Listening to their ABC from 4am this morning, every news bulletin was lead by Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch. each bulletin featured different excerpts from her speach. They made it sound like the Democrats are actually democratic.
Spe(e/a)ch is: “ability to express one’s thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture,” and since Hillary’s sounds and gestures are designed to conceal her true thoughts and emotions, surely another word is necessary. ‘Speach’ works fine for me, since it’s close to ‘impeach,’ from the Late Latin impedicāre, to entangle.
I got their ABC of my chest a while back at a “friends of the ….) do.Well, what can I say, but what an ODD collection (or collective) of people- crossed all the Ts I suppose.Out of touch and very ODD people!! They are ALIENS!! And they are out to absorb any humans that retain any individual characteristics.BE CAREFUL – I just escaped.It was I close run thing..
In a way, she wants all of them, everywhere. She wants to be the “One Ring to rule them all (…and in the darkness bind them).” Everyone in the Insane Left wants that (no opposition, no dissenting voices) for their side, that’s one of the lessons of having Obama as “the leader of the free world”. I can only inform everyone of an underlying epidemic trend in the intellectual atmosphere generally (and habitually, throughout history), and that is the ascendance of religiously-held, dogmatic thinking today over dispassionate, competent reason focused on reality, not fantasy. Everyone who spouts mostly one-sided dogma today and ignores a contrary, and hard, reality is part of the problem, no matter which side they’re on. The system is broken when dogma is ascendant.
It would be ironic if the Catholic Church coems down on the side of CAGW, then it would be a true Coup de Grace for the CAGW mob having an in-built tested & true Inquisitors in thier camp and at hand…..
/sarc
Ok… keep in mind, her and hubby have a really big pile of money called ‘Clinton GLOBAL Initiative’ not AMERICAN initiative
she’s out to save you guys too
it’s for all our own good
consider her a little gift from us, your American friends
you’re welcome 🙂
You’re laughing now, but soon, SOON, you shall know the wrath of Hillary scorned. She knows where Australia is (unlike 0bama) and soon all your bases belong her. Unless the EU gets there first.
There has been quite a controversy re: The Clinton Foundation. The most recent revelation is connected to 2 stories written at the following site by myself and my counterpart a couple of years ago.
WASHINGTON – National Republican Party officials are questioning why Hillary Rodham Clinton did not intervene in the controversial 2013 sale of high-tech battery plants in Michigan to a Chinese firm when she was secretary of State and could have done so.
At a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month, Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, expressed concerns about the sale of A123 Systems — built with millions in government aid — along with those of other new energy firms, to Chinese investors, calling them “unfortunate” and a “serious” problem for high-tech industries in the U.S.
“That does concern me because a lot of foreign companies, particularly Chinese companies … are looking to buy American companies,” she said in response to an entrepreneur who mentioned A123’s sale while commenting that venture capital for new energy technology has largely fled overseas.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, in a statement to the Free Press, called Clinton’s remarks “lip service” considering that as the former secretary of state, her department had a “role in signing off on these sales,” including A123’s to Wanxiang in early 2013.
I used to consider the odd one quaint and interesting, rather like the old corn grinders of yore and being a pilot, well, the big propeller helped.
That was a while ago now.
They are an unmitigated blight on the countryside and people around them, even more so when one considers that the well removed landowners who endow their land to these hugely expensive, unreliable random power generators, who capitalise in a way few could ever dream of…in true eco-marxist grand farce.
Abbott is a politician and probably doesn’t want to be abused by his media haters as insensitive but the unsightliness of the wind farms is matched by their virtual uselessness. The AGW hypocrite Merkel and her Germany’s reversion to coal fired power generation, despite it being a world leader in Wind and Solar technology, should give even the least informed Abbott hating Journo pause for reflection:
Plenty of relevant info like the following readily available:
A terse history lesson. In the year 2000 the government of Gerhard Schröder announced that all of Germany’s nuclear power plants must close by 2022, and this was passed into law in 2002.. This policy was revised by Angela Merkel in September 2010 to extend the lives of nuclear power plants so that the phase out would occur by 2032. Then after Fukushima, Merkel wisely or opportunistically – take your pick – decided to revert largely to the earlier phase out plan, closing eight nuclear power plants immediately and ruling that all would close by 2022.
The policy to phase out nuclear power was vital to the decisions to build new coal power plants. Closing down a quarter of your electricity generation leaves a gap that must be filled by something, and Germany realised it would largely have to be filled by one thing: coal. This is more or less beyond doubt, because Germany’s then Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said so. Gabriel, now Germany’s Minister for Energy and Economics told climate scientist James Hansen that Germany had to build new coal power plants because of its nuclear phase out, and stated elsewhere that Germany would have to build 8 to 12 coal power plants to replace its nuclear fleet.
And this is exactly what he got. In the first half of this decade Germany will open 9 new coal power plants.
The odd thing is that there are many, many, apparently well educated people that truly believe in such things as wind power being cost effective and efficient compared to any other power source. You can visit any number of internet forums and read where people believe that there are no downsides whatsoever to these energy sources. They never declare what they do or where they live, but they sure don’t appear to suffer from exorbitant electricity prices.
so ironic watching the CAGW-infested MSM fawn over a Roman Catholic Pope. the piece continues the divide & rule tactics – left vs. right – and most of the comments i saw seem to be from Abbott haters. forget the science:
13 June: Guardian: John Vidal: Explosive intervention by Pope Francis set to transform climate change debate
The most anticipated papal letter for decades will be published in five languages on Thursday. It will call for an end to the ‘tyrannical’ exploitation of nature by mankind. Could it lead to a step-change in the battle against global warming?
In an unprecedented encyclical on the subject of the environment, the pontiff is expected to argue that humanity’s exploitation of the planet’s resources has crossed the Earth’s natural boundaries, and that the world faces ruin without a revolution in hearts and minds…
However, it is certain to anger sections of Republican opinion in America by endorsing the warnings of climate scientists and admonishing rich elites, say cardinals and scientists who have advised the Vatican…
The rare encyclical, called “Laudato Sii”, or “Praised Be”, has been timed to have maximum public impact ahead of the pope’s meeting with Barack Obama and his address to the US Congress and the UN general assembly in September…
By adding a moral dimension to the well-rehearsed scientific arguments, Francis hopes to raise the ambition of countries above their own self-interest to secure a strong deal in a crucial climate summit in Paris in November.
“Pope Francis is personally committed to this [climate] issue like no other pope before him. The encyclical will have a major impact. It will speak to the moral imperative of addressing climate change in a timely fashion in order to protect the most vulnerable,” said Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate chief, in Bonn this week for negotiations… http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/13/pope-francis-intervention-transforms-climate-change-debate
If you have ever observed a mass in say Mexico you will know that the campesinos will feel distinctly puzzled as to why they are now being asked to return to worshipping Tlaloc and Ehécatl.
“Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these
seem to represent deeply held mythic structures. In that sense they are
profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the
brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them,
as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son
of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody
out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of
them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts
aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about
belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner or be saved,
whether you are going to be on the side of salvation or on the side of
doom, whether you are going to be one of us or one of them.”
Although coming as I do from a faith based background ( and engineering ) , I find squarely that the environmental stuff is science, where as faith is faith.
I think the dividing line between CAGW and faith is that CAGW can be disproven clearly by science, where faith ( God ) cant be .
If an article of faith can be thoroughly disproven, it ceases to be an article of faith.
As such, CAGW is just an un-hinged cult ungrounded in reality.
Yeah but without drawing my punches here, the RCC is anything but Chritian – if you spend any time actually reading their Dogmas and teaching articles and Catechism, its very very clear they teach *against* the main tennets of Christianity.
Case in point, the Council of Trent clealry states that Justification is not base don faith alobne – despite the Bible clealry stating this ( this is also why the Potestant movement basically started…).
Why is this relevent to science? Simply by the fact their track record on matters of cruical understanding, the RCC teaches wrongness deliberately…it cant be based on ignorance.
As such, in matters of faith, most Christians cant take the Roman church seriously because of its glaring and wanton disregard for accuracy in teaching despite a 10 year old being able to correct them.
Does this sound familiar to CAGW? I’d say it does.
Even if initailly the RCC doesnt support CAGW on June 18th, my thinking, based on understand how the RCC actually works, is that they will.
Should the RCC land squarely in the CAGW camp,. it will truly signal of a new religious and scientific Dark Ages….
On Friday US House of Reps. shot down (3:1 ratio) Obama’s demands for fast track authority to negotiate a new pan Pacific trade deal. Some moderate Republicans voted “free trade” siding with Obama, while some socialists (modern Democrats) voted against “free trade.”
These fools didn’t know what was really going on. It was not about free trade or economics. Those with the ability to understand, knew all along it was another power grab by Obama. Many Congresspersons on both sides of the aisle don’t want Obama, or any president, to have such power, and it probably would break the final few threads holding the tattered Constitution together, but Obama really wanted this power going into Paris.
This is a set back for the warmist agenda. Fortunately Obama probably won’t have anymore backing to put the USA into binding climate agreements at Paris than he did at Copenhagen.
If you were to give the President authority to negotiate a trade deal, are you giving him authority to specify trade must be green-approved? I fear he might see it that way.
I’d been saddened by the opposition to ‘free trade’, but if it was a plan to give the presidency more power, then it’s good it was defeated.
Unfortunately due to the huge amount of $money sloshing about in lobbying the government, there has not been real free trade in the US, or most anywhere, for some considerable time.
I am much more cautious about ‘free trade’. It is a political oxymoron. Nothing is ‘free’ and in Orwellian speak, calling it ‘free’ is broadcasting the fact that it isn’t. See the close functional relationship between the two unelected bodies of the WTO and the UN:
The WTO Director General participates to the Chief Executive Board which is the organ of coordination within the UN system.
Like many, I have come to regard “free trade” as yet another way of continuing the broad implementation of Agenda 21, of developing seamless multinational trade-blocks that morph from a ‘common market’ into the inefficient colossus of the bureaucratic super state – see Europe – that is the testing ground, the proto UN world state.
The tragic thing is that if the consumers are superficially satisfied by cheap prices and all the goods their hearts could desire, they appear less likely to be concerned about their national or personal liberties, which become increasingly abstract (for the moment at least) in their materially satisfied minds. Ask the one communist party state, the undeniable genocidal kings, ask China.
The political kicker has to be that material satiety has an unnerving way of cloying.
“The Ecomodernist Manifesto promises a much needed reformation in the green movement. Its 95 theses should be nailed to the door of the Vatican when the pope’s green-tinged encyclical comes out next month, because unlike the typical eco-wail, it contains good news for the poor. It says: no, we are not going to stop you getting rich and adopting new technologies and leaving behind the misery of cooking over wood fires in smoky huts with no artificial light. No, we do not want you to stay as subsistence farmers. Indeed, the quicker we can get you into a city apartment with a car, a phone, a fridge and a laptop, the better. Because then you won’t be taking wood and bushmeat from the forest.”
I noted on The Bolt Report today comments made by Prime Minister Abbott about how much he dislikes wind turbines and something else I had missed, that the government has managed to limit the number of new wind turbines that will be allowed to be constructed in Australia.
With over half of Australia’s wind turbines the great collapse has started. By giving wind turbines unimpeded access to the grid whenever the wind blows, and making the conventional generators carry out the accommodation and cost of that disruption, it gives wind power a stranglehold on the grid. They dump power whenever they like, dropping the price because the excess has to go somewhere. The actual price doesn’t matter to those who get subsidies separately (RET etc.).
The first stage is that wind drives out the more expensive and variable sources, gas turbines, hydro etc. out of the market, as has happened in Germany. This leaves the cheaper but less flexible coal fired plants, which have to run less efficiently because of the interruptions from wind supply. With the disruption comes increased cost, lower profit and and no incentive to upgrade or replace older plants. Thus the old coal fired plant in Pt. Augusta in S.A. is slated to close soon, and will not be replaced.
