Emission Trading and climate change

Page 129 of 377 FirstFirst ... 29 79 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 179 229 ... LastLast
Results 6,401 to 6,450 of 18819
  1. #6401
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Hmmm maybe we can toss a coin.

    Which way is it gonna go?
    Then agin acording to S&D sunspots don't affect the modern day weather only back in the old days. LOL
    Link Easterbrook on the potential demise of sunspots | Watts Up With That?

    It is worth reading.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  2. #6402
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    I think those blue lines are a tad over exagerated when you look at the previous actuals don't you, I dare say the red line is victim of the same treatment.

  3. #6403
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Looks like Australia after a few aborted attempts may finally be getting commercial solar farms, in this case sufficient to power about 115,000 homes. Solar power stations set for NSW, Qld - Yahoo!7 At this stage we still have only about 2% of Aussie houses with panels on their roof tops and these come at a fair cost, commercial banks should ultimately be more cost effective.

  4. #6404
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default You seem to really value other peoples opinions more than your own?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    You obviously didn't read the comments by the producers of the report to The Times article:
    I actually read the original report and worked it out for myself.

    I pointed out exactly where you could find the answer and work it out for yourself too.

    But again you just quote someone else's opinion about assumptions.

    Maybe you could form your own opinion about the assumptions and post that?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    But feel free to spin any conclusion you want - as you always do.
    My opinion is based on information in the report. If you think the report is "spin", then complain to the authors.

    And again, you run down these semantic sidetracks while ignoring reality. This may help:




    Read the report about the 150k assumption as well, then read my original posts, then factor in the graph above, then realise the futility of these failed green dream schemes.

    And for the record, electric vehicles are certainly going to be an integral part of our transport future into the medium and longer term. But this will be nothing to do with their Carbon Dioxide footprint. It will have everything to do with energy security, to which this AGW hypothesis farce is causing enormous harm.

    Now have a read of the report and feel free to form your own opinion.

  5. #6405
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    I think those blue lines are a tad over exagerated when you look at the previous actuals don't you, I dare say the red line is victim of the same treatment.
    Are you saying this is not what the IPCC projected as the warming we should expect?

    The blue lines are subjective and are the authors estimation of what may happen. Over exagerated? Maybe! but anywhere in between the Blue and .05 line will be the end of AGW. Nice thought eh!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  6. #6406
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I actually read the original report and worked it out for myself.

    I pointed out exactly where you could find the answer and work it out for yourself too.

    But again you just quote someone else's opinion about assumptions.

    Maybe you could form your own opinion about the assumptions and post that?



    My opinion is based on information in the report. If you think the report is "spin", then complain to the authors.
    You must be a highly selective reader!

    You have either overlooked or chosen to ignored the results in the body of the report that and chose to only one scenario in Appendix 2 which is "Mid-Size EV (with battery replacement)". The report provides no comparative result of internal combustion engine replacement. AND yet, the EV including the possibility of a battery pack replacement still shows a net carbon reduction over the equivalent sized gasoline vehicle excluding a possible engine replacement.

    But then again we have noticed that this highly selective use of information seems to be your modus operandi in this debate.

    But in fairness to you, you are only parroting a report you found in The Australian and took on trust without checking the source (but then again, neither did The Australian).
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  7. #6407
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Do you not get it, or do you not care?

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Looks like Australia after a few aborted attempts may finally be getting commercial solar farms, in this case sufficient to power about 115,000 homes. Solar power stations set for NSW, Qld - Yahoo!7 At this stage we still have only about 2% of Aussie houses with panels on their roof tops and these come at a fair cost, commercial banks should ultimately be more cost effective.
    Did you read this link I posted earlier:

    Henry Ergas warns you are being told falsehoods about the Gillard Government’s latest report on global warming policies:

    CONTRARY to repeated assertions by the Prime Minister, the Productivity Commission did not endorse an economy-wide emissions trading scheme.

    If they cannot tell the truth about even their own report… | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
    Read the full report here:

    Research report - Carbon Emission Policies in Key Economies - Productivity Commission

    It tells how truly inept this government is.

    Swan the moron was waving this thing around like an evangelist with a bible, not realising it contradicted most of their policies on energy generation and use.



    The fact that they announce these renewable plants after Swan's bible waving sermon is indicative of their idiocy.

