Returning to the YD for a second, the conveyor belt didn’t shut down.
‘The whole concept of North Atlantic Ocean circulation as having any appreciable influence upon the Younger Dryas is placed further in doubt by the work of Dr. Michael Sarnthein. Dr. Sarnthein has collected a large number of marine cores from throughout the Atlantic sampling the interval back to 30,000 before present (BP).
‘The conclusion gleaned from his work reveals that the North Atlantic Ocean circulation was operative during the Younger Dryas, and had been so for more than 1,500 years prior to the start of this cold period. This is consistent with one other high-resolution marine core from the South Atlantic (presumably a good location to detect North Atlantic shifts) that does not show a slowing or shutdown of the North Atlantic.’
Is there any reason to believe that volcanic eruptions since Pinatubo, even come close to producing enough to flatline that horrific increase in temperatures which the IPCC had predicted for the past 17 years?
1. There is no pause and anyone who says there is, is a Flat-Earther
2. There is no pause once you add in extra data from the Arctic
3. There is a pause, but all the heat’s mysteriously vanished
4. There is a pause, and we have dozens of different theories
5. There is a pause and we don’t need theories, since colder weather is proof of global warming anyway.
Your list can be made irrelevant by any good warmist. All they need to say is, “The science is settled,” and you’re expected to grovel before them begging for forgiveness.
If you think it is over the top calling people who fantasise about violence against “deniers” NAZIs, imagine for a moment if the target of the violent fantasy was a Jew, then ask yourself – why is publicly targeting “deniers” with fantasy violence any different?
Sure, alarmists might not be in a position to lock us up in camps – but the thought is there.
Its not the first time skeptics have been the targets of hate speach – possibly the worst episode of fantasy violence to date is the infamous 10:10 video, which depicted a school teacher “humorously” blowing up school children who dared to disagree with her views on global warming.
I remember a couple of years ago ending up in a conversation on a well known alarmists site.
Well actually the site itself is not an alarmist site but their global warming thread is.
They were talking about population culling.
I played along with them for awhile and they were deadly serious.
Some third world country’s were in a lot of trouble if they get their way.
One suggesting deniers be rounded up and culled as well.
When I eventually outed myself and called the sick barstards for what they were.
Some then proceeded to say they were only joking. Some went silent.
I snitched on them to the moderator and he chastised me for questioning their parentage.
I haven’t been back.
Yeh their a worry alright.
There is a school of thought on that thread that it is a comment on warmists. The theory goes that there is so much global cooling that there will be a surplus of icicles and that you can recycle them into the hearts of “deniers”. The warmist character is after all drawn like a corporate tycoon.
Maybe not very funny, but maybe not so Nazi after all.
In the Dr Roy Spencer thread about global warming Nazis, one of the commenters said that they like the term “Eco-nasties”. I think it is a good term as well.
Nup, don’t buy it. If it was a jew or arab or just about any other group you could imagine on the receiving end of the icicle, nobody would see the funny side. But because its a “denier” on the receiving end, the eco-NAZIs think it is a hoot.
Two weeks ago Naomi Oreskes was back in usual form, asserting that the USA should use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to prosecute climate skeptics.
The following day NBC held a faux-debate about climate change. Salon piled on the scorn, stating: “What’s insulting (and insane) is that there is to be a ‘debate’ at all, on one of America’s supposed premier news talk shows.” However the Salon writer at least figured out there was indeed something fishy about a climate science debate in which the skeptic side was argued by a politician not a scientist. As if this was not the intended effect all along.
Last week CNN criticised NBC for even having a debate at all. Their brief derision of the event was: “And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them. Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists.” Apparently the presently assembled Jonovocastrians do not exist, as there is only one side in the debate. Cable News Network or Adjustment Bureau? (That’s a rhetorical question, I know CNN was always like that.)
Reddit’s AskScience forum blogged about it with the ostensible purpose of finding quibbles about the responses that were made and fielding alternative replies that the debaters could have made. Of course what the AskScience moderators actually did was delete a whole bunch of questions and answers. What were those questions about? Your guess is as good as mine.
Pierre at NTZ suggests we keep focusing the uncommitted on the observational evidence and it’s a strategy hard to fault.
Its tough to respond to Naomi’s delusional behavior without resorting to name calling (like I just did). But she is 100% whacko, off with the pixies, 2 snags short of a bbq, not the full quid. So basically I treat her now the same way I would with someone who was espousing the Mayan prophecy or bigfoot sightings, just ignore them, they cant be reasoned with.
I posted this further down too, but its funny to see the shoe on the other foot.
Look at how furious the warmists get when theyre the ones being called Nazi’s. The article writer and the comments section.
The really disturbing thing about the 10-10 video was that not one of the several dozen people involved stood up and said, “This is seriously sick.” People like that would shove you into a gas chamber without a qualm.
Sure, alarmists might not be in a position to lock us up in camps – but the thought is there.
I cannot prove this but there is credible evidence that Obama is preparing to do just that with anyone who becomes a credible opponent in the public eye. No one thought Hitler would do the things he did until they unfolded on the news or were revealed after the war.
If you check the data on BOM for country towns, you will find that they do not have data prior to 1950. Some of these towns had reliable enough data to show that the records are not even since Europeans were in Australia but just for the last 60 years. There were many temperatures recorded over 50°C but none last year nor this summer. Adelaide and Melbourne have data (taken in cooler spots) that show some of the summers 100 years ago were on par with this one.
If the SE Aus climate is oscillating with a 100 year period, then we are likely to see a few more stinkers soon.
After reading the BOM’s latest contribution to the global warming fraud.
It was this posting by Jo a while back that prompted me to ask the question above.
Vic, if you haven’t read it I suggest you do.
What you wrote about is well and truly covered at the link.
It is an eye opener to just what lengths the warmist”beneficiaries”will go to to maintain the fraud. http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
Maybe the reason for the hiatus, or pause, in the warming is that people are getting fatter and this means that they are removing more carbon and water from the planet’s natural system.
First of all, don’t cite RealClimate until the Bore Hole is removed, I won’t even link there. It’s a warmist echo chamber of the highest degree, no science there because there is no debate there.
A) Catastrophic … Now you argue on weather, weather is not climate. The English Floods are being shown to have much more to do with poor maintenance of drainage than unprecedented rain, on that point the rain in England is NOT unprecedented having been worse 16 times since records began. 2. You Argue that the sharp Cooling in the USA is the product of a global warming that hasn’t happened for 20 years – seriously. Remembering that the USA Deep Freeze has caused the global temperature average to drop markedly in January, you are in effect arguing that Global Warming causes Global Cooling? Rain and snow are normal weather concerns especially in a period that has shown either little change or cooling since 2001, causing few problems except of course if you price heating out of the budget of pensioners who subsequently die from energy poverty. You are missing cause from cause and effect. Meanwhile let’s consider the effect of you getting your way and of cooling the climate just 0.8 degrees to the preindustrial depths of the Little ice age – This period killed half the population of Europe just 0.8 degrees cooler than 1999 !
But let’s get away from the subjective stuff and become objective, how much extra precipitation (snow/rain for floods and blizzards) can 0.6W of imbalance per square meter cause – well let’s calculate it!