The Greens see this as a great victory. Emissions from an old S.A. plant have been replaced by emissions from an old Vic. plant. For all their self delusion this is the case; wind (and solar) do not work all the time. Unfortunately an incompetent government with no ability to look ahead, will seize the “opportunity” to licence more wind farms, and exacerbate the problem. No coal or gas fired, nor nuclear plant will be able to operate profitably under that scheme. Expect there to be spin and waffle about imaginary lower emissions because they occur in another State, and excuses for the inevitable rising electricity bills. The next stage of delusion will be talk of storage from batteries which haven’t been invented yet nor has anyone ever done the elementary costing exercise. By the time that fails to happen, any industry will be shut down or relocated interstate or overseas. The higher cost will be born by retailers e.g. supermarkets, who will pass them on to the customers. Expect unemployment to climb further in S.A.
If you live in South Australia now would be a good time to cost diesel generators.
You think of a whole State and you think ….. BIG power consumer.
South Australia consumes barely 6.5% of all of Australia’s power, a piddling amount really.
Sydney consumes a considerable amount more power than the whole of South Australia, and Melbourne also consumes more than all of South Australia does as well.
Alinta have announced they will close the Pt Augusta power station and Leigh Creek mine because it is uncompetitive, lets hope the interconnector with Victoria works and that they have energy to spare when the wind dont blow and the sun dont shine, where can I get some batteries ..or a generator?
“The science is very clear on this – the prevalence of these droughts will increase,” Mr Groser said.
“We should assume that unless the planet gets on top of the problem, [bad droughts] will be more the case in 20 or 30 years time.
Actually the science is very unclear about what might happen with bad droughts if the world warmed. Of course that is a big if – there really isn’t much warming going on at the moment. But if it did warm then it is equally likely that we’d get less droughts. The GCMs do an incredibly lousy job of modeling precipitation. Predictions about droughts and floods, where they might happen and with what frequency, are just worthless alarmist nonsense.
The current drought is just the expected El Nino weather pattern. Stopping cows farting isn’t going to prevent that.
Here we see Tim Groser making political noises to keep the Green faction happy. Facts seem to have nothing to do with it. He doesn’t care about the facts. The Greens don’t care. The journalists don’t care. And those who do are are unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet and try to set him straight.
Tim Groser doesn’t know whether to fart or scratch his elbow. He is a career diplomat failing badly at coming across as a competent politician. I suspect he paraphrases what his bent advisers tell him and I for one would love to know if he actually himself has a considered intelligent opinion on AGW at all. Climate Change Minister my posterior….Monty Python Minister of Intellectual Deflection and Diversion more like.
am going to compare the MSM virtually ignoring the developments regarding the Pachauri sexual harassment case with their handling of a matter involving another scientist, who is an actual Nobel Laureate:
29 May: NoFrakkingConsensus: Will Rajendra Pachauri Be Held Accountable by Green Activists?
The environmental movement routinely demands accountability from third parties. When will it acknowledge the creepy sexual misconduct of one of its leaders?…
(MULTIPLE LINKS TO ARTICLES WHICH WERE PRETTY MUCH IGNORED BY MSM, INCL ABC, WHICH CARRIED TWO DRY AFP REPORTS ON INITIAL ALLEGATIONS, WHICH WENT ON TO SAY THIS WON’T AFFECT PARIS MEETING – SEARCH ABC’S WEBSITE FOR “RAJENDRA PACHAURI” IF YOU CARE TO SEE THEM)
Earlier this week, Pachauri lost another skirmish in court. His legal team tried to argue that newspapers, merely by reporting the conclusions of the
Internal Complaints Committee investigation at the New Delhi-based institute Pachauri leads, were breaking the law. A panel of judges had little patience
for that suggestion. According to (LINK) the Economic Times, in an exchange with Pachauri’s lawyer, one of the judges declared: “when a person has got a
finding in her favour that she has been harassed, justice is secured.” Preventing the media from telling people about that justice makes little sense. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/05/29/will-rajendra-pachauri-be-held-accountable-by-green-activists/
25 April: NoFrakkingConsensus: The Nobel Lie That Just Won’t Die
The Guardian newspaper once again falsely declares Rajendra Pachauri a Nobel laureate. For good measure, it publishes a photo of him looking pious – while neglecting to mention the serious sexual offenses for which he is being investigated… http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/25/the-nobel-lie-that-just-wont-die/
i should not have suggested Pachauri is a scientist, when saying i would compare coverage of him to that of “ANOTHER scientist”, but he is referred to as one – a “climate scientist” no less – which could mean anyone the MSM chooses to designate as such.
here’s the real scientist/real Nobel Laureate:
Wikipedia: Tim Hunt
He was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Paul Nurse and Leland H. Hartwell for their discoveries of protein molecules that control the division (duplication) of cells…
He was knighted by the Queen in the same year, and has said that he rarely uses the title ‘Sir’ and that it should not affect his scientific standing…
Hunt is married to Mary Collins, professor of immunology at University College London (Collins was a former student of Hunt’s)… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt
after multiple attack articles by The Guardian, incl:
“Tim Hunt, where’s the science in your prejudice against women?” by Anne Perkins
and
“Why sack ageing sexists? Send them to rehab instead” by Gaby Hinsliff
today we have:
14 June: Guardian: Shamed Nobel laureate Tim Hunt ‘ruined by rush to judgment after stupid remarks’
Sir Tim Hunt reveals he was forced to resign from University College London without being given the chance to explain himself
by Rob McKie, Science Editor
The beleaguered British biologist Sir Tim Hunt has revealed that he was forced to resign from his post at University College London (UCL) without being given a chance to explain his controversial remarks about women in science. “I have been hung out to dry,” he told the Observer in an exclusive interview. “I have been stripped of all the things I was doing in science. I have no further influence.”…
“At no point did they ask me for an explanation for what I said or to put it in context,” he told the Observer. “They just said I had to go. There has been an enormous rush to judgment in dealing with me.”
This point was supported by Hunt’s wife, Mary Collins, who also has a post at UCL, as a professor of immunology. “Tim was still on the plane from Seoul when a senior manager at UCL phoned me and said Tim had to resign his honorary position. They had not even spoken to Tim at that point. He just said Tim had to resign or we fire him. It was very upsetting. We are both extremely angry.”
Hunt was then sacked from his post on the European Research Council’s science committee and has since resigned from other posts, including membership of a Royal Society committee. “I have become toxic,” he told the Observer. “I am finished.”… http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-forced-to-resign
leading the charge against Tim Hunt has been the BBC, which has not documented all of their attacks, but this is the individual, Connie St. Louis, who started the OUTRAGE with a tweet (what else?):
VIDEO 1min46secs: 10 June: BBC: ‘Female scientists looked aghast’ at Sir Tim Hunt’s remarks
A Nobel prize-winning scientist has sparked outrage by making chauvinist remarks at a conference of senior women scientists and journalists in South Korea.
Sir Tim Hunt told the conference that there are three problems with having women in the laboratory: “You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry.”
Connie St Louis, a Lecturer in Science Journalism at City University who was at the conference, describes the reaction in the room http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33075224
MSM worldwide have prominently carried this story, including “their ABC” of course. Connie St. Louis is always described as a Lecturer blah blah. but is there something BBC left out in all its coverage?
City University London: Connie St Louis
Senior Lecturer in Journalism
Connie St Louis, Director of City’s Science Journalism MA, is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist. She presents and produces a range programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service.
She is a recipient of the prestigious Joseph Rowntree Journalist Fellowship to write a book based on her acclaimed two-part Radio 4 documentary series Raising Ham.
Her most recent programme on BBC Radio 4 investigated the use of designer drugs by pharmaceutical companies. She writes for numerous outlets including the Independent, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.
She worked for the BBC for sixteen years. Her production highlights during that time include securing Bill Gates’ first British interview and being invited to produce the 1997 Reith Lectures written by Professor Patricia J Williams http://www.city.ac.uk/people/academics/connie-st-louis
BBC didn’t see fit to disclose any of this? guess not, when like ABC, half your broadcasting time seems to be devoted to playing identity politics, divide and rule, etc.
glad to see O’Neill is onto this, but it seems he hasn’t made the Connie St. Louis/BBC connection as yet. if anyone is registered to comment at Reason, i’d love if they could point him in her direction!
when i heard the Beeb continue with this last nite, reading out all the #distractinglysexy tweets & discussing them(?), i thought i’d look up how the outrage started and connect any dots, but i could hardly have imagined i’d come up with Connie/BBC in a matter of seconds. suddenly, it all made sense. more manufactured outrage.
read all:
13 June: Reason: Brendan O’Neill: The Illiberal Persecution of Tim Hunt
An old guys tells a bad joke and academia descends into a frenzy
Twitter went into meltdown. Journalists kicked up a fuss. His comments were branded “shocking and bewildering.” (You find a silly joke bewildering?
You really should get out more.) And then came the denouement to this latest outburst of confected fury: Hunt “resigned” from UCL, where he was honorary professor.
“Resign” is in quote marks because it’s pretty clear he was elbowed out…
Even more depressing than the resignation/sacking of Hunt has been the response to it. “This is a moment to savour,” said the Guardian. The Twitterati has given birth to the hashtag #distractinglysexy, featuring pics of women in laboratories, all designed to mock Hunt’s 1950s worldview. One science journalist thinks Hunt deserves the roasting he’s received because it is alarming that “in this day and age… someone would be prepared to be so crass, so rude.”
What is truly alarming, what should really send a shiver down every liberal’s spine, is not the words that came out of Hunt’s mouth but the haranguing of him that followed,
the shunning of him by the academy and possibly by the scientific elite itself. (As the Guardian crows, Hunt is a “fellow of the Royal Society… at the time of writing, at least.”
Yes! Let’s cast him out of that institution too! And can we pelt him with rotten eggs as he leaves?)… http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/13/the-illiberal-persecution-of-tim-hunt
I’ve been doing some figuring. If I am wrong I am ready and willing to be corrected. But as far as I know the average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5×10to15) 5 000 000 000 000 000 tonnes or 5000 trillion or 5million billion.
Now, as far as I know the estimated human in put of CO2 into the atmosphere per year is around 30 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, as some say.
When I divide the it all out I get a figure of OOOOOO6th of the atmosphere is added to by CO2.
Even if my figuring is out by a zero or two it still is a miniscule amount. That’s why I can’t understand why the fuss is all about.
If an epidemic or a personal disease was increasing at such a small rate one would hardly worry if at all.
Edwina,
Right on!
Nasa says the atmosphere’s mass is 5.15x 10^15 tonnes.
BP says the fossil CO2 input is 35 gigatonnes for 2012.
Fritz W.
PS. The PDF symbles got butchered by Ms. Nova’s software.
CO2 Equilibrium for Constant Fossil Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Fritz Wehrhahn1
Draft. 14/06/2015. NOT for publication yet
Equilibrium 14CO 2 = ß, where is 14CO 2 input per year and ß = 14±1 years is the 14CO 2 turnover time.
In 2012 the world produced nearly 35 gigatonnes of fossil CO2. The equilibrium airborne amount should become ß = 490±35 billion tonnes. This is 15.7%±1.1% of the total CO2. It is also 62.6±4.5 ppm, some of which helps make up today’s 400 ppm.
Gösta Pettersson (2013) disproved the IPCC’s “Bern” CO2 hypothesis and the popular IPCC story that CO2 turnover time is 50-200 years. The real empirical turnover estimates are 14-20 years.
Derivation: Natural decline of CO2
A CO2 molecule can be in several states: With a probability of P(t) it can be in the AIR or in media, interacting with air, such as leaves, soil, snow and surface water. The final state is a PERMANENT SINK with air exchange time exceeding several CO2 turnover times. This is an operational perspective and needs to be tested. Cf. Data section.
If a bunch of molecules are in the air at time t – dt, the proportion of these that remain in the air at time t is reduced by a fraction μ dt, where μ is the probability that a CO2 molecule leaves the air each year. Then
P(t) = P(t-dt) – μ dt . P(t-dt)
[P(t) – P(t-dt)] / P(t-dt) = – μ dt and, for small dt,
dP / P = – μ dt. Integrating with respect to t we find
= lnP(t) – ln(1) = lnP(t)
= – μ = -μt.