    Let our friend Terry McCrann spell it out for you:

    If we go down the carbon tax/ETS route, all -- and I, or rather the PC, mean all -- other mechanisms for purportedly cutting carbon dioxide emissions should be abandoned. It should be the carbon tax/ETS and nothing else. No 20 per cent renewable energy target/requirement. No high-cost solar (or wind) feed-in tariffs. No subsidies for 'alternative' energy research or into CCS (carbon capture and storage). Nothing.

    Least stupid approach is still stupid | Herald Sun
    Put's the Green's money laundering scheme into perspective, huh?

    Show's how economically inept they remain.

    This Green/Labor government are moronic beyond belief.

    You certainly should not be cheering their ineptitude.

  8. #6408
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Nearly there...

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    You must be a highly selective reader!
    Nah, I'll read anything, even fiction like the AGW hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    You have either overlooked or chosen to ignored the results in the body of the report that and chose to only one scenario in Appendix 2 which is "Mid-Size EV (with battery replacement)". The report provides no comparative result of internal combustion engine replacement. AND yet, the EV including the possibility of a battery pack replacement still shows a net carbon reduction over the equivalent sized gasoline vehicle excluding a possible engine replacement.
    See, now you're getting the hang of it. These things are called assumptions. They are not real. They're assumed to happen under different scenario's. Based on these many varied assumptions, you can now form your own opinion. Factor in things like cost, feasibility, utility (particularly distance and load), and figure out if the whole world is going to make this change based purely on "estimated" Carbon Dioxide reductions.

    Will this happen, or is this destined to be another failed green dream scheme? In your opinion?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    But then again we have noticed that this highly selective use of information seems to be your modus operandi in this debate.
    What am I, the internet gatekeeper?

    You and others can access whatever information you want to form your own opinions, I regularly encourage this. If for no other reason than one day you AGW hypothesis supporters may actually mount a credible argument for this farcical and failed cult.

    I have said many times, if people can't even be bothered doing some research and some reading into this farcical subject, they obviously don't believe it. Or they just don't care about their children and grandchildren, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    But in fairness to you, you are only parroting a report you found in The Australian and took on trust without checking the source (but then again, neither did The Australian).
    It was cutting and pasting actually, much more accurate than parroting.

    But the Australian did not list the assumptions, the report did.

    If anything, the original report was actually reflective of my opinions from months ago that the green dream schemes used to sell these cars is as false as all the other AGW hypothesis nonsense that abounds.

    Interesting that the Productivity Commission report also supports my position, not idiotic schemes like JuLIAR's cash-for-clunkers non-event, or this similarly farcical electric car green dream scheme.

  9. #6409
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    This Green/Labor government are moronic beyond belief.

    You certainly should not be cheering their ineptitude.
    Yes. They're our Government - they reflect the people they represent. Although to call it Green might be gilding the lilly a bit....after all there's only one of them (but hey that's good old scary reactionary Freud for you) in amongst the other numpties.

    As for ineptitude....I can only give thanks that they ain't Greek...or Irish.

    But in the end...what is the alternative?
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  10. #6410
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Old Bat Cave: The Farce That is Alternative Energy (L-O-N-G)—2007 Redux





    The Farce That is Alternative Energy (L-O-N-G)—2007 Redux


    Solar, wind, ethanol, hybrid cars…none of them is going to be our savior when the oil music stops playing. You’re wondering why? Efficiency, that’s why--energy in vs. energy out.

    To oil’s benefit, it took less energy to get for the energy it gave. Even at $40/barrel, it was the cheapest source of energy, with the most output, per barrel (or even BTU). Now that cheap source is destined to come to a thin trickle, if not a screeching halt. What do we have as replacements?

    Solar panels, made from petroleum, only provide us with about 10% of our current energy needs, and we’d have to line I-5 in California with solar panels just to make 6 megawatts of power (the standard used in today’s electric generation plants)—the golden rule used to measure the electric needs of an average U.S. city. Six megawatts equals ONE power plant. It takes 12 solar panels working constantly just to run 1 refrigerator, and we don’t live in the land of the midnight sun.

    Note: even the current off-the-grid guru Ed Begley Jr. says his rooftop-covered solar panels are no longer enough to supply his energy needs, and succumbs to sending money to a third party “green power source” for his additional energy needs. Al Gore even spends an additional and needless $600/month in guilt money to get his power from a green source. Is “conservation” in the cards for either of these households? Not on your life! It’s so much easier to spend money to assuage guilt—theirs and others.