Now to evaporate water from an average of 15 degrees and raise it 3KM into clouds where it can rain out takes energy, this much
2260 KJ per Kilogram (Heat of Vaporization)
3000×9.8 J = 29.4 kJ to raise it to 3kM
= 2289 kJ per kg (or 2.289 MJ)
(Not taking into account ice melt that this might need )
World precipitation averages about a meter per annum (over a surface of 510,072,000 Square km 510,072,000,000,000 Square meters) so a meter cover over each square meter give a cubic meter of rainfall per square meter on average which weighs 1 Tonne.
To evaporate a Tonne of water and raise it to 3kM costs 2289000 x 1000 J = 2289 MJ we’ll need this later.
There’s about 8766 hours in a year at 0.6W radiative imbalance so we have 0.6×8766 = 5259 Watt hours (5.2 kW-h) CO2 warming per square meter per annum. A kWh equals 3.6MJ so our 5.2kWh = 18.7 MJ per annum and therefore 0.6W per square meter can evaporate 18.7/2.289 = 8.16kg more water per square meter per year.
Convert to a ratio
8.16/1000 = 0.816% more evaporation for rain, snow and superstorms.
Hmm 0.816 % doesn’t look catastrophic to me. Gotta love math hey!
Of course if all that was happening then all the 0.6W would be consumed in evaporation and there would be NO WARMING.
B. Well Let’s see, I’ll take a look at google, and I See that 80% of the earth is unchanged from preindustrial, being ocean, poles, and deserts. The rest is impacted but in minor ways and mostly just in the area of cities. The landscape in the country areas is largely unchanged for 100 years, however I note that we have seen a 6% greening since 2001 related to CO2 fertilization of vegetation and and the only thing that has been hurt is my back from mowing the lawn and weeding the garden more frequently. Man’s increase in CO2 (and Nitrogen fertilisers) has raised food availability by more than 15% – By the way, you didn’t address the question, where is your empirical PROOF than MAN increased the CO2, and that it’s not outgassing by the ocean driven by the warmer temperature that done it ? You do know that the percentage of Mans emissions is below the margin of error for calculating total emission don’t you?
C.
Mitigation is impossible
Take the largest Carbon Tax in the World, Australia
Aimed to Reduce CO2 by 0.05
Costs 11 Billion dollars a year
Australia is 0.013 of World CO2 Emission
Mans Emission is 0.03 of total emission
Australia’s effect then is 0.013×0.03 = 0.0003 of world CO2, and we are going to spend 11 Billion a year to make a 5% dent in that or 0.000015 of a difference for 11 Billion a Year. CO2 is about 400PPM so we make a difference of 0.000015 x 400 PPM is 0.006 PPM To reduce a doubling (3 Degrees) we need to do that 400/0.006 66,666 times so offsetting a doubling costs 66,666 x 11 Bn Dollars PER ANNUM or 733 Trillion dollars per annum, this gives a climate sensitivity to Carbon Tax Dollars of (By The IPPC numbers – 3 degrees per doubling) 250 Trillion dollars PER ANNUM per degree of mitigation – This is approximately 1 1/2 of world GDP – Ohh yeah, real practical this “Mitigation”. Of course if I’m right and climate sensitivity is a third of that at 1 degree per doubling then it costs 750 Trillion dollars per degree of mitigation.
Meanwhile of course while we go on spending the world’s riches on solar power and windmills instead of real social good , people keep dying from hunger (UN Says needs only 30 Bn a year to solve), Cancer, Malaria, Measles, and dysentery – Not to mention the aforementioned pensioners in England and apparently Adelaide who died from the shock of their electricity bills caused by that waste. Not directly of course but after the power bill shock caused them to try to save on their heating bills in winter.
1. Flowers for Algernon – Daniel Keyes
2. Dune – Herbert
3. “We the Living” rather than “Atlas Shrugged”.
4. Scott & AMundsen -purrman
5. Agree with your choice.
When it comes to Science Fiction, I’m a bit of an old World fan here.
Say, most things by Isaac Asimov, especially the first 3 Foundation novels.
E.E. ‘Doc’ Smith, but only the 6/7 Lensman novels, and for Fantasy, most of the works by Robert Heinlein.
Oddly when it comes to ‘new’ Science Fiction, well here there’s perhaps one of the best going around would be the Englishman Peter F Hamilton and his Night’s Dawn Trilogy. With his most recent novel Great North Road, he very successfully combines SF with crime fiction, a wonderful novel I fully recommend.
And if I could add one novel to my original list, it would be Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry.
E.E. “doc” Smith was a man of his times, and some of his earlier work is jarringly racist to us today. Azimov’s Foundation” series I read mostly under the bed covers by torchlight and my grades really suffered that 1/2 term. Both were glorious in their vision of the future, though the “I, Robot” sc- fy /crime series was also very thought provoking. Both Authors posited a future where the world was run by scientists and engineers. Bearing in mind our present travails, especially that the would-be ruling class is at odds with the democratic system, I suggest that Sy-Fy speculation on governance has departed from an acceptable reality.
1. LOTR………………………… Tolkein
2. Belgariad, Mallorian etc………. David Eddings
3. Any from E.E. Smith
4. Dune series………………….. Frank Herbert
5. Chronicles of Thomas Covernant…. Stephen Donaldson
Griss, I was almost surprised when I read E.E. Smith because some of my favorite reading was Edmund Ware Smith (but then realized I was off by at least a letter.)
I have little time for reading anything other than non-fiction. That said I can endorse reading Edmund Ware Smith and his stories of: the One Eyed Poacher In the Main Woods you’ll be delighted with a light and humorous life in upstate Maine near wilderness.
Hopefully these books can be found outside the US.
David Suzuki- The Lost World.
Hillary Clinton – Little Women.
Al Gore – The Wizard of Oz.
Trembath – 20000 Leagues Under the Sea.
Tim Flannery – Great Expectations.
Soon to be infamous,
Chris Turney – The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle.
1 – 3. Anything by Robert Heinlein or Larry Niven
4. Run Silent, Run Deep – Edward Beach
5. Lord of the Rings
Best for information/history (recently, in no particular order):
1. The Roots of Obama’s Rage – D’Sousa
2. Killing Lincoln – O’Reilly
3. Killing Kennedy – O’Reilly
4. Killing Jesus – O’Reilly
5. Apollo 13 – James Lovell, for it’s insight into what actually went on during that ill fated flight
I read many others in both categories but these stick out in my memory. Heinlein in particular gave me a lot of good reading as a teenager — kept me literally on the edge of my chair — and it’s hard to find another author who can capture my imagination the way he did.
FYI The Future of Shapes
Platonic solids are generically termed equilateral convex polyhedra.
In the millennia since Plato’s time, only two other collections of equilateral convex polyhedra have been found: Archimedean solids (including the truncated icosahedron) and Kepler solids (including rhombic polyhedra).
Nearly 400 years after the last class was described, mathematicians claim that they may have now identified a new, fourth class, which they call Goldberg polyhedra.
In the process of making this discovery, they think they’ve demonstrated that an infinite number of these solids could exist.
After 400 years, mathematicians find a new class of shapes
“Take a cube and blow it up like a balloon.”