Taking antilogs of both sides we get
(1) P(t) = = .
Data:
Gösta Pettersson (http://wattsupwiththat.com July 1, 2013) in a paper entitled “The bombtest curve and its implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide residency time” claims that when the nuclear bomb tests ceased in 1963 they had raised the air level of
2
C14 carbon dioxide to almost twice its original background value. In his Figure 1, reproduced below, he used data from Nordkap, Jungfraujoch, Krakow, Praque-Bulovka and Kosetice for the period of 1963 to 2005. By 2005 less than 5% of the C14 was still in the air.
In a second paper (Paper 1 of a trilogy referred to in http://wattsupwiththat.com July 1, 2013) Pettersson states “Regression analysis of the bombtest curve established that it can be satisfactorily described in terms of a single–exponential function such as Eqn.(2).” [Aside:This is also an operational test of my Eqn. (1).] His Eqn. 2 is
Remaining fraction = Exp[-t/ß], where the estimated turnover time ß = 1 / μ is 14 ±1 years. The halflife of CO2 in the air is ß . loge 2 = 9.7 years.
Currie et al. (2006) reported a 12.9 year 14CO 2 halflife in New Zealand. They say that France and China continued some bomb tests until 1968 and 1980, respectively. In the Southern Hemisphere the calculated CO2 turnover time is ß=12.9 / loge 2 = 18.6 years.
Historical bombtest C14 /C12 ratio data can be obtained anywhere there are precisely aged tree-rings.
Figures
Fiqures 1 and 2 are reproduced from Gösta Pettersson’s paper entitled “The bombtest curve and its implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide residency time”.
Figure 1. Relaxation of the excess of airborne C14-carbon dioxide produced by atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons before the tests ceased in 1963
Interesting quotes from Gösta Pettersson’s paper follow:
3
“The IPCC has disregarded the bombtest data in Fig. 1 (which refer to the C14/C12 ratio)”. “Fig. 2 shows the data in Fig. 1 after rescaling and correction for the minor dilution effects caused by the increased atmospheric concentration of C12-carbon dioxide during the examined period of time.”
Figure 2. The bombtest curve. Experimentally observed relaxation of C14-carbon dioxide (black) compared with model descriptions of the process.
Pettersson’s Disproof of the IPCC’s “Bern” Hypothesis for C14 Residence Time
The IPCC’s “Bern” CO2 model predicted that over 40% of the C14 should still be in the air 40 years after emission (Fig. 2). The observed C14 was less than 10% with a low standard error. The “Bern” hypothesis has to be rejected at any practical level of statistical significance. This is the model the IPCC uses to argue that carbon dioxide “shows an effective turnover time on the order of 50-200 years”. That is many times as high as the empirical estimates of 14±1 years for Europe and 18.6 years for the Southern Hemisphere. The “Bern” CO 2 hypothesis is also one source of the fallacious conventional wisdom “that it takes a few centuries to remove the first 80% of a carbon dioxide emission from the atmosphere”. It actually takes 25 years! (Fiq. 2 or Eq. 1). For real insights, please read Pettersson’s paper entitled “Relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide” referred to in http://wattsupwiththat.com July 1, 2013.]
4
Equilibrium CO2 increase in the air due to a constant annual CO2 input
Let Y(t) be the total fossil CO2 at time t. Also let be the amount of CO2 added to the air each year and – μ be the proportion lost. Then
Y(t+dt) = Y(t) – μ Y(t) dt + dt
Y(t+dt) – Y(t) = – μ Y(t) dt + dt and
(2a) d(Y(t))/dt = – μ Y(t) + .
At equilibrium 0 = – μ Y(t) + and
(2b) Equilibrium CO2 = Yequil = / μ = ß = CO2 input per year x
CO2 turnover time in years.
(2c) Y(t) = ß(1 – .
The Earth’s fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 1965-2012 are tabulated in http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Statistical-Review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013_workbook.xlsx
In 2012 the total human fossil fuel emission of CO2 was close to = 35 giga (or billion) tonnes. Suppose this continues indefinitely and there is a continual yearly CO2 input into the atmosphere of = 35 billion tonnes of CO2 / year. From (2b), the equilibrium CO2 increase in Earth’s atmosphere would be about
(3) CO2equil .= ß = 35 x 14±1 = 490± 35 giga (or billion) tonnes
due solely to the constant fossil carbon emissions.
NASA (2013) says the mass of Earth’s atmosphere is 5.15 x 1015 tonnes. CO2, as a proportion of the air, is 400 x 10-6 by volume or 608 x 10-6 by weight. Therefore, the airborne CO2, in the absence of additional fossil emissions, should be
5.15 x 1015 x 608 x 10-6 = 3130 billion tonnes.
From (3), the additional CO2 concentration due solely to continuing annual fossil emissions of 35 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide should be about
(4a) 100 x 490/3130 = 15.7%±1.1% or 62.6±4.5 ppm.
This is relative to a base level where there are no fossil carbon emissions whatsoever.
We don’t have an apriori knowledge of the base level. I shall pretend 400 ppm is the base level for illustrative purposes. From (4a), if other factors remain constant, we would expect the atmosphere to eventually have about
(4b) 1.157 x 400 = 463 ppm of CO2 by volume instead of 400 ppm.
5
Global Temperature increase due solely to increased fossil CO2
I assume that CO2 is the second most important greenhouse gas after water vapour which has an overwhelming effect, especially over tropical oceans. I assume that Arrhenius’ hypothesis is right and we can estimate the global temperature effect, ΔT,
of CO2 using an equation of the form
(5) ΔT= K . loge (CO2 conc.2 / conc.1),
where K is a proportionality constant which can be estimated from the effect of doubling the CO2 concentration. The IPCC AR5 suggests that doubling carbon dioxide causes a temperature increase of 1.5°– 4.5° C. I will illustrate the calculations using 3° C.
From (5), ΔT/K = ln(2) = 0.693 and an estimate of K is ΔT / 0.693 and
(6) K = 3° C / 0.693 = 4.33° C.
From (4b), annual emissions of 35 gigatonnes increase CO2 to 463 ppm. From (5) and (6), increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 463 ppm should increase the global mean temperature by about
(7) ΔT = 4.33° C x ln(463/400) = 0.63° C.
This is much less than the 2° C increase which terrifies many climate scientists and bureaucrats.
In the absence of positive feedbacks from water vapour, the effect of doubling CO2 may be near 1° C. In this case, K = 1° C / 0.693 = 1.443° C and
(8) ΔT = 1.443° C x ln(463/400) = 0.21° C.
Linear increase, (t) = 0 + bt, in CO2 emissions
The effect of adding a linearly increasing CO2 amount of b per year in addition to the base amount of = 0 is given by the first order linear differential equation
(9a) dY(t)/dt = -u Y(t) + 0 + bt as defined in (2). The solution is
(9b) Y(t) = 0ß + bß2 (t/ß – 1) + C
= (1 – x (0ß – bß2 + ßbt if Y(0) = 0.
With appropriate initial conditions, (9b) can be used to assess the effects of adding or removing specific emission sources.
6
To keep matters in perspective, note that from 1998 to 2012 the world’s annual fossil CO2 emissions increased from 24.36 to 34.47 billion tonnes at an almost linear rate of b=0.72 billion tonnes per year. Cf. http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Statistical-Review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013_workbook.xlsx
Conclusions
Gösta Pettersson (2013) proved the IPCC’s “Bern” and similar CO2 models are wrong!! These models led to the widespread fallacy “that it takes a few centuries to remove the first 80% of a carbon dioxide emission from the atmosphere”. The actual empirical time is 25 years (Fig. 2 or Eq. 1).
In 2012 the fossil carbon dioxide emission was near = 35 billion tonnes. At this rate the equilibrium total fossil CO2 becomes ß = 490± 35 billion tonnes or 15.7%±1.1% of the total airborne CO2.
This is 62.6±4.5 ppm and, using Arrhenius’ equation, the temperature increase could be 0.2°- 0.7° C. There ought to be a slight decrease in the severity of the cooling phase of the current climate cycle (cf. Vahrenholt and Lunning 2013).
References
Currie, K., G. Brailsford, S. Nichol, A. Gomez, K. Riedel, R. Sparks, and K. Lassey. 2006. 14CO 2 in the Southern Hemisphere Atmosphere — the Rise and the Fall. Chemistry in New Zealand. April 2006, 20-22.
Pettersson, Gösta. 2013. The bombtest curve and its implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide residency time. ( http://wattsupwiththat.com July 1, 2013). 6pg. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
Pettersson, Gösta. 2013. Relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide. (Refer to previous paper in http://wattsupwiththat.com/ July 1, 2013). 10pg.
Vahrenholt, Fritz, and Sebastion Luning (Translated by P&D Gosselin). 2013. The Neglected Sun – Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe. 356pg. Stacy-International.
Acknowledgment
Dr. Karl Wehrhahn checked the math.
1. Email: [email protected]
Thanks for the info, I think most of the co2 in streams comes from rain and snow, directly or indirectly, Consider droplet surface area and also that rain is cooler than the surfaces it falls on. The solubility of co2 in clouds is high.
Fritz W
Remember the Channel Four film “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and the gymnastics that our ABC contorted itself into, in order to try to undo the damage to “The Cause”? In particular, an interview with Martin Durkin by Tony Jones where Durkin’s disarmingly nondefensive yet erudite and informed responses to Jones’ attempted ambushes left an overall favourable impression on this viewer, of the director of aforesaid Swindle. Well, he has his own website, with some interesting essays about the history and social context of Environmentalism.
Jo, didn’t see this Weekend thread until now, but my earlier comment is relevant here.
The tip from Spangled Drongo on that David Davies MP speech is worth a look.
This may have been linked before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ0R1MCkSOU
It is Murry Salby giving an update of his CO2 projections in March 2015. It is a long video but worth watching at least up to the questions. Some questions are more political than scientific and Salby sticks with the scientific aspects. Of particular interest to me is the observation that CO2 shows a steady increase over the last 40 years or, as I know, while man made CO2 has accelerated, which I also know but I had not thought about this correlation. During question time he points out that over the past 160 years of temperature records there have been 4 decades of warming and 12 of doing nothing or cooling. His bet is that we are heading for cooling simple based on the odds. He also makes the point that all the GCMs referenced by the IPCC were calibrated against a warming trend with CO2 the only significant variable so it is no wonder the are wrong. But the essence of the talk is that the rise in CO2 is predominantly natural and decay constant is in the range 1 to 8 years; much faster than the IPCC estimate.
There is an obvious question arising from Salby’s presentation, which no one in the audience asked.
Meanwhile back in NZ you should see our new Green Party leader. What a piece of work he is. Trying to tie AGW impacts into legislation, creep. His name is James Shaw and given his background he should have more common sense which suggests he is a true snake oil merchant of the worst kind. He is doing what eco fascists all over the world try to do, he is trying to draw out mainstream politicians of the centre right to “come out”. Most won’t because they haven’t actually decided what the lie of the land is, and the likes of him know this. No intellectual battle this, it’s like a bad soap.
A question for those well informed on water catchments, recently I raised the issue of building more water catchments for a rising population or rather the lack of governments doing so, someone retorted that more dams was not an answer to future water shortages as the evaporation rate was usually double the yearly rainfall, I then asked why if that’s true how can catchments fill in the first place?
We had no more time to debate and I realize the water cycle is not so simple as my opponent suggests, what I’m asking for is a good basic explanation that knocks their flawed argument on the head, I don’t like leaving such silliness unchecked.
The thing is llew my said opponent is actually a friend from work and a fellow CAGW skeptic, they have a degree in forestry (I think that’s the title?) and I believe they have forgotten to think objectively or are perhaps applying excessive epidemiology to a search for an answer.
