is largely based on animal autopsy evidence, mainly finding hoof prints on dead koala bodies.”
    “There are witness statements from farmers confirming that cattle have been seen chasing koalas in paddocks.”

    https://www.theland.com.au/story/6941468/cows-serial-killing-koalas-there-are-witness-statements/?cs=4933

    Somebody has got himself a nice little research grant by including the word “koala”.

    40

  • #
    beowulf

    It is well past time for the Queen to un-duke Harry and Meghan. As ostensible members of the Royal Family they have openly interfered and favoured one side during a foreign election; they have broken that cardinal rule repeatedly.

    68% of British people believe that the pair were wrong to intervene in the US election and plug for Joe Biden, and a majority want to see them stripped of their titles.

    One of Meghan’s woke political friends has stated in an interview that she and Meghan spent the day cold-calling potential voters on behalf of Biden. Meghan also held an online couch party with Michelle Obama.

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/09/22/woke-royal-meghan-markle-cold-calling-voters-in-america-says-radical-feminist-gloria-steinem/

    The couple who shun publicity (HA HA) and had to escape media attention by fleeing racist Britain (HA HA again) have also given interviews and made a video with veiled references to Trump’s “hate speech” and his other alleged un-woke shortcomings.

    Earlier this month a source close to the Duchess said that Markle is “hugely inspired” by Black Lives Matter leader and self-professed “trained Marxist” Patrisse Cullors. The source claimed that the Duchess pitched a documentary to Netflix that would celebrate the life of the BLM founder.

    Let’s see if plain old Mr and Ms Mountbatten-Windsor can still command the 7 figure sums they are demanding for speaking engagements, once they are outside the royal fold.

    As the Donald said:
    “I wish a lot of luck to Harry, because he’s gonna need it.

    80

  • #
    Lucky

    “Life is not sacred. Life is precious”.
    - Ajahn Brahm, of the Buddhist monastery in Serpentine.

    Likewise, Free Speech is precious.

    This web site gives and permits free speech. It is easy to allow or to approve free speech when all agree. A year ago, a range of opinions and topics appeared all of which I agreed with, usually strongly. Now there is a topic impossible to avoid which arouses strong emotions and opinions.

    On this site, contributors post criticisms of the daily theme, tell opponents they are wrong and bad, even the site owner in not immune to criticism and condemnation and gets down marks on posts. I understand there is censorship -well moderation- on this site but there is not much of it. It is there for legal reasons and to limit insults. This is not the rule on the net, my limited experience of wokist sites in particular is that censorship there is strong.

    So I make the point, it has been done before but it is important, that joannenova.com.au is a great site, it is well run, it allows not just expertise but a wide range of opinions, tho’ I reckon it could do with more resources.

    100

    • #
      el gordo

      Its a crowd funded operation, you might like to contribute.

      11

      • #
        Lucky

        el gordo, thanks for the reminder. For me it was not necessary being a choco contributor already but perhaps it may prompt action by those to whom it applies.
        (Do not understand the downpoint)

        10

    • #
      RickWill

      WUWT offers a diverse platform.

      It is a bit sad that this site has lost almost all of its CAGW advocates. They need a tough hide to keep fronting up but they do make people here think smarter about how to convince them that they are being taken for ride.

      Covid has resulted in more diverse views here. The best approach is already clear but the other disparate efforts will take time to produce comparative performance. The Northern Hemisphere is heading into a testing periiod.

      On the other hand I have been banned from Reneweconomy and Macrobusiness and get moderated for no apparent reason on NoTrickZone.

      21

  • #
    Robber

    If you want some amusing reading of how bureaucratic people think, check out some of the daily transcripts of the Victorian board of inquiry into the hotel quarantine fiasco.
    You will learn about “shared accountabilities”, “I don’t know who made that decision”, how ministers are not informed of “operational decisions”, and how to build complex orgaanisation structures. For starters try days 8, 17, 21, 22, and finally the ministers on 23, 24. The Premier’s trancript is not yet available.
    ALso available are the exhibits including witness statements tendered by various respondents.

    40

  • #
    Another Ian

    “Today’s journalism:

    1) Establish a narrative.

    2) Sit on ass fishing turds from Twitter to support it. https://t.co/CKGLM0A3QU

    — Katewerk (@katewerk) September 25, 2020″

    Via

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/09/25/your-moral-and-intellectual-superiors-223/#comments

    10

  • #
    robert rosicka

    Just listening to today’s Victoriastan govt propaganda session and Brett Sutton now says his dept implemented the curfew and now the health advice says it’s no longer necessary !
    This government can’t remember any of the lies they have previously said .