    To use wind energy, we’d have to cover hillsides and mountain ranges with windmills to get the equivalent of that magic 6 megawatts—13,000 turbines, spinning constantly at maximum speed, equal one 555 megawatt plant (enough to run an average sized state). Turbines are purported to cause all kinds of havoc with flying wildlife, particularly bats, because of the low noise they emit while spinning...and let’s not forget appearance. Cape Cod turned down a project proposal for an offshore wind farm earlier this year because residents feared that seascape aesthetics would be ruined. Heavens!

    Ethanol is a laughable story in itself—it takes 27-29% more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than the ethanol itself will provide. When the energy it takes to plant, maintain, and harvest the crop (corn or soy), then distill and refine it to a useable state, you’re already in the hole before you even turn the key in the ignition! All this serves is to help prop up our already over-producing farm community, namely Big Farm-a (Con Agra, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland). We’d never eat corn again, because all the crops would be going toward wasteful ethanol production—not only our crops, but also those of other countries who can least afford to lose food sources. When it comes to a driving fuel, ethanol provides 25% fewer miles/tank than ordinary gasoline. Biodiesel has a slightly better energy return, but only slightly—and still has the same energy problems of ethanol before the key is turned.

    Note: one day, Leonardo DiCaprio and his buddies will get this through their thick skulls—probably AFTER they get booted out of Hollywood and can’t find work elsewhere. Also, on the corn front—we have to import sugar cane ethanol and ethanol crops because we can’t grow enough right here at home to supply our current needs…never mind the future.

    Hydrogen is almost as big a joke, simply because the largest, cheapest source for it is the moon—when was the last time we made it there? We can’t even get our shuttles back into orbit, let alone send something to the moon again! Forget trying to crack water or air—too expensive, even at its cheapest.

    Note: we DID manage to get a few shuttles back into orbit, but just barely. Still, we find ourselves woefully unequipped to take advantage of the cheapest hydrogen source of all.

    Then we come to the most laughable crutch of all, the hybrid car. Yes, it may use less gas and yes, it may burn cleaner, but it, too is made from petroleum products (plastics and polycarbonates). Where will these cars come from when the fields run dry? It currently takes 27-54 barrels of oil to produce one hybrid vehicle. When oil reaches $72/barrel, as it’s been suggested to in late 2006, just who is going to be able to afford THE CAR, let alone the gas for it? Remember that the Toyota Prius was unreasonable at $17,000 back when oil was $44/barrel. Imagine what it would cost when oil reaches $72/barrel.

    Note: the prices have come down, but so have the mileage estimates (by some 20%)—now they are slightly better than my ten-year-old Park Avenue. I gladly sacrifice 6 miles per gallon for the spaciousness, interior conveniences, and cheap cost of insurance. My original article on hybrid cars here.

    At least solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy come from free sources to begin with, but we all know what that means: unreliability. It also means that harnessing the power isn’t without costs as well—solar panels (plastic), wind turbines (fiberglass), and dams (concrete) are expensive matters relative to the efficiency of energy they’d help provide. Couple this with power loss from line transmission (from the source to your house), and the costs escalate relative to efficiencies.

    Did you know that electric power starts out at 440 volts from the source, and ends at 110 volts at your home? The lost power transmission along the way to your home (mostly in heat) is 330 volts, or 75% of the original energy generated. That’s how much extra energy is required to get power from the originating source, down the power grid, to the home, and that’s why we’d have to cover the country with windmills and solar panels to replace the oil, gas, and coal that now generate our power plants.

    The real answer to the looming oil catastrophe is to use less, and by that I mean FIND OTHER MATERIALS TO MANUFACTURE FROM. Plastics manufacture is the worldwide #1 user of oil—not cars or driving (driving is the #1 user in the U.S.). Until we find something else to use or shun plastics altogether, we’re headed right toward the stalled oil derricks and disaster in record time. Simply using less on a personal level won’t make a dent in the situation—we need to find other ways of manufacturing and transport without the use of oil and distillates as a country, and as a world. Ending the extremely wasteful practice of fueling cruise ships, which get a whopping 3 gallons to the mile, would be a good start.

    Note: new oil deposits are being discovered every day, so the once-dreaded oil crisis is being pushed back further out over the horizon. For every cry of “crisis,” we hear another cry of “Eureka!” afterward.