We get on quite well so I don’t think being proven wrong in a discussion will end in bloodshed. 🙂
We used to have a 32 hectare cattle farm near Kyneton in Vic on which we ran about 35 head. It had a few shallow dams which we eventually fenced off after digging a bore and fitting a (useful) windmill. But the fenced off dams did not dry out through evaporation.
I guess the most obvious design factor to reduce evaporation from large dams for human use would be to minimise the surface area and increase the relative depth. I guess there are other criteria that designers of these dams would use to minimise evaporation but getting surface area to depth right would mostly look after the evaporation problem.
Your mate is half right, although I think a professional forester should know better than to use that simplistic explanation. Evaporation does indeed exceed rainfall in a lot of Australia, but it’s fairly irrelevant when considering dams. As Llew points out, the ratio of surface area to volume is extremely important, with wide shallow dams losing vastly more water than narrow, deep dams with the same volume. Your mate’s point would be more valid if we had no suitable mountain sites for new dams, but as it stands, it is only really relevant to calculating available soil moisture for crops – trees in his case – where evapotranspiration needs to be offset by rain or irrigation.
Getting back to the rainfall component, I give you a case study of my old stamping ground of Paterson in the Hunter Valley, NSW. It has an average annual rainfall of about 980mm and an average annual pan evaporation of around 1500mm. Clearly this area should be a desert if we go by those simplistic figures, right? Wrong – it grows rainforest.
Within about 100km radius of this area are the Glenbawn, Glennies Creek, Chichester, Lostock and Grahamstown dams which supply the Bayswater and Liddell power stations and the many hundreds of thousands of people in the greater Hunter region. I think your mate needs to brush up on his water cycle theory. Miraculously the dams fill regularly despite evaporation exceeding rainfall by about 50%.
I forgot to add that rainfall events tend to be concentrated whereas evaporation is more evenly spread. In simple terms if you get 20 inches of rain in a day or six inches of rain in two hours – both of which I have witnessed – no amount of evaporation in the world is going to stop that rain finding its way into a river and into the next dam downstream. How well it is stored once it gets there is a different question.
Beowulf we’re in Ballarat and the 50% evaporation ratio idea is about right for here however the other factors contributing to water retention as you point out simply have to occur or dams, lakes wouldn’t exist would they?
We also have the White Swan Reservoir which is almost surrounded by a huge pine forest, years ago we had some of the best natural tap water in the world before supposed needed chlorination, the great water quality was attributed to the filtration effect of the pines although I don’t know if this bears any truth to it.
Sounds reasonable. Much of Newcastle’s water comes via the Tomago Sand-Beds which lie under Grahamstown Dam. They pump from the Williams River into Grahamstown and let the water percolate down through the bottom of the dam where it filters itself naturally through the sand strata. Then all they do is pump it up and aerate it and add a dash of fluoride for extra tang. The other water comes from Chichester Dam on Barrington Tops where it seeps out of sub-alpine peat swamps which filter it too. I don’t know if they chlorinate both these sources these days. I suspect they do so they don’t get sued if someone gets Bali Belly from drinking water after the contamination scare they had with Sydney water a few years back.
The area of water storage in a good catchment is only a minute fraction of the overall catchment. The rain falls over a very large area and flows into the the storage. Evaporation is then only occurring in the catchment.
In essence the evaporation occurs over hectares whereas the rainfall occurs over thousands of hectares.
In practice it is not as simple as the above implies because there is a period of rainfall on dry land before the run off begins. So only a small amount of an initial downpour might make it into storage. Once the ground is moist a much greater proportion makes it to the catchment.
Water storage catchments are inevitably criticised for the changes to the landscape and affect on natural life in an area affected – damming of the Franklin River a well known example in Australia. The flooded dead tress fall over in time: http://www.australianstockimages.com.au/images/photos/ctynsw16s_ml.jpgdie
Remember the “Dry Land Salinity Beat-up” of a few years ago?
It applies to Mediterranean type climates where, with winter rain and low evaporation, you can expect deep percolation and salt problems, as in southern Australia.
The legs were never on this beatup in Queensland where most of the rain is summer, often from storms and with high evaporation, so deep percolation is a rare event.
The Beattie beatup (with its large map colourfully red) didn’t read the Queensland Salinity Management Handbook statement to the effect that “In Queensland in areas of less than 600 mm of rainfall dry land salinity is highly unlikely”. Small wonder that it wasn’t found when came time for show and tell.
The Ringer’s Column in Queensland Country Life had a suggestion that the above map be framed, presented to the Queensland Art Gallery with the title of “Red Poles” as Queensland’s answer to “Blue Poles”, as it generated similar huge cost and controversy
read it all for all the spin.
***Goodstein does not name the bishops who allegedly received “HATE MAIL” from sceptics:
13 June: NYT: Laurie Goodstein: Pope Francis May Find Wariness Among U.S. Bishops on Climate Change
ST. LOUIS — The church bulletin inserts are nearly ready to go. So are the emails to every Roman Catholic parish in the United States with preaching suggestions for the first Sunday after Pope Francis releases his encyclical on the environment.
A week after that, on June 28, churches worldwide are being asked to ring their bells at noon to commemorate a “Thank you, Pope Francis” march in Rome being held that day.
Never before, church leaders say, has a papal encyclical been anticipated so eagerly by so many…
But the leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States may be harder to win over. At the spring meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops here last week, bishops from around the country said they were withholding their enthusiasm until they saw the document on Thursday.
Some said they were wary about getting the church enmeshed in the debate over climate change, a contentious issue in the United States. They also expressed concern about allying with environmentalists, some of whom promote population control as a remedy, since the Church sees abortion and contraception as great evils.
***Some bishops said they had received hate mail from Catholics skeptical of climate change. That has added to the bishops’ hesitation and confusion on the topic…
Daniel Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant, the group sending the parish bulletin inserts and the homily suggestions, said he was also working with a handful of bishops on events to promote the encyclical.
The bishops of Des Moines and Davenport, Iowa, for example, plan to have a news conference at a wind turbine manufacturing plant… http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/pope-francis-may-find-wariness-among-us-bishops-on-climate-change.html?_r=0
what you won’t hear from ABC, Fairfax, Guardian, BBC et al:
13 June: Desmogblog: Farron Cousins: Obama’s Bipolar Approach To Energy And Climate Change
With less than two years to go in office, President Obama has already sealed his fate with regards to his legacy on climate change.
When historians look back and assess his actions on what could be one of the biggest issues of his presidency, they will undoubtedly be using the term “disappointing” quite a bit…
These past few weeks have given more great examples of the President’s bipolar disorder on climate change.
At the end of May, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it would issue a total of 28 new coal mining leases for the Powder River Basin.
***Greenpeace points out that the amount of coal that could be excavated and burned from just these new coal leases is enough to completely negate (and surpass) the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be cut by President Obama’s Clean Power Plan…
But seven years later, President Obama’s stance on offshore drilling has clearly changed. Rather than worrying about the immediate economic impacts, and certainly without considering the environmental impacts, President Obama has proposed opening up previously off-limits areas of the Atlantic coast for oil drilling; he has increased the number of offshore oil drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico (after he presided over the single largest environmental disaster ever to take place in the Gulf); and he’s even allowed the fracking industry to operate in near secrecy in the Gulf of Mexico…
And this is all occurring at the same time that the President has ramped up his tough talk about the need to combat climate change in order to protect future generations of Americans…
But in this case, like in so many other areas, President Obama is so afraid of a fight that he is willing to let the planet burn because he can’t make up his mind on which side he actually wants to take. http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/13/obama-s-bipolar-approach-energy-and-climate-change
I watched channel 7 news tonight. They had a story about how the oceans are warming and tropical fish are occurring further south because of it. Every time I look at channel 7 they have something to say about climate change. I think I will make it the last Time I watch their news broadcast.
Gday Joanne and others. Maybe there could be a thread for what people can do, or have done in the past that is non climate related to help save our planet from ongoing species extinction and the like.
For example, in my case, in the past/present i collect seeds from remnant roadside/etc vegetation of know providence and try to germinate them using various techniques with varying degrees of success to preserve a species/repopulate learn more about what little is left of Au in Gippsland Victoria where i live.
My activities that i could term broadly as a kind of ‘reciprocal maintenance’ of the environment around me include other activities (Link below.) that might be of interest to people who are interested in practical environmentalism, as opposed to ‘theoretical’ environmentalism like climate science, so called.
Like a ‘tips and hints’ thread for practical environmentalism generally, where people who are frustrated about the lack/disappearance overnight of practical environmentalism can talk about what they are doing, plan to do, environmental issues they consider very urgent/pressing like cane toads for instance and so on/anything.
When Warmunists “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” the Magna Carta is doubtless another thing they’ll get rid of along with it. Wankerpedia will disappear it, putting it where they put the account of the Communist experiment in Jamestown Colony.
Jo following on from last weeks ‘open thread’ post about a virtual bar that we could visit with our own avatars, whilst that comment spent a short while in moderation someone (steve i think)posted the idea of setting up an app,that possibly would be a good home for your bar i think. Steve also mentioned that the skepticalscience blog has an app that has had over 500,000 downloads , knowing that your site gets at least as much traffic as theirs you could make enough from download fee’s to be able to pay a percentage to someone with the expertise to set up and manage the bar for you and if you could get some of the big hitters such as lord Monckton or Anthony Watts to pop in now and again your bar would thrive
Listening to their ABC from 4am this morning, every news bulletin was lead by Hillary Clinton’s campaign launch. each bulletin featured different excerpts from her speach. They made it sound like the Democrats are actually democratic.
120
Got to start proof reading, speech not speach, duh.
50
Speech works for me as far as Hillary is concerned.
From the Urban Dictionary.
91
Oops ‘Speach’.
70
I like ‘the way you have spelt as it pertains to Clinton. It’s a ‘peach’ with a snake attached. Fits you mam!
50
Spe(e/a)ch is: “ability to express one’s thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture,” and since Hillary’s sounds and gestures are designed to conceal her true thoughts and emotions, surely another word is necessary. ‘Speach’ works fine for me, since it’s close to ‘impeach,’ from the Late Latin impedicāre, to entangle.
20
I got their ABC of my chest a while back at a “friends of the ….) do.Well, what can I say, but what an ODD collection (or collective) of people- crossed all the Ts I suppose.Out of touch and very ODD people!! They are ALIENS!! And they are out to absorb any humans that retain any individual characteristics.BE CAREFUL – I just escaped.It was I close run thing..
50
Same propaganda in Norway and NRK. What we see and witness is International Marxism at play?
90
Will someone remind which seat in the Australian Parliament Hilary Clinton is standing for please?
60
In a way, she wants all of them, everywhere. She wants to be the “One Ring to rule them all (…and in the darkness bind them).” Everyone in the Insane Left wants that (no opposition, no dissenting voices) for their side, that’s one of the lessons of having Obama as “the leader of the free world”. I can only inform everyone of an underlying epidemic trend in the intellectual atmosphere generally (and habitually, throughout history), and that is the ascendance of religiously-held, dogmatic thinking today over dispassionate, competent reason focused on reality, not fantasy. Everyone who spouts mostly one-sided dogma today and ignores a contrary, and hard, reality is part of the problem, no matter which side they’re on. The system is broken when dogma is ascendant.
71
What you describe there is a new Dark Ages…..
It would be ironic if the Catholic Church coems down on the side of CAGW, then it would be a true Coup de Grace for the CAGW mob having an in-built tested & true Inquisitors in thier camp and at hand…..
/sarc
00
Ok… keep in mind, her and hubby have a really big pile of money called ‘Clinton GLOBAL Initiative’ not AMERICAN initiative
she’s out to save you guys too
it’s for all our own good
consider her a little gift from us, your American friends
you’re welcome 🙂
50
I’d rather not, thanks all the same! 🙂
10
You’re laughing now, but soon, SOON, you shall know the wrath of Hillary scorned. She knows where Australia is (unlike 0bama) and soon all your bases belong her. Unless the EU gets there first.