    80

    • #
      TdeF

      What Brett Sutton said previously as Chief Health Officer is that the curfew was not his idea and he assumed it was a policing requirement. The police commissioner said it was not his idea and he only learned about it three hours before had not enforce it. These were innocent questions with reasonable responses. But in the opinion of one QC, without the direct recommendation of the Chief Health Officer, the curfew was and remains illegal.

      So now no one has any idea whose idea it was. Surely someone knows who ordered it as an essential health measure? But no other Australian state has had it and they are fine, so why was it necessary?

      And the ministers and senior public servants have totally closed ranks as the curfew has just quietly been removed. It was wrong, illegal and left one man in control of the entire state, not supported by any legislated power. It was a police state under curfew without explanation.

      You can only conclude it was another Daniel Andrews brain freeze totalitarian idea and now they are all hiding behind unbelievable denials. Having created the worst health disaster in a lifetime, Daniel Andrews is trying to paint a picture of someone who actually cares. Ha!

      Perhaps we should defund the police as well and hire part time students? We paid for security gaurds, but no one in government seems to know the difference between a security gaurd and a studen hired over facebook to sit in a chair. And now to give them the power of arbitrary arrest without judicial oversight, indefinite jail without appeal, as Andrews tried to push though parliament this week.

      What Daniel Andrews really wants is Andrews SS. Let’s hope the Victorian Parliament does not burn down too.

      111

    • #
      Dennis

      Why?

      Dysfunctional, incompetence and chaotic.

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        Utterly deceitful and deceptive. And caught. All those excuses might work if Victoria was not the only place
        in the whole country to be a disaster area. And the cost to Victoria is immense, not just in lives.
        Daniel Andrews insists on being in charge to continue the great work. Unbelievable.

        Even if we just assume total incompetence, by what perverse logic is he the best person to fix the damage he has done?

        51

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Far from incompetence TdeF I call a calculated plan instigated from the CCP, Andrews is exhibiting all the hallmarks of Communist modus operandi, public misinformation to cover the truth, mistakes blamed on everyone and no one to void accountability, give an appearance of concern while monstering the people, use public safety as a vehicle for installing a police state, central planning taken to extremes, use an innocuous threat to override laws and civil liberties.

          After the stalling and bureaucratic time wasting, when Victoria is on its knees only then will great leader Andrews suddenly offer a solution to all our woes with help from his close business contacts from China for a one off life saving deal of the century.

          If more people had read Orwell’s 1984 they’d realise that the perception of perpetual war and enemies is just that, an imagined threat invented by the superstate used to control an oppressed population with a leader seen as a cult of personality that is embraced as a benevolent dictator regardless of the cruelty, this is what Victorians are currently experiencing albeit the early stages.

          With PM Morrison either complicit with the plan or letting things go bad for political leverage next election who can tell, all I know is people better get acquainted with history, politics and the law while it still exists because without these they will cease to as well.

          80

      • #
        RickWill

        Covid 19 takes no prisoners. It just goes on doing what it does. Relentless in seeking out dimwits willing to host it and pass it on. Even better at finding the holes in the government net designed to contain it.

        The damning aspects for Dan Andrews in his evidence was:
        1. Hotel quarantine took the responsibility for quarantine away from individuals and placed it squarely in the hands of government.
        2. Andrews knew the private security industry were a bunch of cowboys as there was a government inquiry underway mid last year to investigate its practices.
        3. Andrews knew that private security was among three options being considered to ‘police’ hotel quarantine – police force, ADF or private security. He made no effort to remove private security from the options.
        4. Andrews still claimed he had no idea who made the decision to use private security.
        5. All the ministers involved in the inquiry had engaged QCs to advise them individually and protect their interest. That means that they are concerned about personal culpability. Their own laws, aimed at the private sector, might prove to be used against them.

        I am hopeful of a single recommendation from the inquiry – remove Andrews from his position; his incompetence is eye-watering.

        01

  • #
    Maptram

    An extract from page 2 of Premier Andrews press conference held on 27 March 2020.