    Natural gas, unfortunately, isn’t an answer either, because manufacturers will make the shift to gas first, assuring quick drainage of that supply as well. When that’s gone, then where will they go? This is where they need to be thinking about now rather than later.

    Studies suggest that coal may be our manufacturing answer, and it might, but getting to an adequate coal supply will be easier said than done. We sit on the Saudi Arabia of coalfields--right under Colorado--and the residents aren’t about to let us come in and dig them up so life can go on as usual.

    So by this point, you’re probably wondering how you’re going to get by when the pumps run dry, and the so-called “alternatives” aren’t being manufactured any more. My advice: power down. Simply put, try to pull the plug on as many of your appliances and vehicles as possible, and learn to live without their convenience. Electricity generation (like water and kerosene) will likely be rationed, and there will probably be times of light and brownouts (much like Iraq suffers from today). Making and doing more with less won’t be enough; you’ll need to think “make something from nothing.” Remember: nearly ALL the alternatives to oil come from oil itself in some form—plastics, polycarbonates, fuel for tractors, pesticides, fertilizers, etc. Fiberglass wind turbines may be the only exception, but they do require the use of petroleum products in maintenance (gear lube, hydraulic fluids, etc.)

    Note: why wait? Start finding ways to power down NOW, saving money and hassle in the end, not to mention already being accustomed to the coming eventual limited energy availability and/or anticipated astronomical costs.

    As comical as this may sound, we might want to get acquainted (or re-acquainted) with horseback and bicycle riding. We might also want to get re-acquainted with hurricane lamps, cooking with fire, and an in-depth knowledge of machinery so that we may convert it from gas and diesel to hydraulic and pneumatic power. Older Boy Scout manuals (pre-80’s) will come in handy for lessons in building shelters, fires, picking wild foods, and for general emergency preparedness (I say old because the newer manuals rely heavily on pre-packaged convenience items and manufactured camping gear--affordability may be an issue to some). Books on Amish and Mennonite living may provide useful reference.

    We may also want to consider living in a dwelling that’s underground, or at least partly underground, for temperature modulation. Central heat and A/C will probably be things of the past, and many areas of this country will be totally unbearable to live in without them. Caves usually have an environment at a steady 50 degrees or so, depending on depth, and it’s a reliable year-round source of modulation. Underground homes can also have this same sort of modulation, albeit at a different temperature (usually 70 degrees or so).

    In short, you’ll need to do more for yourself from home to avoid expensive travel and “frivolous” spending (frivolous becoming a relative term). This means everything from telecommuting and freelancing to gardening and sewing. Currently cheap Chinese goods will become dear when transportation costs are added in---theirs AND ours (never mind the re-valuating of their currency). The car as we know it will only serve as a hauling device, and today’s SUVs will become luxurious hauling devices indeed!

    Note: in the future, public entitlement programs will most likely be paid for with tax hikes in the form of tariffs on once-cheap Chinese goods, and/or a VAT tax on Medicare. We may be discovering new oil nearly every day, but new sources of tax revenue are in short supply (and getting shorter) as jobs get downsized, off-shored, or eliminated altogether. Let’s face it—minimum-wage jobs don’t bring in the revenue that union-wage ones do.

    On the national preparedness front, we’re looking at nuclear plants for electrical generation (and high time, too, since the technological advent of better waste disposal means through laser use), different materials for manufacture (more fiberglass and natural renewables), and mass transit improvements (fuel changes and infrastructure upgrades). Individual businesses are even getting into the act, and I bet you haven’t even noticed it yet—through eminent domain, they’re grabbing up suburban neighborhood property for building future stores in residential neighborhoods. Why, you ask? Simple—they see the coming trend toward less driving, and want to bring their stores to you, the new bike rider, walker, and mass transit rider. They know that trips to the mall and big-box stores will be vanishing, along with discretionary dollars to spend, and this is how they intend to stay in business. Malls will eventually dry up, along with suburbia, and the next logical move for them would be to acquire old derelict properties in downtown areas to demolish or refurbish into new stores. The new walker, bike rider, or mass transit user will surely find THAT accommodating (if only they could fit a big screen TV on a bus or on the back of a bicycle). Downtowns everywhere will get much-needed renovations and remodels to make room for the resurgence of permanent residents returning…the revival of “walkable” communities will be at hand. Imagine Target as a Mom & Pop store—a store without all the trappings of suburban comfort creatures, a store that only carries what you’d need to live in an urban setting. An urban Best Buy wouldn’t carry any electronics you couldn’t fit on a bus or carry away by yourself sans cart, making for a vastly smaller store. Wally World may even have to split into two stores—one for groceries, and one for general merchandise.