10
There has been quite a controversy re: The Clinton Foundation. The most recent revelation is connected to 2 stories written at the following site by myself and my counterpart a couple of years ago.
http://dailybail.com/home/links-chinas-wanxiang-wins-us-taxpayer-funded-a123.html
http://dailybail.com/home/how-taxpayers-lost-big-on-fisker-karma-and-a123.html
Here is the latest Clinton scandal regarding A-123:
Sale of Michigan company to China may haunt Clinton
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/06/05/clinton-sale-michigan-china-gop/28525387/
WASHINGTON – National Republican Party officials are questioning why Hillary Rodham Clinton did not intervene in the controversial 2013 sale of high-tech battery plants in Michigan to a Chinese firm when she was secretary of State and could have done so.
At a campaign stop in New Hampshire last month, Clinton, the leading Democratic candidate for president, expressed concerns about the sale of A123 Systems — built with millions in government aid — along with those of other new energy firms, to Chinese investors, calling them “unfortunate” and a “serious” problem for high-tech industries in the U.S.
“That does concern me because a lot of foreign companies, particularly Chinese companies … are looking to buy American companies,” she said in response to an entrepreneur who mentioned A123’s sale while commenting that venture capital for new energy technology has largely fled overseas.
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, in a statement to the Free Press, called Clinton’s remarks “lip service” considering that as the former secretary of state, her department had a “role in signing off on these sales,” including A123’s to Wanxiang in early 2013.
20
I love this article from The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/noisy-compared-to-what-tony-abbotts-claim-wind-farms-awful-and-noisy-dismissed-20150611-ghlnd9.html, where they bring in someone who has benefited substantially from wind farms to rebut the PM’s statement. I wonder why they didn’t go and ask a wider range of people who live near wind farms? That’s a rhetorical question BTW. 🙂
160
I am still awaiting the Leftover person to tell me that they look beautiful and make a lovely sound.
90
I used to consider the odd one quaint and interesting, rather like the old corn grinders of yore and being a pilot, well, the big propeller helped.
That was a while ago now.
They are an unmitigated blight on the countryside and people around them, even more so when one considers that the well removed landowners who endow their land to these hugely expensive, unreliable random power generators, who capitalise in a way few could ever dream of…in true eco-marxist grand farce.
140
Abbott is a politician and probably doesn’t want to be abused by his media haters as insensitive but the unsightliness of the wind farms is matched by their virtual uselessness. The AGW hypocrite Merkel and her Germany’s reversion to coal fired power generation, despite it being a world leader in Wind and Solar technology, should give even the least informed Abbott hating Journo pause for reflection:
Plenty of relevant info like the following readily available:
A terse history lesson. In the year 2000 the government of Gerhard Schröder announced that all of Germany’s nuclear power plants must close by 2022, and this was passed into law in 2002.. This policy was revised by Angela Merkel in September 2010 to extend the lives of nuclear power plants so that the phase out would occur by 2032. Then after Fukushima, Merkel wisely or opportunistically – take your pick – decided to revert largely to the earlier phase out plan, closing eight nuclear power plants immediately and ruling that all would close by 2022.
The policy to phase out nuclear power was vital to the decisions to build new coal power plants. Closing down a quarter of your electricity generation leaves a gap that must be filled by something, and Germany realised it would largely have to be filled by one thing: coal. This is more or less beyond doubt, because Germany’s then Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said so. Gabriel, now Germany’s Minister for Energy and Economics told climate scientist James Hansen that Germany had to build new coal power plants because of its nuclear phase out, and stated elsewhere that Germany would have to build 8 to 12 coal power plants to replace its nuclear fleet.
And this is exactly what he got. In the first half of this decade Germany will open 9 new coal power plants.
http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning
72
I doubt reflection is possible. Abbott hating occupies their minds. In fact, Abbott is living in their heads, completely rent free!
90
Things including politicians are privatised these days in the political theater. Bugger about that.
10
The odd thing is that there are many, many, apparently well educated people that truly believe in such things as wind power being cost effective and efficient compared to any other power source. You can visit any number of internet forums and read where people believe that there are no downsides whatsoever to these energy sources. They never declare what they do or where they live, but they sure don’t appear to suffer from exorbitant electricity prices.
100
The Vatican encyclical comes out this week, which should be the beginning of the end for dog’s man on earth.
60
I suspect that a certain leader is working for the other fella.
70
so ironic watching the CAGW-infested MSM fawn over a Roman Catholic Pope. the piece continues the divide & rule tactics – left vs. right – and most of the comments i saw seem to be from Abbott haters. forget the science:
13 June: Guardian: John Vidal: Explosive intervention by Pope Francis set to transform climate change debate
The most anticipated papal letter for decades will be published in five languages on Thursday. It will call for an end to the ‘tyrannical’ exploitation of nature by mankind. Could it lead to a step-change in the battle against global warming?
In an unprecedented encyclical on the subject of the environment, the pontiff is expected to argue that humanity’s exploitation of the planet’s resources has crossed the Earth’s natural boundaries, and that the world faces ruin without a revolution in hearts and minds…
However, it is certain to anger sections of Republican opinion in America by endorsing the warnings of climate scientists and admonishing rich elites, say cardinals and scientists who have advised the Vatican…
The rare encyclical, called “Laudato Sii”, or “Praised Be”, has been timed to have maximum public impact ahead of the pope’s meeting with Barack Obama and his address to the US Congress and the UN general assembly in September…
By adding a moral dimension to the well-rehearsed scientific arguments, Francis hopes to raise the ambition of countries above their own self-interest to secure a strong deal in a crucial climate summit in Paris in November.
“Pope Francis is personally committed to this [climate] issue like no other pope before him. The encyclical will have a major impact. It will speak to the moral imperative of addressing climate change in a timely fashion in order to protect the most vulnerable,” said Christiana Figueres, the UN’s climate chief, in Bonn this week for negotiations…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/13/pope-francis-intervention-transforms-climate-change-debate
51
If you have ever observed a mass in say Mexico you will know that the campesinos will feel distinctly puzzled as to why they are now being asked to return to worshipping Tlaloc and Ehécatl.
40
“Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday—these
seem to represent deeply held mythic structures. In that sense they are
profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the
brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them,
as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son
of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody
out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of
them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts
aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about
belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner or be saved,
whether you are going to be on the side of salvation or on the side of
doom, whether you are going to be one of us or one of them.”
Michael Crichton 2003
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/in-praise-of-michael-crichton/
40
Although coming as I do from a faith based background ( and engineering ) , I find squarely that the environmental stuff is science, where as faith is faith.
I think the dividing line between CAGW and faith is that CAGW can be disproven clearly by science, where faith ( God ) cant be .
If an article of faith can be thoroughly disproven, it ceases to be an article of faith.
As such, CAGW is just an un-hinged cult ungrounded in reality.
00
Yeah but without drawing my punches here, the RCC is anything but Chritian – if you spend any time actually reading their Dogmas and teaching articles and Catechism, its very very clear they teach *against* the main tennets of Christianity.
Case in point, the Council of Trent clealry states that Justification is not base don faith alobne – despite the Bible clealry stating this ( this is also why the Potestant movement basically started…).
Why is this relevent to science? Simply by the fact their track record on matters of cruical understanding, the RCC teaches wrongness deliberately…it cant be based on ignorance.
As such, in matters of faith, most Christians cant take the Roman church seriously because of its glaring and wanton disregard for accuracy in teaching despite a 10 year old being able to correct them.
Does this sound familiar to CAGW? I’d say it does.
Even if initailly the RCC doesnt support CAGW on June 18th, my thinking, based on understand how the RCC actually works, is that they will.
Should the RCC land squarely in the CAGW camp,. it will truly signal of a new religious and scientific Dark Ages….
00
On Friday US House of Reps. shot down (3:1 ratio) Obama’s demands for fast track authority to negotiate a new pan Pacific trade deal. Some moderate Republicans voted “free trade” siding with Obama, while some socialists (modern Democrats) voted against “free trade.”
These fools didn’t know what was really going on. It was not about free trade or economics. Those with the ability to understand, knew all along it was another power grab by Obama. Many Congresspersons on both sides of the aisle don’t want Obama, or any president, to have such power, and it probably would break the final few threads holding the tattered Constitution together, but Obama really wanted this power going into Paris.
This is a set back for the warmist agenda. Fortunately Obama probably won’t have anymore backing to put the USA into binding climate agreements at Paris than he did at Copenhagen.
130
If you were to give the President authority to negotiate a trade deal, are you giving him authority to specify trade must be green-approved? I fear he might see it that way.
I’d been saddened by the opposition to ‘free trade’, but if it was a plan to give the presidency more power, then it’s good it was defeated.
140
Hopefully true free trade will be established post Obama. But the imperative right now, and going into Paris, is that Obama and his like be checked.
80
Dave in the states,
Unfortunately due to the huge amount of $money sloshing about in lobbying the government, there has not been real free trade in the US, or most anywhere, for some considerable time.
40
Free trade is nice in theory.
However, usually there are winners, and there are losers.
The only certain winners are giant multinationals looking to expand their markets, and their even bigger multinational financiers.
We, the average citizens, are naught but naive bunnies.
00
I am much more cautious about ‘free trade’. It is a political oxymoron. Nothing is ‘free’ and in Orwellian speak, calling it ‘free’ is broadcasting the fact that it isn’t. See the close functional relationship between the two unelected bodies of the WTO and the UN:
Like many, I have come to regard “free trade” as yet another way of continuing the broad implementation of Agenda 21, of developing seamless multinational trade-blocks that morph from a ‘common market’ into the inefficient colossus of the bureaucratic super state – see Europe – that is the testing ground, the proto UN world state.
The tragic thing is that if the consumers are superficially satisfied by cheap prices and all the goods their hearts could desire, they appear less likely to be concerned about their national or personal liberties, which become increasingly abstract (for the moment at least) in their materially satisfied minds. Ask the one communist party state, the undeniable genocidal kings, ask China.
The political kicker has to be that material satiety has an unnerving way of cloying.
50
This has the potential to change the Western world, but I hasten to add the science is not settled.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/medical-cannabis-record-donation-of-30-million-for-research-at-university-of-sydney-20150612-ghmieu.html
60
Just watching the 1967 Hammer film One Million years BC, initially I thought it was a promotional film for UN sustainable development.
70
Matt Ridley on sustainability:
“The Ecomodernist Manifesto promises a much needed reformation in the green movement. Its 95 theses should be nailed to the door of the Vatican when the pope’s green-tinged encyclical comes out next month, because unlike the typical eco-wail, it contains good news for the poor. It says: no, we are not going to stop you getting rich and adopting new technologies and leaving behind the misery of cooking over wood fires in smoky huts with no artificial light. No, we do not want you to stay as subsistence farmers. Indeed, the quicker we can get you into a city apartment with a car, a phone, a fridge and a laptop, the better. Because then you won’t be taking wood and bushmeat from the forest.”
http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/eco-modernism-and-sustainable-intensification.aspx
31
I noted on The Bolt Report today comments made by Prime Minister Abbott about how much he dislikes wind turbines and something else I had missed, that the government has managed to limit the number of new wind turbines that will be allowed to be constructed in Australia.
171
Too late for South Australia.
With over half of Australia’s wind turbines the great collapse has started. By giving wind turbines unimpeded access to the grid whenever the wind blows, and making the conventional generators carry out the accommodation and cost of that disruption, it gives wind power a stranglehold on the grid. They dump power whenever they like, dropping the price because the excess has to go somewhere. The actual price doesn’t matter to those who get subsidies separately (RET etc.).
The first stage is that wind drives out the more expensive and variable sources, gas turbines, hydro etc. out of the market, as has happened in Germany. This leaves the cheaper but less flexible coal fired plants, which have to run less efficiently because of the interruptions from wind supply. With the disruption comes increased cost, lower profit and and no incentive to upgrade or replace older plants. Thus the old coal fired plant in Pt. Augusta in S.A. is slated to close soon, and will not be replaced.