    “National Cabinet has made this decision. I’ll give you a fuller update tomorrow about all the
    different logistical elements of it. It’s no small task. I’m very grateful to the Prime Minister for
    him agreeing to let this be a true partnership between Victoria Police, our health officials, as
    well as the Australian Defence Force. I think that will work very well. Also just finally, there’s
    also an agreement for an ADF Victoria partnership on compliance for all of those Victorians
    that are at home quarantining because they’ve arrived already.”

    Mr Andrews often says that private security was used for Hotel Quarantine because the ADF was not offered. It seems to me the ADF was offered before the 27 March.

    70

    • #
      Dennis

      And in Queensland where the second worst Labor Government is in power the Deputy Premier is claiming that planned withdrawal of ADF personnel is a deliberate attack on the Queensland Government, after all, he said, ADF are for all Australians.

      The Premier earlier claimed that Queensland Hospitals were for Queensland citizens when interstate patients were rejected.

      How Union Labor spins, whatever it takes.

      80

      • #
        Peter C

        ScoMo wants the State borders opened. Some states say No.
        Hence the troops are withdrawn. States which want to keep their borders closed can use their own police resources to do so.

        40

    • #
      TdeF

      “a true partnership between Victoria Police, our health officials, as well as the Australian Defence Force.” 27 March 2020.

      There were so many press conferences that collective amnesia is impossible. Everyone knew
      about the ‘security guards’ idea and fiasco. And the curfew.
      Or did no one anywhere actually go near a hotel? Even the police?

      There is no part of the multitude of denials and the prevalence of lost memories which is credible.

      71

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Victoria Police can now be ruled out as legal law enforcement where the laws are concerned, they have been wilfully complicit in enacting obvious subversive orders directly from Spring Street and not the rule of law they had sworn to uphold, disturbingly is the total lack of reasonable decision and moral substance where the treatment of the innocent people they swore to protect has been totally forfeited with the illegal implementation of powers never seen through two world wars.

        70

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    The recent announcement by the Prime Minister on electricity generation would in horse breeding be called Desperation out of Wishful Thinking. In practice the result wouldn’t win many horse races but then donkeys never do.

    The claims are that switching to gas generation would
    reduce CO2 emissions,
    reduce the cost of electricity and
    stabilise the grid (by the rapid response by gas).

    Starting in reverse order; this is a confusion between OCGT and CCGT operation.
    The first option offers fast start up (although not as fast as some claim), so covering up the variability of renewables. These “Peaking Plants” are basically a jet engine driving a generator. Those who have flown in the last X years will be aware that the aeroplane captain starts the jet engines slowly and allows them to warm up for some time before maximum power is required.
    This isn’t a personal foible but a practice to avoid thermal stress cracking in the turbine blades. Rapid startup of OCGTs results in much higher maintenance downtime and costs.
    Also the CO2 emissions are nearly double that of of CCGTs.

    The second is that these units are “low cost” generations, which is belied by their price bids for supply, typically around $300 per MWh or upwards. So if we were to rely on a mix of Wind and OCGTs we would wind up with a lesser reduction in CO2 emissions and higher costs ( “wishful thinking”).
    Can CCGT’s be used with wind? NO. It was tried in Ireland where the wishful thinking was to marry the lower running cost, reliability and lower CO2 emissions of CCGTs with the variable “carbon free” source from wind (“wishful thinking”). The problem was that the output of the CCGTs was reduced when the wind blew, pushing them to lower output, lower efficiency, hence higher costs and higher CO2 emissions.
    Indeed any continuous source of generation coal, nuclear and CCGT’s will be adversely effected by a variable supply from renewables. Bad generation drives out Good, or wishful thinking doesn’t work.

    The problem with renewables is that they are variable and unpredictable** but that have priority access to supply. The burden of this variability falls on the reliable suppliers. The efforts to reduce the effects of renewables (interstate connectors or storage in batteries or pumped hydro) all fall on the public, not the renewables, along with the cost of subsidies.
    There is a further disadvantage in the bidding for supply when wind dependent generators MUST get on the list of supply in order to qualify for that subsidy, and that means making a very low price bid. And a further advantage to those disrupters in that the price paid is determined by the HIGHEST BIDDER. That is often the OCGTs which doesn’t result in reduced costs of electricity.

    The solution would be to demand that bids be at a fixed price, avoiding “gaming” of the cost. And by setting a time (say one hour or more) that supply must be made or penalties be paid.
    IF renewables are so cheap, as we are constantly assured, then this allows them to provide their own backup by (getting real cheap) batteries, OCGT’s or pumped storage.