~ ~ ~
Microfabrication enables the rational design of nano- and microparticles with different shapes and geometries in order to probe the cell membrane barrier.
The shape of the particle influences a number of behaviors associated with drug delivery.
For example, recent studies have reported that particles of various non-spherical geometries influence the rates of cellular internalisation.
I’ve just had my attention drawn to yet another ‘x% of scientists believe that..’ study which has recently surfaced. It’s by by James Lawrence Powell, who has apparently examined a year’s worth of climate-related scientific studies and claims that virtually all accept man-made global warming.
Powell’s analysis covers 2,258 articles published in peer-reviewed journals between November 2012 and December 2013, written by a total of 9,136 authors.
To save me a lot of time looking into this one, does any body know if his handiwork’s been critiqued anywhere? I’ve had a quick look, but not found anything as yet.
His website What’sUpWithThatWatts has an “Our climate has accumulated 2,xxx,xxx,xxx Hiroshima bombs” graphic. Looks like he had the conclusion written before he had even started.
Well that’s hardly surprising Carbon500 because in the last 17 years there hasn’t been any other kind of global warming ? Only the notional one perpetuated by well funded and dependently funded men.
Thank you Eddie and all those responding to my post asking about James Lawrence Powell’s claims.
I certainly think that these need closer examination before all the ‘warmists’ begin citing his handiwork as strong evidence in support of the supposed man-made warming – as they invariably will.
After years of us sceptics being called deniers and what not. Warmists saying we should be shot or gassed, etc etc. . . its quite amusing to see warmists up in arms over a climate scientist calling warmists Nazis.
The writer of the article is so butt hurt over the labelling and the comments are full of like minded warmists all on the brink of raging.
It all makes for some happy reading.
I make no bones about the fact that I am determined to stamp out the travesty of physics which is promulgated on warmist and luke warm climate blogs. This comment appears on several of them.
Roy Spencer still cannot prove with any valid physics his crazy postulate that there would be isothermal conditions in Earth’s troposphere in the absence of water vapour and radiating gases. The greenhouse conjecture depends totally upon this garbage “fissics” that would violate the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All the models depend totally on this weird idea which is never observed anywhere on any planet or moon, not even on Uranus where the base of the nominal troposphere is hotter than Earth.
Roy only needs to look at the data for the Uranus troposphere to realise that thermal gradients (aka “lapse rates”) evolve spontaneously at the molecular level. Radiating gases reduce the gradient (and thus cool the surface) due to inter-molecular radiation. They help energy escape faster up the troposphere and eventually to space. Radiation that strikes any warmer surface is just pseudo scattered.
There is no need for advection (upward rising gases) or any direct solar radiation or a surface: the lapse rate just forms autonomously as gravity acts on molecules in free flight between collisions.
That is why the (badly named) “lapse rate” on Earth, Venus, Uranus, the outer crust of Earth, the core of the Moon – everywhere – evolves spontaneously in solids, liquids and gases. That is why radiative forcing is not what is the primary determinant of any planet’s atmospheric or surface temperature – gravity is – gravity traps energy.
Water vapour reduces the insulation effect – just consider the problem with moist air in double glazed windows. Moist regions are cooler than dry regions – I have proved that with real world temperature records.
You’ll find the study in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available late April from Amazon etc. and from which I quote …
“The world will one day look back upon a small slice of history that began in the 1980’s and sadly have to conclude that never in the name of science have so many people been so seriously misled by so few for so long. Never have so many careers, so much time and so much money been spent in the pursuit of such a misguided and ineffective goal to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide, a harmless gas which comprises about one molecule in every two and a half thousand other molecules in the atmosphere of our planet, Earth.”
You might want to check your references instead of just citing them.
If you check WP’s reference on the Uranus troposphere (de Pater, Romani, et al, 1991) it says:
We improved the old models by including microwave absorption by H2S. The rotational lines of this gas, which are all at (sub)millimeter wavelengths, are pressure broadened to such an extent that considerable opacity at centimeter wavelengths is expected. We estimate from our calculations that the H2S mixing ratio on Uranus and Neptune is likely enhanced by a factor of 10-30 above the solar sulfur elemental ratio, and that the S/N ratio must exceed 5 x the solar ratio. Our calculations suggest the width of the H2S line to be similar to or less than that of water.
Hmmm, is it possible that through pressure broadening the hydrogen sulfide may perform the same radiative role on Uranus as water does on Earth?
Now a very funny thing happens if you compare the H2S absorption spectrum to 320K blackbody radiation. Funny how the H2S absorption band lines up with Uranus’ 320K radiation more closely than H2O’s absorption band aligns with Earth’s 288K radiation. I reckon in your efforts to disprove the greenhouse theory you may have discovered the greenhouse effect on Uranus. What do you think?
There is no significant solar radiation even reaching the TOA of Uranus, it being nearly 30 times further from the Sun than we are, and thus getting little more than 1/900th the flux. Then the methane layer near TOA absorbs nearly all of it anyway and would radiate half that back to space. What is radiated downwards (to regions les cold than the methane layer, which is about 60K) would not transfer net thermal energy anyway, and would just be pseudo scattered and eventually come back out to space.
The 320K temperature is at altitude -300Km (which is 350Km below the methane layer that’s near +50Km) and there is no surface there.
The temperature keeps on increasing right down to the small solid core (55% the mass of Earth) which is thousands of Km further down, but at a temperature of about 5,000K. It’s pretty obvious that all the radiated energy even at TOA would not raise the core temperature above 60K. The atmosphere cannot magnify the energy!
Radiation does not explain planetary surface temperatures, not even on Earth or the Moon. After all, why is the Moon’s average temperature only 197K when it receives about twice as much radiative flux as the Earth’s surface?
Heard on the “news” this morning (ALPBC) that Methane is a bigger cause of global warming than CO2.
Methane is a GHG which is 21 times (how shall I put this) more volatile than CO2.
This was only ever about the money.
The image at this link is taken directly from the current CO2 Tax legislation currently in force here in Australia. This chart is taken directly from the UNFCCC and the UNIPCC and shows the volatility of those GHG with respect to CO2.
Our current CO2 Tax legislation also takes in these other GHG, costing them as multipliers of CO2, so as an example, Methane, being 21 times more volatile is costed at the current cost for CO2 multiplied by 21.
The other gases the same, CO2 multiplied by the number following the gas.
Most of those other gases are refrigerants.
Ever wonder how that now, how we’ve found out that the CO2 Tax is raking in Billions and people wonder how the current Government can do without all that luvverly moolah rolling in, $6 Billion Plus.
Think back to the hype from the Government when they said that they would be giving nearly all of the whole take back to the people.
They very cleverly just left out part of that statement.
What they would be giving back was the part applicable to what the householder might have to pay because electrical power generating retailers (the middleman) would be passing directly on to consumers of electricity. The power generating Companies pay the Tax, so Labor/Green could make the claim that the derdy polluders are the ones paying this (don’t call it a Tax) They pass the cost down to the retailers, who then pass it on to the consumer, all consumers across all areas of power consumption.
So they gave the pensioners and some others an extra amount on their pensions to cover that, and then artfully claimed that they were giving it all back.