The Greens see this as a great victory. Emissions from an old S.A. plant have been replaced by emissions from an old Vic. plant. For all their self delusion this is the case; wind (and solar) do not work all the time. Unfortunately an incompetent government with no ability to look ahead, will seize the “opportunity” to licence more wind farms, and exacerbate the problem. No coal or gas fired, nor nuclear plant will be able to operate profitably under that scheme. Expect there to be spin and waffle about imaginary lower emissions because they occur in another State, and excuses for the inevitable rising electricity bills. The next stage of delusion will be talk of storage from batteries which haven’t been invented yet nor has anyone ever done the elementary costing exercise. By the time that fails to happen, any industry will be shut down or relocated interstate or overseas. The higher cost will be born by retailers e.g. supermarkets, who will pass them on to the customers. Expect unemployment to climb further in S.A.
If you live in South Australia now would be a good time to cost diesel generators.
211
Graeme No.3 hits the nail right on the head here.
You think of a whole State and you think ….. BIG power consumer.
South Australia consumes barely 6.5% of all of Australia’s power, a piddling amount really.
Sydney consumes a considerable amount more power than the whole of South Australia, and Melbourne also consumes more than all of South Australia does as well.
Tony.
140
Alinta have announced they will close the Pt Augusta power station and Leigh Creek mine because it is uncompetitive, lets hope the interconnector with Victoria works and that they have energy to spare when the wind dont blow and the sun dont shine, where can I get some batteries ..or a generator?
00
Graham No.3 I transferred your above comment to the Andrew Bolt Blog at Daily Telegraph, I trust you do not mind.
10
No. Glad you approve.
00
What kind of people run that place? More pertinently, who voted them in?. How to kill democracy 101 – make people stupid.
00
NZ’s climate change minister Tim Groser
spouting nonsense to farmers.
Actually the science is very unclear about what might happen with bad droughts if the world warmed. Of course that is a big if – there really isn’t much warming going on at the moment. But if it did warm then it is equally likely that we’d get less droughts. The GCMs do an incredibly lousy job of modeling precipitation. Predictions about droughts and floods, where they might happen and with what frequency, are just worthless alarmist nonsense.
The current drought is just the expected El Nino weather pattern. Stopping cows farting isn’t going to prevent that.
Here we see Tim Groser making political noises to keep the Green faction happy. Facts seem to have nothing to do with it. He doesn’t care about the facts. The Greens don’t care. The journalists don’t care. And those who do are are unwilling to stick their heads above the parapet and try to set him straight.
212
Tim Groser doesn’t know whether to fart or scratch his elbow. He is a career diplomat failing badly at coming across as a competent politician. I suspect he paraphrases what his bent advisers tell him and I for one would love to know if he actually himself has a considered intelligent opinion on AGW at all. Climate Change Minister my posterior….Monty Python Minister of Intellectual Deflection and Diversion more like.
10
am going to compare the MSM virtually ignoring the developments regarding the Pachauri sexual harassment case with their handling of a matter involving another scientist, who is an actual Nobel Laureate:
29 May: NoFrakkingConsensus: Will Rajendra Pachauri Be Held Accountable by Green Activists?
The environmental movement routinely demands accountability from third parties. When will it acknowledge the creepy sexual misconduct of one of its leaders?…
(MULTIPLE LINKS TO ARTICLES WHICH WERE PRETTY MUCH IGNORED BY MSM, INCL ABC, WHICH CARRIED TWO DRY AFP REPORTS ON INITIAL ALLEGATIONS, WHICH WENT ON TO SAY THIS WON’T AFFECT PARIS MEETING – SEARCH ABC’S WEBSITE FOR “RAJENDRA PACHAURI” IF YOU CARE TO SEE THEM)
Earlier this week, Pachauri lost another skirmish in court. His legal team tried to argue that newspapers, merely by reporting the conclusions of the
Internal Complaints Committee investigation at the New Delhi-based institute Pachauri leads, were breaking the law. A panel of judges had little patience
for that suggestion. According to (LINK) the Economic Times, in an exchange with Pachauri’s lawyer, one of the judges declared: “when a person has got a
finding in her favour that she has been harassed, justice is secured.” Preventing the media from telling people about that justice makes little sense.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/05/29/will-rajendra-pachauri-be-held-accountable-by-green-activists/
25 April: NoFrakkingConsensus: The Nobel Lie That Just Won’t Die
The Guardian newspaper once again falsely declares Rajendra Pachauri a Nobel laureate. For good measure, it publishes a photo of him looking pious – while neglecting to mention the serious sexual offenses for which he is being investigated…
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/25/the-nobel-lie-that-just-wont-die/
TO BE CONTINUED
101
i should not have suggested Pachauri is a scientist, when saying i would compare coverage of him to that of “ANOTHER scientist”, but he is referred to as one – a “climate scientist” no less – which could mean anyone the MSM chooses to designate as such.
here’s the real scientist/real Nobel Laureate:
Wikipedia: Tim Hunt
He was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Paul Nurse and Leland H. Hartwell for their discoveries of protein molecules that control the division (duplication) of cells…
He was knighted by the Queen in the same year, and has said that he rarely uses the title ‘Sir’ and that it should not affect his scientific standing…
Hunt is married to Mary Collins, professor of immunology at University College London (Collins was a former student of Hunt’s)…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hunt
after multiple attack articles by The Guardian, incl:
“Tim Hunt, where’s the science in your prejudice against women?” by Anne Perkins
and
“Why sack ageing sexists? Send them to rehab instead” by Gaby Hinsliff
today we have:
14 June: Guardian: Shamed Nobel laureate Tim Hunt ‘ruined by rush to judgment after stupid remarks’
Sir Tim Hunt reveals he was forced to resign from University College London without being given the chance to explain himself
by Rob McKie, Science Editor
The beleaguered British biologist Sir Tim Hunt has revealed that he was forced to resign from his post at University College London (UCL) without being given a chance to explain his controversial remarks about women in science. “I have been hung out to dry,” he told the Observer in an exclusive interview. “I have been stripped of all the things I was doing in science. I have no further influence.”…
“At no point did they ask me for an explanation for what I said or to put it in context,” he told the Observer. “They just said I had to go. There has been an enormous rush to judgment in dealing with me.”
This point was supported by Hunt’s wife, Mary Collins, who also has a post at UCL, as a professor of immunology. “Tim was still on the plane from Seoul when a senior manager at UCL phoned me and said Tim had to resign his honorary position. They had not even spoken to Tim at that point. He just said Tim had to resign or we fire him. It was very upsetting. We are both extremely angry.”
Hunt was then sacked from his post on the European Research Council’s science committee and has since resigned from other posts, including membership of a Royal Society committee. “I have become toxic,” he told the Observer. “I am finished.”…
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/13/tim-hunt-forced-to-resign
51
leading the charge against Tim Hunt has been the BBC, which has not documented all of their attacks, but this is the individual, Connie St. Louis, who started the OUTRAGE with a tweet (what else?):
VIDEO 1min46secs: 10 June: BBC: ‘Female scientists looked aghast’ at Sir Tim Hunt’s remarks
A Nobel prize-winning scientist has sparked outrage by making chauvinist remarks at a conference of senior women scientists and journalists in South Korea.
Sir Tim Hunt told the conference that there are three problems with having women in the laboratory: “You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry.”
Connie St Louis, a Lecturer in Science Journalism at City University who was at the conference, describes the reaction in the room
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33075224
MSM worldwide have prominently carried this story, including “their ABC” of course. Connie St. Louis is always described as a Lecturer blah blah. but is there something BBC left out in all its coverage?
City University London: Connie St Louis
Senior Lecturer in Journalism
Connie St Louis, Director of City’s Science Journalism MA, is an award-winning freelance broadcaster, journalist, writer and scientist. She presents and produces a range programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service.
She is a recipient of the prestigious Joseph Rowntree Journalist Fellowship to write a book based on her acclaimed two-part Radio 4 documentary series Raising Ham.
Her most recent programme on BBC Radio 4 investigated the use of designer drugs by pharmaceutical companies. She writes for numerous outlets including the Independent, the Daily Mail, the Guardian, the Sunday Times, BBC On Air magazine and BBC Online.
She worked for the BBC for sixteen years. Her production highlights during that time include securing Bill Gates’ first British interview and being invited to produce the 1997 Reith Lectures written by Professor Patricia J Williams
http://www.city.ac.uk/people/academics/connie-st-louis
BBC didn’t see fit to disclose any of this? guess not, when like ABC, half your broadcasting time seems to be devoted to playing identity politics, divide and rule, etc.
61
glad to see O’Neill is onto this, but it seems he hasn’t made the Connie St. Louis/BBC connection as yet. if anyone is registered to comment at Reason, i’d love if they could point him in her direction!
when i heard the Beeb continue with this last nite, reading out all the #distractinglysexy tweets & discussing them(?), i thought i’d look up how the outrage started and connect any dots, but i could hardly have imagined i’d come up with Connie/BBC in a matter of seconds. suddenly, it all made sense. more manufactured outrage.
read all:
13 June: Reason: Brendan O’Neill: The Illiberal Persecution of Tim Hunt
An old guys tells a bad joke and academia descends into a frenzy
Twitter went into meltdown. Journalists kicked up a fuss. His comments were branded “shocking and bewildering.” (You find a silly joke bewildering?
You really should get out more.) And then came the denouement to this latest outburst of confected fury: Hunt “resigned” from UCL, where he was honorary professor.
“Resign” is in quote marks because it’s pretty clear he was elbowed out…
Even more depressing than the resignation/sacking of Hunt has been the response to it. “This is a moment to savour,” said the Guardian. The Twitterati has given birth to the hashtag #distractinglysexy, featuring pics of women in laboratories, all designed to mock Hunt’s 1950s worldview. One science journalist thinks Hunt deserves the roasting he’s received because it is alarming that “in this day and age… someone would be prepared to be so crass, so rude.”
What is truly alarming, what should really send a shiver down every liberal’s spine, is not the words that came out of Hunt’s mouth but the haranguing of him that followed,
the shunning of him by the academy and possibly by the scientific elite itself. (As the Guardian crows, Hunt is a “fellow of the Royal Society… at the time of writing, at least.”
Yes! Let’s cast him out of that institution too! And can we pelt him with rotten eggs as he leaves?)…
http://reason.com/archives/2015/06/13/the-illiberal-persecution-of-tim-hunt
61
I’ve been doing some figuring. If I am wrong I am ready and willing to be corrected. But as far as I know the average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5×10to15) 5 000 000 000 000 000 tonnes or 5000 trillion or 5million billion.
Now, as far as I know the estimated human in put of CO2 into the atmosphere per year is around 30 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, as some say.
When I divide the it all out I get a figure of OOOOOO6th of the atmosphere is added to by CO2.
Even if my figuring is out by a zero or two it still is a miniscule amount. That’s why I can’t understand why the fuss is all about.
If an epidemic or a personal disease was increasing at such a small rate one would hardly worry if at all.
131
Edwina,
Right on!
Nasa says the atmosphere’s mass is 5.15x 10^15 tonnes.
BP says the fossil CO2 input is 35 gigatonnes for 2012.
Fritz W.
PS. The PDF symbles got butchered by Ms. Nova’s software.
CO2 Equilibrium for Constant Fossil Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Fritz Wehrhahn1
Draft. 14/06/2015. NOT for publication yet
Equilibrium 14CO 2 = ß, where is 14CO 2 input per year and ß = 14±1 years is the 14CO 2 turnover time.
In 2012 the world produced nearly 35 gigatonnes of fossil CO2. The equilibrium airborne amount should become ß = 490±35 billion tonnes. This is 15.7%±1.1% of the total CO2. It is also 62.6±4.5 ppm, some of which helps make up today’s 400 ppm.
Gösta Pettersson (2013) disproved the IPCC’s “Bern” CO2 hypothesis and the popular IPCC story that CO2 turnover time is 50-200 years. The real empirical turnover estimates are 14-20 years.