    **Any claims for predictably should include generation figures for 3 months ahead for comparison.

    30

    • #
      Rowjay

      G3 – there also has to be gas pressured up and in the pipelines in sufficient quantity for the wishful thinking to work

      As an aside, just as “renewable energy generators” should be called Weather Dependent Generators, the term “fracking” should be replaced with Hydraulic Fracturing, which in most cases is just water for the hydraulic part and sand to keep the fractures open to allow the gas to escape. There is a ridiculously long Wiki list of “additives for hydraulic fracturing” of which the most amusing is:
      :
      124-38-9 : Carbon Dioxide : ???? Penetrant, lubricator
      :
      And what about this really nasty sounding one
      :
      121888-68-4 : benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethylammonium stearate complex
      :
      I’ll leave fellow bloggers to work out what that really is – reading the list gave me the best laughs that I’ve had all weekend.

      10

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        It is a quaternary ammonium surfactant reacted with stearic acid to form a water insoluble wax. What the hell it does I don’t know.

        10

        • #
          Rowjay

          It is the scary name for bentonite clay – the stuff that winemakers use to clarify their product and drillers use to thicken up the circulating fluid to help lift the rock fragments out of the drill hole and farmers use to seal leaking dams. But if it is used during the hydraulic fracturing exercise, it must be bad for the environment by association.

          10

  • #
    Craig

    Jo,

    What happened to the cool future funds management scheme? You and David were behind the idea but the scheme seems to have taken peoples money and done a runner. What’s going on?

    10

    • #

      Craig

      I had never heard of it. I have my sharp differences with Jo about the pandemic but read her as a straightforward and ethical person. Looking into the background of the fund dating from 2016 I see that it was suggested it be treated as a donation and not an investment, there were numerous disclaimers by jo and a caveat emptor warning .

      No idea what has since happened to it, I would guess it never reached sufficient start up funding to make it a viable proposition and never got off the ground.

      30

  • #
    liberator

    So whatever happened to Dr Mary-Anne Demasi following on from her controversial ABC Catalyst series on cholesterol and statins?

    https://www.crossfit.com/health/science-and-censorship-my-story

    I stopped watching Catalyst not long after this, and I rarely watch anything on there at all nowadays, especially not news or current affairs. Grand Designs is pretty much it but I have watched recently Further Back in time for Dinner – hard to throw climate change in there. Although I almost thought they would when they started burning coal instead of wood in their stove!

    30

    • #
      robert rosicka

      I stopped watching when Catalyst did a show on the melting sea ice in Antarctica, the video footage used clearly showed polar bears walking at the edge of the shore line .

      50

  • #
    Another Ian

    Happenings in Canada

    “Cabernet Rin Tin Tin”

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/09/27/cabernet-rin-tin-tin/#comments

    And the comments!!!

    00

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    “Nice call Andrew!”

    https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/09/27/nice-call-andrew/

    “This paper examines the renewable generation of electricity in Australia from photovoltaics (PV), solar thermal electricity (STE) and wind. PV, STE and wind have immense resources and small environmental impacts even when deployed on very large scales. They are the only fully sustainable technologies able to completely replace fossil and nuclear electricity generation during this century. Wind energy is now a low cost generation technology, and is likely to provide 10 per cent of the world’s electricity by 2020.

    Andrew Blakers, (2000), “Solar and Wind Electricity in Australia”, Australian Journal of Environmental Management,” 7 (4): 223-236.

    Blakers SolarwindANU”

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    BBC Happenings

    “This is how it is done”

    https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/09/27/this-is-how-it-is-done/

    I guess this could have been on the previous thread as I doubt ABC/SBS would mention it

    00

    • #
      Peter C

      Defund the ABC? ScoMo could do that anytime, with just a stroke of the pen.

      What has he actually done? There is supposed to be a funding freeze. Is it actual>
      Go Boris with the BBC!

      10

  • #
    Peter C

    I watched Climate Hustle Part 1 yesterday and Climate Hustle Part 2 this morning.

    It was a big commitment. Part 1 was 1 hour and 19 Minutes and Part 2 was 2 hours and 24 Minutes ( including a 23 minute introduction and 24 minutes of commentary and questions at the end).

    I thought it was quite good. A lot of the major skeptics were featured. Both films relied on interviews which were cut and spliced to suit the themes.

    It seemed like a lot of talking heads after I had watched a few hours of it. Maybe they could have had a few more graphics and take outs of the underlying science (what little there is). It might have been effective to show more of the Climate Alarmists spruking their message, then show how often and consistently they have been wrong.