They were in fact giving a refund to around 75% of householders, and the residential power consumption is only 26% of the overall total power consumption.
So, they were giving back 75% of 26%, or 19.5% of the total incoming, hence we have Government still raking in $6 Billion Plus.
So, the refund applied to 26% of power consumption,Methane, and those other GHG, none of which was given a refund, hence 74% of all power consumption paid the full cost.
Also of note is that multiplier for Methane, so those people also connected to town gas or bottled gas also had their gas bills rise as well, again only partially covered by the refund to some of the residential consumers of natural gas.
Then add on the cost of the refrigerants, also passed down to consumers. (and here, think of Coles and Woolies and their huge banks of refrigerators and freezers.)
None of this charge on CO2, Methane and other GHG was designed to lower emissions of them, just to make money from them.
Look at the chart again.
Those GHG other than CO2 and Methane are vanishingly small, and at those multipliers, they are a huge source of revenue.
This was always only about the money, and please don’t try and persuade me it was otherwise.
But TonyfromOz, don’t all governments have the citizens best interest at heart. Aren’t all politicians saintly who would never lie, steal or cheat…I’m afraid you are not being part of the compliant sheeple to have views like this!!! (sarc)
stewgreen on wuwt brought up the ABC’s Naked Scientists – Naked at the AAS – program which i posted about on earlier thread, & rightly named the person asking the “climate deniers” question as Joel Werner (formerly ABC or maybe still ABC). couldn’t find any way to listen on ABC today (i originally heard it on the radio national) but, from the audio on the Cambridge Uni/BBC Naked Scientists’ website, i listened at 26mins30secs & he does identify himself as Joel Werner. stewgreen feels the question was a set-up – i agree.
don’t know why the transcript on Cambridge Uni/BBC website named him as Joel Veness, science journalist, which i had found odd, because i could find no journalism for anyone of that name, & had wondered if it was the google scholar/former UNSW/Reinforcement Learning guy, Joel Veness.
the “stun gun” remarks by taxpayer-funded ABC’s Chris Smith & Robyn Williams is what shocked me most:
Robyn Williams, ABC: But I think what has been shown Naomi Oreskes who was at San Diego and is now at Harvard in her book “Merchants of Doubt”. As Marc said, what one side is using is rational argument and trying to get the information over and it’s complex. When there’s something that knocks their ideas, they write a 20-page article which is published in one of the journal which their mates read and on the other side, the people who are knocking climate science are using all the techniques of advertising, of propaganda and the sowing of doubt. Naomi Oreskes is sighting the tobacco companies who, for 40 years or more were trying to say that cigarettes may be okay. There is doubt about the science. So, it’s unequal and I think it’s time the scientists really got up, didn’t use propaganda, but use short, sharp sentences and fought equally.
***Chris Smith, ABC – And stun guns might help as well.
Robyn Williams, ABC – Yes…
as for Werner, he is presently in Andrew Luck-Baker’s (Chris Turney Fiasco) chair at the Beeb.
BBC: Discovery – (Link to podcasts for all four Joel Werner programs on Saving the Oceans):
24 Feb: Part Four: How combining traditional Aboriginal teachings with cutting edge science is helping to preserve Australia’s unique marine reef ecology. http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/discovery
descriptions from individual prog pages:
3 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part One
In the first programme Joel Werner visits Kiribati – an isolated Pacific island group threatened by rising sea levels…
10 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part Two
The second episode in our four-part series Saving the Ocean in which we look at the impact of climate change, overfishing and pollution on ocean environments, and examine the scientific solutions to some of those issues. Presented by Joel Werner from the Australian broadcaster ABC Radio National…
17 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part Three
Presented by Joel Werner from the Australian broadcaster ABC Radio National…
And he hears how undersea volcanic activity near Papua New Guinea is providing clues about the future direction of ocean climate change.
Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S.
The Farmers’ Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.
The Maine-based Farmers’ Almanac’s still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.
hadjive: Instead of climate scientists being trained at universities, maybe we should have the Farmers’ Almanac organization set up a university to properly train climate scientists. Just a thought!
Returning to the YD for a second, the conveyor belt didn’t shut down.
‘The whole concept of North Atlantic Ocean circulation as having any appreciable influence upon the Younger Dryas is placed further in doubt by the work of Dr. Michael Sarnthein. Dr. Sarnthein has collected a large number of marine cores from throughout the Atlantic sampling the interval back to 30,000 before present (BP).
‘The conclusion gleaned from his work reveals that the North Atlantic Ocean circulation was operative during the Younger Dryas, and had been so for more than 1,500 years prior to the start of this cold period. This is consistent with one other high-resolution marine core from the South Atlantic (presumably a good location to detect North Atlantic shifts) that does not show a slowing or shutdown of the North Atlantic.’
Rodney Chilton / guest post WUWT
50
Excuse # 9 for ‘The Pause’ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/23/study-volcanoes-contribute-to-recent-warming-hiatus/
Is there any reason to believe that volcanic eruptions since Pinatubo, even come close to producing enough to flatline that horrific increase in temperatures which the IPCC had predicted for the past 17 years?
80
There’s at least five stages to this:
1. There is no pause and anyone who says there is, is a Flat-Earther
2. There is no pause once you add in extra data from the Arctic
3. There is a pause, but all the heat’s mysteriously vanished
4. There is a pause, and we have dozens of different theories
5. There is a pause and we don’t need theories, since colder weather is proof of global warming anyway.
230
Rick,
Your list can be made irrelevant by any good warmist. All they need to say is, “The science is settled,” and you’re expected to grovel before them begging for forgiveness.
00
Another NAZI decloaks on WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/23/nyt-suggests-deniers-should-be-stabbed-through-the-heart-like-vampires/
If you think it is over the top calling people who fantasise about violence against “deniers” NAZIs, imagine for a moment if the target of the violent fantasy was a Jew, then ask yourself – why is publicly targeting “deniers” with fantasy violence any different?
Sure, alarmists might not be in a position to lock us up in camps – but the thought is there.
Its not the first time skeptics have been the targets of hate speach – possibly the worst episode of fantasy violence to date is the infamous 10:10 video, which depicted a school teacher “humorously” blowing up school children who dared to disagree with her views on global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Mw5_EBk0g
120
I remember a couple of years ago ending up in a conversation on a well known alarmists site.
Well actually the site itself is not an alarmist site but their global warming thread is.
They were talking about population culling.
I played along with them for awhile and they were deadly serious.
Some third world country’s were in a lot of trouble if they get their way.
One suggesting deniers be rounded up and culled as well.
When I eventually outed myself and called the sick barstards for what they were.
Some then proceeded to say they were only joking. Some went silent.
I snitched on them to the moderator and he chastised me for questioning their parentage.
I haven’t been back.
Yeh their a worry alright.
130
That’ll learn you for posting on Crikey.
80
Eric,
There is a school of thought on that thread that it is a comment on warmists. The theory goes that there is so much global cooling that there will be a surplus of icicles and that you can recycle them into the hearts of “deniers”. The warmist character is after all drawn like a corporate tycoon.
Maybe not very funny, but maybe not so Nazi after all.