Derivation: Natural decline of CO2
A CO2 molecule can be in several states: With a probability of P(t) it can be in the AIR or in media, interacting with air, such as leaves, soil, snow and surface water. The final state is a PERMANENT SINK with air exchange time exceeding several CO2 turnover times. This is an operational perspective and needs to be tested. Cf. Data section.
If a bunch of molecules are in the air at time t – dt, the proportion of these that remain in the air at time t is reduced by a fraction μ dt, where μ is the probability that a CO2 molecule leaves the air each year. Then
P(t) = P(t-dt) – μ dt . P(t-dt)
[P(t) – P(t-dt)] / P(t-dt) = – μ dt and, for small dt,
dP / P = – μ dt. Integrating with respect to t we find
= lnP(t) – ln(1) = lnP(t)
= – μ = -μt.
Taking antilogs of both sides we get
(1) P(t) = = .
Data:
Gösta Pettersson (http://wattsupwiththat.com July 1, 2013) in a paper entitled “The bombtest curve and its implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide residency time” claims that when the nuclear bomb tests ceased in 1963 they had raised the air level of
2
C14 carbon dioxide to almost twice its original background value. In his Figure 1, reproduced below, he used data from Nordkap, Jungfraujoch, Krakow, Praque-Bulovka and Kosetice for the period of 1963 to 2005. By 2005 less than 5% of the C14 was still in the air.
In a second paper (Paper 1 of a trilogy referred to in http://wattsupwiththat.com July 1, 2013) Pettersson states “Regression analysis of the bombtest curve established that it can be satisfactorily described in terms of a single–exponential function such as Eqn.(2).” [Aside:This is also an operational test of my Eqn. (1).] His Eqn. 2 is
Remaining fraction = Exp[-t/ß], where the estimated turnover time ß = 1 / μ is 14 ±1 years. The halflife of CO2 in the air is ß . loge 2 = 9.7 years.
Currie et al. (2006) reported a 12.9 year 14CO 2 halflife in New Zealand. They say that France and China continued some bomb tests until 1968 and 1980, respectively. In the Southern Hemisphere the calculated CO2 turnover time is ß=12.9 / loge 2 = 18.6 years.
Historical bombtest C14 /C12 ratio data can be obtained anywhere there are precisely aged tree-rings.
Figures
Fiqures 1 and 2 are reproduced from Gösta Pettersson’s paper entitled “The bombtest curve and its implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide residency time”.
Figure 1. Relaxation of the excess of airborne C14-carbon dioxide produced by atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons before the tests ceased in 1963
Interesting quotes from Gösta Pettersson’s paper follow:
3
“The IPCC has disregarded the bombtest data in Fig. 1 (which refer to the C14/C12 ratio)”. “Fig. 2 shows the data in Fig. 1 after rescaling and correction for the minor dilution effects caused by the increased atmospheric concentration of C12-carbon dioxide during the examined period of time.”
Figure 2. The bombtest curve. Experimentally observed relaxation of C14-carbon dioxide (black) compared with model descriptions of the process.
Pettersson’s Disproof of the IPCC’s “Bern” Hypothesis for C14 Residence Time
The IPCC’s “Bern” CO2 model predicted that over 40% of the C14 should still be in the air 40 years after emission (Fig. 2). The observed C14 was less than 10% with a low standard error. The “Bern” hypothesis has to be rejected at any practical level of statistical significance. This is the model the IPCC uses to argue that carbon dioxide “shows an effective turnover time on the order of 50-200 years”. That is many times as high as the empirical estimates of 14±1 years for Europe and 18.6 years for the Southern Hemisphere. The “Bern” CO 2 hypothesis is also one source of the fallacious conventional wisdom “that it takes a few centuries to remove the first 80% of a carbon dioxide emission from the atmosphere”. It actually takes 25 years! (Fiq. 2 or Eq. 1). For real insights, please read Pettersson’s paper entitled “Relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide” referred to in http://wattsupwiththat.com July 1, 2013.]
4
Equilibrium CO2 increase in the air due to a constant annual CO2 input
Let Y(t) be the total fossil CO2 at time t. Also let be the amount of CO2 added to the air each year and – μ be the proportion lost. Then
Y(t+dt) = Y(t) – μ Y(t) dt + dt
Y(t+dt) – Y(t) = – μ Y(t) dt + dt and
(2a) d(Y(t))/dt = – μ Y(t) + .
At equilibrium 0 = – μ Y(t) + and
(2b) Equilibrium CO2 = Yequil = / μ = ß = CO2 input per year x
CO2 turnover time in years.
(2c) Y(t) = ß(1 – .
The Earth’s fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 1965-2012 are tabulated in
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Statistical-Review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013_workbook.xlsx
In 2012 the total human fossil fuel emission of CO2 was close to = 35 giga (or billion) tonnes. Suppose this continues indefinitely and there is a continual yearly CO2 input into the atmosphere of = 35 billion tonnes of CO2 / year. From (2b), the equilibrium CO2 increase in Earth’s atmosphere would be about
(3) CO2equil .= ß = 35 x 14±1 = 490± 35 giga (or billion) tonnes
due solely to the constant fossil carbon emissions.
NASA (2013) says the mass of Earth’s atmosphere is 5.15 x 1015 tonnes. CO2, as a proportion of the air, is 400 x 10-6 by volume or 608 x 10-6 by weight. Therefore, the airborne CO2, in the absence of additional fossil emissions, should be
5.15 x 1015 x 608 x 10-6 = 3130 billion tonnes.
From (3), the additional CO2 concentration due solely to continuing annual fossil emissions of 35 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide should be about
(4a) 100 x 490/3130 = 15.7%±1.1% or 62.6±4.5 ppm.
This is relative to a base level where there are no fossil carbon emissions whatsoever.
We don’t have an apriori knowledge of the base level. I shall pretend 400 ppm is the base level for illustrative purposes. From (4a), if other factors remain constant, we would expect the atmosphere to eventually have about
(4b) 1.157 x 400 = 463 ppm of CO2 by volume instead of 400 ppm.
5
Global Temperature increase due solely to increased fossil CO2
I assume that CO2 is the second most important greenhouse gas after water vapour which has an overwhelming effect, especially over tropical oceans. I assume that Arrhenius’ hypothesis is right and we can estimate the global temperature effect, ΔT,
of CO2 using an equation of the form
(5) ΔT= K . loge (CO2 conc.2 / conc.1),
where K is a proportionality constant which can be estimated from the effect of doubling the CO2 concentration. The IPCC AR5 suggests that doubling carbon dioxide causes a temperature increase of 1.5°– 4.5° C. I will illustrate the calculations using 3° C.
From (5), ΔT/K = ln(2) = 0.693 and an estimate of K is ΔT / 0.693 and
(6) K = 3° C / 0.693 = 4.33° C.
From (4b), annual emissions of 35 gigatonnes increase CO2 to 463 ppm. From (5) and (6), increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 463 ppm should increase the global mean temperature by about
(7) ΔT = 4.33° C x ln(463/400) = 0.63° C.
This is much less than the 2° C increase which terrifies many climate scientists and bureaucrats.
In the absence of positive feedbacks from water vapour, the effect of doubling CO2 may be near 1° C. In this case, K = 1° C / 0.693 = 1.443° C and
(8) ΔT = 1.443° C x ln(463/400) = 0.21° C.
Linear increase, (t) = 0 + bt, in CO2 emissions
The effect of adding a linearly increasing CO2 amount of b per year in addition to the base amount of = 0 is given by the first order linear differential equation
(9a) dY(t)/dt = -u Y(t) + 0 + bt as defined in (2). The solution is
(9b) Y(t) = 0ß + bß2 (t/ß – 1) + C
= (1 – x (0ß – bß2 + ßbt if Y(0) = 0.
With appropriate initial conditions, (9b) can be used to assess the effects of adding or removing specific emission sources.
6
To keep matters in perspective, note that from 1998 to 2012 the world’s annual fossil CO2 emissions increased from 24.36 to 34.47 billion tonnes at an almost linear rate of b=0.72 billion tonnes per year. Cf.
http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/excel/Statistical-Review/statistical_review_of_world_energy_2013_workbook.xlsx
Conclusions
Gösta Pettersson (2013) proved the IPCC’s “Bern” and similar CO2 models are wrong!! These models led to the widespread fallacy “that it takes a few centuries to remove the first 80% of a carbon dioxide emission from the atmosphere”. The actual empirical time is 25 years (Fig. 2 or Eq. 1).
In 2012 the fossil carbon dioxide emission was near = 35 billion tonnes. At this rate the equilibrium total fossil CO2 becomes ß = 490± 35 billion tonnes or 15.7%±1.1% of the total airborne CO2.
This is 62.6±4.5 ppm and, using Arrhenius’ equation, the temperature increase could be 0.2°- 0.7° C. There ought to be a slight decrease in the severity of the cooling phase of the current climate cycle (cf. Vahrenholt and Lunning 2013).
References
Currie, K., G. Brailsford, S. Nichol, A. Gomez, K. Riedel, R. Sparks, and K. Lassey. 2006. 14CO 2 in the Southern Hemisphere Atmosphere — the Rise and the Fall. Chemistry in New Zealand. April 2006, 20-22.
Pettersson, Gösta. 2013. The bombtest curve and its implications for atmospheric carbon dioxide residency time. ( http://wattsupwiththat.com July 1, 2013). 6pg.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/
Pettersson, Gösta. 2013. Relaxation kinetics of atmospheric carbon dioxide. (Refer to previous paper in http://wattsupwiththat.com/ July 1, 2013). 10pg.
Vahrenholt, Fritz, and Sebastion Luning (Translated by P&D Gosselin). 2013. The Neglected Sun – Why the Sun Precludes Climate Catastrophe. 356pg. Stacy-International.
Acknowledgment
Dr. Karl Wehrhahn checked the math.
1. Email: [email protected]
31
Wow Fritz Wehrhahn,
That is the long way round in saying that man’s contribution to global CO2 in negligible to how much nature can throw up.
41
Some perspective on man’s influence on CO2 levels.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111019183007.htm
20
Thanks for the info, I think most of the co2 in streams comes from rain and snow, directly or indirectly, Consider droplet surface area and also that rain is cooler than the surfaces it falls on. The solubility of co2 in clouds is high.
Fritz W
00
Remember the Channel Four film “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, and the gymnastics that our ABC contorted itself into, in order to try to undo the damage to “The Cause”? In particular, an interview with Martin Durkin by Tony Jones where Durkin’s disarmingly nondefensive yet erudite and informed responses to Jones’ attempted ambushes left an overall favourable impression on this viewer, of the director of aforesaid Swindle. Well, he has his own website, with some interesting essays about the history and social context of Environmentalism.
And of course, the Green Nazis.
113
Oksanna
Thanks for that link!
40
Very interesting…thanks for the link.
10
Jo, didn’t see this Weekend thread until now, but my earlier comment is relevant here.
The tip from Spangled Drongo on that David Davies MP speech is worth a look.
51
This may have been linked before:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ0R1MCkSOU
It is Murry Salby giving an update of his CO2 projections in March 2015. It is a long video but worth watching at least up to the questions. Some questions are more political than scientific and Salby sticks with the scientific aspects. Of particular interest to me is the observation that CO2 shows a steady increase over the last 40 years or, as I know, while man made CO2 has accelerated, which I also know but I had not thought about this correlation. During question time he points out that over the past 160 years of temperature records there have been 4 decades of warming and 12 of doing nothing or cooling. His bet is that we are heading for cooling simple based on the odds. He also makes the point that all the GCMs referenced by the IPCC were calibrated against a warming trend with CO2 the only significant variable so it is no wonder the are wrong. But the essence of the talk is that the rise in CO2 is predominantly natural and decay constant is in the range 1 to 8 years; much faster than the IPCC estimate.
There is an obvious question arising from Salby’s presentation, which no one in the audience asked.
This video from Hernryk Svensmark is from 2014:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDTmM74nDcw
It goes into some detail on cosmic rays and their impact on cloud formation.