    Who else watched? What did you think?

    40

    • #
      TdeF

      Thanks. Glad you watched it. Someone had to watch it, a feat in itself.

      A bit too much like Wagner’s Ring Cycle for me. Kill the Wabbit. (bugs bunny and Elmer Fudd)

      My view is that the whole thing is easily demonstrated to be fraudulent, so I wonder what 3 hours 43 minutes was about. Everyone has to have their say, I guess. But no bit of the idea of man generated CO2 producing cumulative CO2 and that producing rapid planetary warming and that having disastrous consequences has been proven. And after 32 years of it, you can forget the proofs. It’s history now. And obviously not true.

      70

    • #
      Graeme4

      Saw part 2 recently. Not bad, although I would have preferred less references to 1984.

      30

  • #
  • #
    mwhite

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GFFfmBGb5U

    “The commercial application of the SAFIRE PROJECT experiment as a nuclear plasma reactor.”

    00

  • #
    RicDre

    Hydrogen is at a ‘tipping point’ with $11 trillion market set to explode, says Bank of America

    My first reaction when I saw this headline was that “exploding” was something that hydrogen was rather good at.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/27/hydrogen-is-at-a-tipping-point-with-11-trillion-market-set-to-explode-says-bank-of-america.html

    20

  • #
    RicDre

    Another computer-modeled problem for us to worry about:

    5G wireless may lead to inaccurate weather forecasts

    Our study – the first of its kind that quantifies the effect of 5G on weather prediction error – suggests that there is an impact on the accuracy of weather forecasts,” said senior author Narayan B. Mandayam …

    The Rutgers study used computer modeling to examine the impact of 5G “leakage” – unintended radiation from a transmitter into an adjacent frequency band or channel – on forecasting the deadly 2008 Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak in the South and Midwest.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/27/5g-wireless-may-lead-to-inaccurate-weather-forecasts/

    00

  • #
    Robber

    Thank AEMO for keeping our lights on despite variable generation from wind and solar.
    From OpenNEM, for the last week here are the min/max generations from each source:
    Wind 0.7-4.6 GW (and of course the minimum wind occurred during an evening peak demand.)
    Large Solar 0-2.8 GW
    Rooftop Solar 0-6.2 GW
    Hydro 0.4-3.8 GW
    Gas 0.4-4.5 GW
    Coal 10.9-16.8 GW
    Those intermittent wind and solar generators delivered from 0.7 GW minimum to a maximum of 12.1 GW, forcing the reliable dispatchable generators to vary from 11.7-23.5 GW to keep the lights on.
    Over the whole week wind and solar delivered 26.1% of total generation, hydro 6.5%, gas 5.4% and coal 61.7%.
    Now imagine a future scenario where wind and solar deliver 50% of demand on average, but at other times close to 100% and at other critical times less than 5%.
    Will the lights stay on? At what cost?

    30

  • #
    el gordo

    The hiatus was apparently real.

    https://www.thegwpf.com/global-warming-hiatus-was-real-new-chinese-study-finds/

    It began in 1998 and ran for 15 years.

    00

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    Hey Jo

    This appears to be analogous to re-badging greenist “sustainable infrastructure”?

    Making nonsense trendy?

    Guess where pension funds might then send thier money? Thats scary….

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/09/how-to-drive-investment-into-sustainable-infrastructure

    “However, there is currently no way for them to verify which assets are genuinely sustainable.

    “That’s where the ‘Finance to Accelerate the Sustainable Transition-Infrastructure’ (FAST-Infra) initiative comes in. Its aim is to transform sustainable infrastructure into a mainstream, liquid asset class. To do this, it proposes to establish a consistent, globally applicable labelling system for investments in sustainable infrastructure assets. Through this labelling system, the market can easily signal the sustainability of the asset, and investors can trust that their money is going to projects that meet environmental, social, resiliency, and governance needs and contribute to the SDGs.

    20

  • #
    Orson

    Matt Ridley has a new piece on treating or preventing Covid-19 with Vitamin D, at the (London) Daily Telegraph.

    “Correcting Britain’s Vitamin D Deficiency Could Save Thousands of Lives”. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/26/correcting-britains-vitamin-d-deficiency-could-save-thousands/

    Unfortunately, it is paywalled. However, I expect it to be posted to Ridley’s blog site within days, here
    http://www.mattridley.co.uk/blog

    20