In the Dr Roy Spencer thread about global warming Nazis, one of the commenters said that they like the term “Eco-nasties”. I think it is a good term as well.
30
The icicles probably retain their value better than Carbon Credits
40
Nup, don’t buy it. If it was a jew or arab or just about any other group you could imagine on the receiving end of the icicle, nobody would see the funny side. But because its a “denier” on the receiving end, the eco-NAZIs think it is a hoot.
60
Well, in the interests of consistency they should probably only be stabbed through the heart after you have checked for their tattoo.
37
–
An ideal job for GetUp volunteers!
00
Are they being ironic, or does mailing icicles in envelopes show just how gullible your average warmist is ?
50
Your average Warming alarmist doesn’t do irony.
30
[Your average Warming alarmist doesn’t do irony.]
I’ll see you irony and raise you that your average Grumpy True Disbeliever doesn’t do deliberate humor.
But they can be very funny nonetheless. 🙂
214
I don’t know, Cat. We’ve made fun of you plenty of times.
30
That is only funny because we know you really mean it.
20
tru dat
10
Two weeks ago Naomi Oreskes was back in usual form, asserting that the USA should use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act to prosecute climate skeptics.
The following day NBC held a faux-debate about climate change.
Salon piled on the scorn, stating: “What’s insulting (and insane) is that there is to be a ‘debate’ at all, on one of America’s supposed premier news talk shows.” However the Salon writer at least figured out there was indeed something fishy about a climate science debate in which the skeptic side was argued by a politician not a scientist. As if this was not the intended effect all along.
Last week CNN criticised NBC for even having a debate at all. Their brief derision of the event was: “And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them. Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists.” Apparently the presently assembled Jonovocastrians do not exist, as there is only one side in the debate. Cable News Network or Adjustment Bureau? (That’s a rhetorical question, I know CNN was always like that.)
Reddit’s AskScience forum blogged about it with the ostensible purpose of finding quibbles about the responses that were made and fielding alternative replies that the debaters could have made. Of course what the AskScience moderators actually did was delete a whole bunch of questions and answers. What were those questions about? Your guess is as good as mine.
Pierre at NTZ suggests we keep focusing the uncommitted on the observational evidence and it’s a strategy hard to fault.
60
Its tough to respond to Naomi’s delusional behavior without resorting to name calling (like I just did). But she is 100% whacko, off with the pixies, 2 snags short of a bbq, not the full quid. So basically I treat her now the same way I would with someone who was espousing the Mayan prophecy or bigfoot sightings, just ignore them, they cant be reasoned with.
20
Barmey in the crumpet, perhaps?
10
Someone wise once said that it is difficult to reason someone out of a position that they did’t reason themselves into
40
You know you are losing a debate, Andrew, when you try to pretend that there isn’t any debate.
Facts and observations are like kryptonite to them, and the cold light of day sends them scurrying like rats into dark corners away from prying eyes.
Not exactly the behaviour one would expect from those on the side of the righteous is it?
40
Don’t forget this little excerpt from CNN: http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/04/19/cnn-tries-to-hide-tea-party-%E2%80%9Cyou-tube%E2%80%9D-video-evidence-showing-cnn-reporter-susan-roesgen-are-liberal-hacks/
One of the earlier issues with CNN reporting on the Tea Party. Link includes video not shown in the CNN report.
10
I posted this further down too, but its funny to see the shoe on the other foot.
Look at how furious the warmists get when theyre the ones being called Nazi’s. The article writer and the comments section.
http://io9.com/are-you-a-global-warming-nazi-probably-according-to-1529167415
30
Do Climate Change NAZIs have storm troopers?
20
Michael Mann a storm trooper? Bolt calls him a liar and gives him 24 hours to correct and apologise before he sets the legals on to him: Mann tries to bully Murdoch and Andrew Bolt, based on a false twitter account. Book your seats now for another wild ride.
00
DT, they have 2 types of troopers, super storm troopers and extreme storm troopers.
00
The really disturbing thing about the 10-10 video was that not one of the several dozen people involved stood up and said, “This is seriously sick.” People like that would shove you into a gas chamber without a qualm.
10
I cannot prove this but there is credible evidence that Obama is preparing to do just that with anyone who becomes a credible opponent in the public eye. No one thought Hitler would do the things he did until they unfolded on the news or were revealed after the war.
00
Jo, where are you at in relation to having the audit conducted on the BOM?
I left this elsewhere on site and wonder if you’ve read it.
http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/more-record-hot-days-in-past-decade-bom/story-e6frfku9-1226836071775
40
If you check the data on BOM for country towns, you will find that they do not have data prior to 1950. Some of these towns had reliable enough data to show that the records are not even since Europeans were in Australia but just for the last 60 years. There were many temperatures recorded over 50°C but none last year nor this summer. Adelaide and Melbourne have data (taken in cooler spots) that show some of the summers 100 years ago were on par with this one.
If the SE Aus climate is oscillating with a 100 year period, then we are likely to see a few more stinkers soon.
30
After reading the BOM’s latest contribution to the global warming fraud.
It was this posting by Jo a while back that prompted me to ask the question above.
Vic, if you haven’t read it I suggest you do.
What you wrote about is well and truly covered at the link.
It is an eye opener to just what lengths the warmist”beneficiaries”will go to to maintain the fraud.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/australian-temperature-records-shoddy-inaccurate-unreliable-surprise/
00
Maybe the reason for the hiatus, or pause, in the warming is that people are getting fatter and this means that they are removing more carbon and water from the planet’s natural system.
Now, if only I could get some grant money…
80
Bobl’s response to BilB Brought forward from a previous thread, now awaiting BilB’s rebuttal.
For context start Here
First of all, don’t cite RealClimate until the Bore Hole is removed, I won’t even link there. It’s a warmist echo chamber of the highest degree, no science there because there is no debate there.
A) Catastrophic … Now you argue on weather, weather is not climate. The English Floods are being shown to have much more to do with poor maintenance of drainage than unprecedented rain, on that point the rain in England is NOT unprecedented having been worse 16 times since records began. 2. You Argue that the sharp Cooling in the USA is the product of a global warming that hasn’t happened for 20 years – seriously. Remembering that the USA Deep Freeze has caused the global temperature average to drop markedly in January, you are in effect arguing that Global Warming causes Global Cooling? Rain and snow are normal weather concerns especially in a period that has shown either little change or cooling since 2001, causing few problems except of course if you price heating out of the budget of pensioners who subsequently die from energy poverty. You are missing cause from cause and effect. Meanwhile let’s consider the effect of you getting your way and of cooling the climate just 0.8 degrees to the preindustrial depths of the Little ice age – This period killed half the population of Europe just 0.8 degrees cooler than 1999 !
But let’s get away from the subjective stuff and become objective, how much extra precipitation (snow/rain for floods and blizzards) can 0.6W of imbalance per square meter cause – well let’s calculate it!
Now to evaporate water from an average of 15 degrees and raise it 3KM into clouds where it can rain out takes energy, this much
2260 KJ per Kilogram (Heat of Vaporization)
3000×9.8 J = 29.4 kJ to raise it to 3kM
= 2289 kJ per kg (or 2.289 MJ)
(Not taking into account ice melt that this might need )
World precipitation averages about a meter per annum (over a surface of 510,072,000 Square km 510,072,000,000,000 Square meters) so a meter cover over each square meter give a cubic meter of rainfall per square meter on average which weighs 1 Tonne.