With regard to cosmic rays they are already rising strongly since the solar cycle 24 peaked earlier in the year:
http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi
Better late then never – Greenland is finally beginning its 2015 melt season:
http://www.dmi.dk/uploads/tx_dmidatastore/webservice/e/n/i/b/m/Melt_combine.png
51
Meanwhile back in NZ you should see our new Green Party leader. What a piece of work he is. Trying to tie AGW impacts into legislation, creep. His name is James Shaw and given his background he should have more common sense which suggests he is a true snake oil merchant of the worst kind. He is doing what eco fascists all over the world try to do, he is trying to draw out mainstream politicians of the centre right to “come out”. Most won’t because they haven’t actually decided what the lie of the land is, and the likes of him know this. No intellectual battle this, it’s like a bad soap.
81
A question for those well informed on water catchments, recently I raised the issue of building more water catchments for a rising population or rather the lack of governments doing so, someone retorted that more dams was not an answer to future water shortages as the evaporation rate was usually double the yearly rainfall, I then asked why if that’s true how can catchments fill in the first place?
We had no more time to debate and I realize the water cycle is not so simple as my opponent suggests, what I’m asking for is a good basic explanation that knocks their flawed argument on the head, I don’t like leaving such silliness unchecked.
80
That’s merely an indication that most environmentalists are brain dead or alternatively they imagine that their listeners are.
51
The thing is llew my said opponent is actually a friend from work and a fellow CAGW skeptic, they have a degree in forestry (I think that’s the title?) and I believe they have forgotten to think objectively or are perhaps applying excessive epidemiology to a search for an answer.
We get on quite well so I don’t think being proven wrong in a discussion will end in bloodshed. 🙂
41
We used to have a 32 hectare cattle farm near Kyneton in Vic on which we ran about 35 head. It had a few shallow dams which we eventually fenced off after digging a bore and fitting a (useful) windmill. But the fenced off dams did not dry out through evaporation.
I guess the most obvious design factor to reduce evaporation from large dams for human use would be to minimise the surface area and increase the relative depth. I guess there are other criteria that designers of these dams would use to minimise evaporation but getting surface area to depth right would mostly look after the evaporation problem.
60
Cheers llew, that’s the way I was thinking also, appreciate the input.
30
Yonniestone
Your mate is half right, although I think a professional forester should know better than to use that simplistic explanation. Evaporation does indeed exceed rainfall in a lot of Australia, but it’s fairly irrelevant when considering dams. As Llew points out, the ratio of surface area to volume is extremely important, with wide shallow dams losing vastly more water than narrow, deep dams with the same volume. Your mate’s point would be more valid if we had no suitable mountain sites for new dams, but as it stands, it is only really relevant to calculating available soil moisture for crops – trees in his case – where evapotranspiration needs to be offset by rain or irrigation.
Getting back to the rainfall component, I give you a case study of my old stamping ground of Paterson in the Hunter Valley, NSW. It has an average annual rainfall of about 980mm and an average annual pan evaporation of around 1500mm. Clearly this area should be a desert if we go by those simplistic figures, right? Wrong – it grows rainforest.
Within about 100km radius of this area are the Glenbawn, Glennies Creek, Chichester, Lostock and Grahamstown dams which supply the Bayswater and Liddell power stations and the many hundreds of thousands of people in the greater Hunter region. I think your mate needs to brush up on his water cycle theory. Miraculously the dams fill regularly despite evaporation exceeding rainfall by about 50%.
Hope this is of some help.
50
I forgot to add that rainfall events tend to be concentrated whereas evaporation is more evenly spread. In simple terms if you get 20 inches of rain in a day or six inches of rain in two hours – both of which I have witnessed – no amount of evaporation in the world is going to stop that rain finding its way into a river and into the next dam downstream. How well it is stored once it gets there is a different question.
80
Beowulf we’re in Ballarat and the 50% evaporation ratio idea is about right for here however the other factors contributing to water retention as you point out simply have to occur or dams, lakes wouldn’t exist would they?
We also have the White Swan Reservoir which is almost surrounded by a huge pine forest, years ago we had some of the best natural tap water in the world before supposed needed chlorination, the great water quality was attributed to the filtration effect of the pines although I don’t know if this bears any truth to it.
50
Sounds reasonable. Much of Newcastle’s water comes via the Tomago Sand-Beds which lie under Grahamstown Dam. They pump from the Williams River into Grahamstown and let the water percolate down through the bottom of the dam where it filters itself naturally through the sand strata. Then all they do is pump it up and aerate it and add a dash of fluoride for extra tang. The other water comes from Chichester Dam on Barrington Tops where it seeps out of sub-alpine peat swamps which filter it too. I don’t know if they chlorinate both these sources these days. I suspect they do so they don’t get sued if someone gets Bali Belly from drinking water after the contamination scare they had with Sydney water a few years back.
50
The area of water storage in a good catchment is only a minute fraction of the overall catchment. The rain falls over a very large area and flows into the the storage. Evaporation is then only occurring in the catchment.
In essence the evaporation occurs over hectares whereas the rainfall occurs over thousands of hectares.
In practice it is not as simple as the above implies because there is a period of rainfall on dry land before the run off begins. So only a small amount of an initial downpour might make it into storage. Once the ground is moist a much greater proportion makes it to the catchment.
Water storage catchments are inevitably criticised for the changes to the landscape and affect on natural life in an area affected – damming of the Franklin River a well known example in Australia. The flooded dead tress fall over in time:
http://www.australianstockimages.com.au/images/photos/ctynsw16s_ml.jpgdie
40
This is the intended link for a flooded region:
http://www.australianstockimages.com.au/images/photos/ctynsw16s_ml.jpg
30
Also depends on the climatic type where you are.
Remember the “Dry Land Salinity Beat-up” of a few years ago?
It applies to Mediterranean type climates where, with winter rain and low evaporation, you can expect deep percolation and salt problems, as in southern Australia.
The legs were never on this beatup in Queensland where most of the rain is summer, often from storms and with high evaporation, so deep percolation is a rare event.
The Beattie beatup (with its large map colourfully red) didn’t read the Queensland Salinity Management Handbook statement to the effect that “In Queensland in areas of less than 600 mm of rainfall dry land salinity is highly unlikely”. Small wonder that it wasn’t found when came time for show and tell.
The Ringer’s Column in Queensland Country Life had a suggestion that the above map be framed, presented to the Queensland Art Gallery with the title of “Red Poles” as Queensland’s answer to “Blue Poles”, as it generated similar huge cost and controversy
10
read it all for all the spin.
***Goodstein does not name the bishops who allegedly received “HATE MAIL” from sceptics:
13 June: NYT: Laurie Goodstein: Pope Francis May Find Wariness Among U.S. Bishops on Climate Change
ST. LOUIS — The church bulletin inserts are nearly ready to go. So are the emails to every Roman Catholic parish in the United States with preaching suggestions for the first Sunday after Pope Francis releases his encyclical on the environment.
A week after that, on June 28, churches worldwide are being asked to ring their bells at noon to commemorate a “Thank you, Pope Francis” march in Rome being held that day.
Never before, church leaders say, has a papal encyclical been anticipated so eagerly by so many…
But the leaders of the Catholic Church in the United States may be harder to win over. At the spring meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops here last week, bishops from around the country said they were withholding their enthusiasm until they saw the document on Thursday.
Some said they were wary about getting the church enmeshed in the debate over climate change, a contentious issue in the United States. They also expressed concern about allying with environmentalists, some of whom promote population control as a remedy, since the Church sees abortion and contraception as great evils.
***Some bishops said they had received hate mail from Catholics skeptical of climate change. That has added to the bishops’ hesitation and confusion on the topic…
Daniel Misleh, executive director of the Catholic Climate Covenant, the group sending the parish bulletin inserts and the homily suggestions, said he was also working with a handful of bishops on events to promote the encyclical.
The bishops of Des Moines and Davenport, Iowa, for example, plan to have a news conference at a wind turbine manufacturing plant…
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/pope-francis-may-find-wariness-among-us-bishops-on-climate-change.html?_r=0
21
A tyrannical Pope, to go along with our (USA’s) tyrannical President:
An Inalienable Right of Man: No Religious Coercion
41
what you won’t hear from ABC, Fairfax, Guardian, BBC et al:
13 June: Desmogblog: Farron Cousins: Obama’s Bipolar Approach To Energy And Climate Change
With less than two years to go in office, President Obama has already sealed his fate with regards to his legacy on climate change.
When historians look back and assess his actions on what could be one of the biggest issues of his presidency, they will undoubtedly be using the term “disappointing” quite a bit…
These past few weeks have given more great examples of the President’s bipolar disorder on climate change.
At the end of May, the Bureau of Land Management announced that it would issue a total of 28 new coal mining leases for the Powder River Basin.
***Greenpeace points out that the amount of coal that could be excavated and burned from just these new coal leases is enough to completely negate (and surpass) the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would be cut by President Obama’s Clean Power Plan…
But seven years later, President Obama’s stance on offshore drilling has clearly changed. Rather than worrying about the immediate economic impacts, and certainly without considering the environmental impacts, President Obama has proposed opening up previously off-limits areas of the Atlantic coast for oil drilling; he has increased the number of offshore oil drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico (after he presided over the single largest environmental disaster ever to take place in the Gulf); and he’s even allowed the fracking industry to operate in near secrecy in the Gulf of Mexico…
And this is all occurring at the same time that the President has ramped up his tough talk about the need to combat climate change in order to protect future generations of Americans…
But in this case, like in so many other areas, President Obama is so afraid of a fight that he is willing to let the planet burn because he can’t make up his mind on which side he actually wants to take.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/06/13/obama-s-bipolar-approach-energy-and-climate-change
31
Nevertheless, waiting for him to leave is still like waiting for Godot
40
So if the Royal Commission hearing goes badly do we expect a materially different climate policy from Plibbers?
30
I watched channel 7 news tonight. They had a story about how the oceans are warming and tropical fish are occurring further south because of it. Every time I look at channel 7 they have something to say about climate change. I think I will make it the last Time I watch their news broadcast.
70
Mark Steyn keynote address : Mann for breakfast https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU
One of the funniest deadpan deliveries I’ve seen, thoroughly enjoyable, highly recommended for lifting spirits. 🙂
60
Gday Joanne and others. Maybe there could be a thread for what people can do, or have done in the past that is non climate related to help save our planet from ongoing species extinction and the like.
For example, in my case, in the past/present i collect seeds from remnant roadside/etc vegetation of know providence and try to germinate them using various techniques with varying degrees of success to preserve a species/repopulate learn more about what little is left of Au in Gippsland Victoria where i live.
My activities that i could term broadly as a kind of ‘reciprocal maintenance’ of the environment around me include other activities (Link below.) that might be of interest to people who are interested in practical environmentalism, as opposed to ‘theoretical’ environmentalism like climate science, so called.
https://ehhbreserve.wordpress.com/ Always looking for volunteers
30
Like a ‘tips and hints’ thread for practical environmentalism generally, where people who are frustrated about the lack/disappearance overnight of practical environmentalism can talk about what they are doing, plan to do, environmental issues they consider very urgent/pressing like cane toads for instance and so on/anything.
40
Don’t forget that it’s the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta this week.
40
When Warmunists “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” the Magna Carta is doubtless another thing they’ll get rid of along with it. Wankerpedia will disappear it, putting it where they put the account of the Communist experiment in Jamestown Colony.
02
The push-back against the principles of Magna Carta is rife. 😉
00
But then as comedian Tony Hancock asked so many years ago:
00
Jo following on from last weeks ‘open thread’ post about a virtual bar that we could visit with our own avatars, whilst that comment spent a short while in moderation someone (steve i think)posted the idea of setting up an app,that possibly would be a good home for your bar i think. Steve also mentioned that the skepticalscience blog has an app that has had over 500,000 downloads , knowing that your site gets at least as much traffic as theirs you could make enough from download fee’s to be able to pay a percentage to someone with the expertise to set up and manage the bar for you and if you could get some of the big hitters such as lord Monckton or Anthony Watts to pop in now and again your bar would thrive
12
Looking for tips? 4 Corners!
10