To evaporate a Tonne of water and raise it to 3kM costs 2289000 x 1000 J = 2289 MJ we’ll need this later.
There’s about 8766 hours in a year at 0.6W radiative imbalance so we have 0.6×8766 = 5259 Watt hours (5.2 kW-h) CO2 warming per square meter per annum. A kWh equals 3.6MJ so our 5.2kWh = 18.7 MJ per annum and therefore 0.6W per square meter can evaporate 18.7/2.289 = 8.16kg more water per square meter per year.
Convert to a ratio
8.16/1000 = 0.816% more evaporation for rain, snow and superstorms.
Hmm 0.816 % doesn’t look catastrophic to me. Gotta love math hey!
Of course if all that was happening then all the 0.6W would be consumed in evaporation and there would be NO WARMING.
B. Well Let’s see, I’ll take a look at google, and I See that 80% of the earth is unchanged from preindustrial, being ocean, poles, and deserts. The rest is impacted but in minor ways and mostly just in the area of cities. The landscape in the country areas is largely unchanged for 100 years, however I note that we have seen a 6% greening since 2001 related to CO2 fertilization of vegetation and and the only thing that has been hurt is my back from mowing the lawn and weeding the garden more frequently. Man’s increase in CO2 (and Nitrogen fertilisers) has raised food availability by more than 15% – By the way, you didn’t address the question, where is your empirical PROOF than MAN increased the CO2, and that it’s not outgassing by the ocean driven by the warmer temperature that done it ? You do know that the percentage of Mans emissions is below the margin of error for calculating total emission don’t you?
C.
Mitigation is impossible
Take the largest Carbon Tax in the World, Australia
Aimed to Reduce CO2 by 0.05
Costs 11 Billion dollars a year
Australia is 0.013 of World CO2 Emission
Mans Emission is 0.03 of total emission
Australia’s effect then is 0.013×0.03 = 0.0003 of world CO2, and we are going to spend 11 Billion a year to make a 5% dent in that or 0.000015 of a difference for 11 Billion a Year. CO2 is about 400PPM so we make a difference of 0.000015 x 400 PPM is 0.006 PPM To reduce a doubling (3 Degrees) we need to do that 400/0.006 66,666 times so offsetting a doubling costs 66,666 x 11 Bn Dollars PER ANNUM or 733 Trillion dollars per annum, this gives a climate sensitivity to Carbon Tax Dollars of (By The IPPC numbers – 3 degrees per doubling) 250 Trillion dollars PER ANNUM per degree of mitigation – This is approximately 1 1/2 of world GDP – Ohh yeah, real practical this “Mitigation”. Of course if I’m right and climate sensitivity is a third of that at 1 degree per doubling then it costs 750 Trillion dollars per degree of mitigation.
Meanwhile of course while we go on spending the world’s riches on solar power and windmills instead of real social good , people keep dying from hunger (UN Says needs only 30 Bn a year to solve), Cancer, Malaria, Measles, and dysentery – Not to mention the aforementioned pensioners in England and apparently Adelaide who died from the shock of their electricity bills caused by that waste. Not directly of course but after the power bill shock caused them to try to save on their heating bills in winter.
Fuel Poverty kills
Next Argument…
180
Okay, it’s list time.
The best five books you have ever read. No need for reasons, just the title and the author. No particular order.
1. Chesapeake – James A Michener
2. Once An Eagle – Anton Myrer
3. Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand
4. Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy
5. Poor Fellow My Country – Xavier Herbert
Tony.
10
1. Flowers for Algernon – Daniel Keyes
2. Dune – Herbert
3. “We the Living” rather than “Atlas Shrugged”.
4. Scott & AMundsen -purrman
5. Agree with your choice.
00
1. Lord of The Rings.
2. All Quiet On The Western Front
3. On War – Clausewitz
4. Utopia – Thomas Moore
5. Everything by Terry Pratchett.
10
Hmm!
When it comes to Science Fiction, I’m a bit of an old World fan here.
Say, most things by Isaac Asimov, especially the first 3 Foundation novels.
E.E. ‘Doc’ Smith, but only the 6/7 Lensman novels, and for Fantasy, most of the works by Robert Heinlein.
Oddly when it comes to ‘new’ Science Fiction, well here there’s perhaps one of the best going around would be the Englishman Peter F Hamilton and his Night’s Dawn Trilogy. With his most recent novel Great North Road, he very successfully combines SF with crime fiction, a wonderful novel I fully recommend.
And if I could add one novel to my original list, it would be Lonesome Dove by Larry McMurtry.
Tony.
00
E.E. “doc” Smith was a man of his times, and some of his earlier work is jarringly racist to us today. Azimov’s Foundation” series I read mostly under the bed covers by torchlight and my grades really suffered that 1/2 term. Both were glorious in their vision of the future, though the “I, Robot” sc- fy /crime series was also very thought provoking. Both Authors posited a future where the world was run by scientists and engineers. Bearing in mind our present travails, especially that the would-be ruling class is at odds with the democratic system, I suggest that Sy-Fy speculation on governance has departed from an acceptable reality.
10
I have all the EE Smith books.. fun stuff
1. LOTR………………………… Tolkein
2. Belgariad, Mallorian etc………. David Eddings
3. Any from E.E. Smith
4. Dune series………………….. Frank Herbert
5. Chronicles of Thomas Covernant…. Stephen Donaldson
10
Griss, I was almost surprised when I read E.E. Smith because some of my favorite reading was Edmund Ware Smith (but then realized I was off by at least a letter.)
I have little time for reading anything other than non-fiction. That said I can endorse reading Edmund Ware Smith and his stories of: the One Eyed Poacher In the Main Woods you’ll be delighted with a light and humorous life in upstate Maine near wilderness.
Hopefully these books can be found outside the US.
10
You didn’t say what type of books they had to be.
1. Rendevous with Rama – Arthur C Clarke
2. Use of Weapons – Ian M. Banks.
3. Transition – Ian M. Banks.
4. Physics Principles With Applications – Douglas Giancoli
5. Hegemony or Survival – Noam Chomsky
00
I remember spending a lot of time reading a guy called J. Coroneous back in high school.
10
Five favorite books of infamous people.
David Suzuki- The Lost World.
Hillary Clinton – Little Women.
Al Gore – The Wizard of Oz.
Trembath – 20000 Leagues Under the Sea.
Tim Flannery – Great Expectations.
Soon to be infamous,
Chris Turney – The Voyages of Doctor Dolittle.
100
Yonniestone:
Shouldn’t your last title read
Chris Turney – The Voyages of Doctor Munchausen ?
30
Best for entertainment (in no particular order):
1 – 3. Anything by Robert Heinlein or Larry Niven
4. Run Silent, Run Deep – Edward Beach
5. Lord of the Rings
Best for information/history (recently, in no particular order):
1. The Roots of Obama’s Rage – D’Sousa
2. Killing Lincoln – O’Reilly
3. Killing Kennedy – O’Reilly
4. Killing Jesus – O’Reilly
5. Apollo 13 – James Lovell, for it’s insight into what actually went on during that ill fated flight
I read many others in both categories but these stick out in my memory. Heinlein in particular gave me a lot of good reading as a teenager — kept me literally on the edge of my chair — and it’s hard to find another author who can capture my imagination the way he did.
10
FYI
The Future of Shapes
Platonic solids are generically termed equilateral convex polyhedra.
In the millennia since Plato’s time, only two other collections of equilateral convex polyhedra have been found: Archimedean solids (including the truncated icosahedron) and Kepler solids (including rhombic polyhedra).
Nearly 400 years after the last class was described, mathematicians claim that they may have now identified a new, fourth class, which they call Goldberg polyhedra.
In the process of making this discovery, they think they’ve demonstrated that an infinite number of these solids could exist.
After 400 years, mathematicians find a new class of shapes
“Take a cube and blow it up like a balloon.”
~ ~ ~
Microfabrication enables the rational design of nano- and microparticles with different shapes and geometries in order to probe the cell membrane barrier.
The shape of the particle influences a number of behaviors associated with drug delivery.
For example, recent studies have reported that particles of various non-spherical geometries influence the rates of cellular internalisation.
Micro and Nano delivery platforms can change the way we administer therapy to allow for precise drug delivery over months and deliverying large molecules through body barriers
00
I’ve just had my attention drawn to yet another ‘x% of scientists believe that..’ study which has recently surfaced. It’s by by James Lawrence Powell, who has apparently examined a year’s worth of climate-related scientific studies and claims that virtually all accept man-made global warming.
Powell’s analysis covers 2,258 articles published in peer-reviewed journals between November 2012 and December 2013, written by a total of 9,136 authors.
To save me a lot of time looking into this one, does any body know if his handiwork’s been critiqued anywhere? I’ve had a quick look, but not found anything as yet.
10
80% of scientists prefer coke to pepsi.
10
97% of scientists would of course agree that the most important problem is the one they are being paid to work on.
60
His website What’sUpWithThatWatts has an “Our climate has accumulated 2,xxx,xxx,xxx Hiroshima bombs” graphic. Looks like he had the conclusion written before he had even started.
10
Well that’s hardly surprising Carbon500 because in the last 17 years there hasn’t been any other kind of global warming ? Only the notional one perpetuated by well funded and dependently funded men.
30
Thank you Eddie and all those responding to my post asking about James Lawrence Powell’s claims.
I certainly think that these need closer examination before all the ‘warmists’ begin citing his handiwork as strong evidence in support of the supposed man-made warming – as they invariably will.
00
After years of us sceptics being called deniers and what not. Warmists saying we should be shot or gassed, etc etc. . . its quite amusing to see warmists up in arms over a climate scientist calling warmists Nazis.
http://io9.com/are-you-a-global-warming-nazi-probably-according-to-1529167415
The writer of the article is so butt hurt over the labelling and the comments are full of like minded warmists all on the brink of raging.
It all makes for some happy reading.
40
I make no bones about the fact that I am determined to stamp out the travesty of physics which is promulgated on warmist and luke warm climate blogs. This comment appears on several of them.
Roy Spencer still cannot prove with any valid physics his crazy postulate that there would be isothermal conditions in Earth’s troposphere in the absence of water vapour and radiating gases. The greenhouse conjecture depends totally upon this garbage “fissics” that would violate the entropy conditions of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. All the models depend totally on this weird idea which is never observed anywhere on any planet or moon, not even on Uranus where the base of the nominal troposphere is hotter than Earth.
Roy only needs to look at the data for the Uranus troposphere to realise that thermal gradients (aka “lapse rates”) evolve spontaneously at the molecular level. Radiating gases reduce the gradient (and thus cool the surface) due to inter-molecular radiation. They help energy escape faster up the troposphere and eventually to space. Radiation that strikes any warmer surface is just pseudo scattered.
There is no need for advection (upward rising gases) or any direct solar radiation or a surface: the lapse rate just forms autonomously as gravity acts on molecules in free flight between collisions.
That is why the (badly named) “lapse rate” on Earth, Venus, Uranus, the outer crust of Earth, the core of the Moon – everywhere – evolves spontaneously in solids, liquids and gases. That is why radiative forcing is not what is the primary determinant of any planet’s atmospheric or surface temperature – gravity is – gravity traps energy.
Water vapour reduces the insulation effect – just consider the problem with moist air in double glazed windows. Moist regions are cooler than dry regions – I have proved that with real world temperature records.
You’ll find the study in my book “Why it’s not carbon dioxide after all” available late April from Amazon etc. and from which I quote …
“The world will one day look back upon a small slice of history that began in the 1980’s and sadly have to conclude that never in the name of science have so many people been so seriously misled by so few for so long. Never have so many careers, so much time and so much money been spent in the pursuit of such a misguided and ineffective goal to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide, a harmless gas which comprises about one molecule in every two and a half thousand other molecules in the atmosphere of our planet, Earth.”
.
00
Doug, we know it’s you. 🙂
You might want to check your references instead of just citing them.
If you check WP’s reference on the Uranus troposphere (de Pater, Romani, et al, 1991) it says:
Hmmm, is it possible that through pressure broadening the hydrogen sulfide may perform the same radiative role on Uranus as water does on Earth?
Now a very funny thing happens if you compare the H2S absorption spectrum to 320K blackbody radiation. Funny how the H2S absorption band lines up with Uranus’ 320K radiation more closely than H2O’s absorption band aligns with Earth’s 288K radiation. I reckon in your efforts to disprove the greenhouse theory you may have discovered the greenhouse effect on Uranus. What do you think?
10
Andrew.
Good try, but I don’t buy it.
There is no significant solar radiation even reaching the TOA of Uranus, it being nearly 30 times further from the Sun than we are, and thus getting little more than 1/900th the flux. Then the methane layer near TOA absorbs nearly all of it anyway and would radiate half that back to space. What is radiated downwards (to regions les cold than the methane layer, which is about 60K) would not transfer net thermal energy anyway, and would just be pseudo scattered and eventually come back out to space.
The 320K temperature is at altitude -300Km (which is 350Km below the methane layer that’s near +50Km) and there is no surface there.
The temperature keeps on increasing right down to the small solid core (55% the mass of Earth) which is thousands of Km further down, but at a temperature of about 5,000K. It’s pretty obvious that all the radiated energy even at TOA would not raise the core temperature above 60K. The atmosphere cannot magnify the energy!
Radiation does not explain planetary surface temperatures, not even on Earth or the Moon. After all, why is the Moon’s average temperature only 197K when it receives about twice as much radiative flux as the Earth’s surface?
00
Heard on the “news” this morning (ALPBC) that Methane is a bigger cause of global warming than CO2.
Woo hooo, when will they ever stop.
30
I can just see the sales of green butt plugs going through the roof.
50
Well at least that will stop them talking …
50
ROFLMAO!
20
To be taken so many per anum one imagines.
20
Depends on the size I imagine
00
Here’s Al Gore’s:
http://www.etrailer.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/pics/M/F/MF45134_1000.jpg
00
Can’t see them being a big sale item in the bovine trade.
The last thing you want to do is block off that flow of methane.
Cows need to fart !!!
00
As the CCN gravy train rattles towards the end of the track they desperately search for a new line.
10
Then we clearly need to Burrrn as much gas as possible to stop it being released to the fragile atmosphere as the ever so much more harmful methane.
Hmmm. Perhaps we need to take control of Ukraine’s Gas supplies too, lest they fall into irresponsible hands.
10
Methane is a GHG which is 21 times (how shall I put this) more volatile than CO2.
This was only ever about the money.
The image at this link is taken directly from the current CO2 Tax legislation currently in force here in Australia. This chart is taken directly from the UNFCCC and the UNIPCC and shows the volatility of those GHG with respect to CO2.
Our current CO2 Tax legislation also takes in these other GHG, costing them as multipliers of CO2, so as an example, Methane, being 21 times more volatile is costed at the current cost for CO2 multiplied by 21.
The other gases the same, CO2 multiplied by the number following the gas.
Most of those other gases are refrigerants.
Ever wonder how that now, how we’ve found out that the CO2 Tax is raking in Billions and people wonder how the current Government can do without all that luvverly moolah rolling in, $6 Billion Plus.
Think back to the hype from the Government when they said that they would be giving nearly all of the whole take back to the people.
They very cleverly just left out part of that statement.
What they would be giving back was the part applicable to what the householder might have to pay because electrical power generating retailers (the middleman) would be passing directly on to consumers of electricity. The power generating Companies pay the Tax, so Labor/Green could make the claim that the derdy polluders are the ones paying this (don’t call it a Tax) They pass the cost down to the retailers, who then pass it on to the consumer, all consumers across all areas of power consumption.
So they gave the pensioners and some others an extra amount on their pensions to cover that, and then artfully claimed that they were giving it all back.
They were in fact giving a refund to around 75% of householders, and the residential power consumption is only 26% of the overall total power consumption.
So, they were giving back 75% of 26%, or 19.5% of the total incoming, hence we have Government still raking in $6 Billion Plus.
So, the refund applied to 26% of power consumption,Methane, and those other GHG, none of which was given a refund, hence 74% of all power consumption paid the full cost.
Also of note is that multiplier for Methane, so those people also connected to town gas or bottled gas also had their gas bills rise as well, again only partially covered by the refund to some of the residential consumers of natural gas.
Then add on the cost of the refrigerants, also passed down to consumers. (and here, think of Coles and Woolies and their huge banks of refrigerators and freezers.)
None of this charge on CO2, Methane and other GHG was designed to lower emissions of them, just to make money from them.
Look at the chart again.
Those GHG other than CO2 and Methane are vanishingly small, and at those multipliers, they are a huge source of revenue.
This was always only about the money, and please don’t try and persuade me it was otherwise.
Tony.
50
But TonyfromOz, don’t all governments have the citizens best interest at heart. Aren’t all politicians saintly who would never lie, steal or cheat…I’m afraid you are not being part of the compliant sheeple to have views like this!!! (sarc)
00
I remember reading somewhere that the chemicals used in make solar panels are up to 23,000 time the greenhouse gas equivalent of CO2.
But that’s ok, because … well…. just because.
00
stewgreen on wuwt brought up the ABC’s Naked Scientists – Naked at the AAS – program which i posted about on earlier thread, & rightly named the person asking the “climate deniers” question as Joel Werner (formerly ABC or maybe still ABC). couldn’t find any way to listen on ABC today (i originally heard it on the radio national) but, from the audio on the Cambridge Uni/BBC Naked Scientists’ website, i listened at 26mins30secs & he does identify himself as Joel Werner. stewgreen feels the question was a set-up – i agree.
don’t know why the transcript on Cambridge Uni/BBC website named him as Joel Veness, science journalist, which i had found odd, because i could find no journalism for anyone of that name, & had wondered if it was the google scholar/former UNSW/Reinforcement Learning guy, Joel Veness.
reminder:
14 Feb: Cambridge Uni/Naked Scientists: Naked at the AAAS
Joel – Joel Veness, science journalist. Like most good ideas at this conference, this question came from some spirited drinks we had after the session yesterday. Climate deniers often use the tools of propaganda to further their campaign. Should science be embracing these similar tools?
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/naked-scientists/show/20140214-1/nocache/1/?cHash=7cc4c94970a73724aa3bd0a2037b8257&tx_nakscishow_pi1%5Btranscript%5D=1
the “stun gun” remarks by taxpayer-funded ABC’s Chris Smith & Robyn Williams is what shocked me most:
Robyn Williams, ABC: But I think what has been shown Naomi Oreskes who was at San Diego and is now at Harvard in her book “Merchants of Doubt”. As Marc said, what one side is using is rational argument and trying to get the information over and it’s complex. When there’s something that knocks their ideas, they write a 20-page article which is published in one of the journal which their mates read and on the other side, the people who are knocking climate science are using all the techniques of advertising, of propaganda and the sowing of doubt. Naomi Oreskes is sighting the tobacco companies who, for 40 years or more were trying to say that cigarettes may be okay. There is doubt about the science. So, it’s unequal and I think it’s time the scientists really got up, didn’t use propaganda, but use short, sharp sentences and fought equally.
***Chris Smith, ABC – And stun guns might help as well.
Robyn Williams, ABC – Yes…
as for Werner, he is presently in Andrew Luck-Baker’s (Chris Turney Fiasco) chair at the Beeb.
BBC: Discovery – (Link to podcasts for all four Joel Werner programs on Saving the Oceans):
24 Feb: Part Four: How combining traditional Aboriginal teachings with cutting edge science is helping to preserve Australia’s unique marine reef ecology.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/discovery
descriptions from individual prog pages:
3 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part One
In the first programme Joel Werner visits Kiribati – an isolated Pacific island group threatened by rising sea levels…
10 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part Two
The second episode in our four-part series Saving the Ocean in which we look at the impact of climate change, overfishing and pollution on ocean environments, and examine the scientific solutions to some of those issues. Presented by Joel Werner from the Australian broadcaster ABC Radio National…
17 Feb: BBC Discovery: Saving the Oceans – Part Three
Presented by Joel Werner from the Australian broadcaster ABC Radio National…
And he hears how undersea volcanic activity near Papua New Guinea is providing clues about the future direction of ocean climate change.
20
gotta ask , Pat..
where the heck to have the time to find all this stuff?
do you have some trawler bots working for you or something?
Anyway.. keep up the good work. 🙂
10
Farmers’ Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models
Last fall, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Prediction Center (CPC) predicted above-normal temperatures from November through January across much of the continental U.S.
The Farmers’ Almanac, first published in 1818, predicted a bitterly cold, snowy winter.
The Maine-based Farmers’ Almanac’s still-secret methodology includes variables such as planetary positions, sunspots, lunar cycles and tidal action. It claims an 80% accuracy rate, surely better than those who obsess over fossil fuels and CO2.
50
hadjive: Instead of climate scientists being trained at universities, maybe we should have the Farmers’ Almanac organization set up a university to properly train climate scientists. Just a thought!
00
I found this an interesting commentary,
Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html
00
Been reading the submissions to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia. Some really good submissions.
Link if interested in further development of Australia.
10