    The next logical move for them after that would be to go all cyberspace. Then, the store overhead would be eliminated, and we could rely on (expensive) home delivery for that big-screen TV. Shipping costs would then soar to astronomical levels due to fuel and maintenance bills for USPS, UPS, and FedEx.

    Note: this too will be pushed back because of the new oil deposits—but it may come to fruition in your great-grandchildren’s time (or later).

    Just close your eyes and imagine all this. It will start happening when we stop resisting the idea that oil will come to an end. We need to be thinking about other living arrangements now before this event becomes a national and personal catastrophic disaster—a long emergency with no end. It may not happen in your lifetime, but there are undoubtedly little lifetimes behind you (kids), and they will need to be prepared and versed. This is where the experience, knowledge, and sage advice of grandparents and great-grandparents will come in handy. Valuable depression-era wit and wisdom will get along nicely here, and unfortunately, that generation is disappearing faster than we realize—yet another valuable commodity wastefully slipping through our fingers.

    Note: Oil will not come to an end before individual countries start nationalizing their supply, choking off deliveries, raising prices, and therefore escalating the delivery costs to the states in the process (tankers need gas too!). Politics will be our undoing on the energy front long before we actually run out of oil.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  11. #6411
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    OPNTALK: Alternative Energy Farce


    Sunday, March 27, 2011

    Alternative Energy Farce


    I keep trying to caution you. WAIT and SEE.

    Hey folks,

    Yes, I'm talking about Energy again. Why? We NEED it. There is starting to be more and more talk about the higher Gas Prices. We have already discussed this in depth. Now more and more Liberals are starting to call for investigations once again. We already KNOW one of the BIGGEST contributing factors. Obama.

    Him and his Ilk, LOVE this. They WANT people out there talking about speeding up the switch to Alternative Energy as a way to combat the Higher Gas and Heating Costs. The higher Electric Bills. The higher Food Costs. But as we have also discussed in depth, it is THEIR Policies that are driving the cost of EVERYTHING up.

    But here we are again, Alternatives. Lets look at three. Solar, Wind, and Ethanol.

    First up, Solar. Remember this? OPNTalk - First Ever US Hybrid Solar Energy Center
    11 Thousand Homes, out of a Population of around 18,537,969 at a cost of about $340 Million dollars. So that's about $30,900 a home.
    Maybe a good start, but only 11,000 homes in one County, in one State.
    However, my Brain tells me that even though this may work in Florida, it will not in Washington. They do not have enough Sunshine there. So they will have to come up with something else. So Solar will NEVER be Universal. What works here, may not work elsewhere. FPL spent $688 Million the these three Projects. like I said, for this one, a cost of about $30,900 a home. Where is that money coming from? Of whom are they going to pass the cost onto? What will Seattle do? Will it work? We should know in about 5 years. So what are we going to do in the meantime? What about the other around 18,526,969?
    So what about Wind? For a Windmill to be efficient, the Wind must be blowing at a content 30 miles an hour. However, it makes so much noise, the residents that live near them, SUED. So now they will turn them OFF when the Wind hits 23 MPH. I'm not kidding. According to Human Events Online - Painful Lessons for Wind Power by Brian Sussman 03/24/2011
    Wind energy took another blow—this time in Massachusetts.

    Wind One is the 400-foot-tall wind turbine owned by the town of Falmouth, on the southwestern tip of Cape Cod. The residents of Falmouth initially welcomed Wind One as a symbol of green energy and a handy way to keep local taxes down. Electricity generated by the turbine would be used to power the municipality’s infrastructure, thus shaving about $400,000 a year off its utility costs.

    Installed in the spring of 2010 at a cost of $5.1 million (with some $3 million derived through grants, government kickbacks, and credits), the huge turbine cranks out 1.65 megawatts of electricity during optimum conditions.

    The topography of Falmouth is stunningly beautiful. Small ponds, creeks, pines, and oaks rest adjacent to the rocky beachfront. What’s totally out of place is a monstrous pillar of white steel rising from the countryside, topped with its whirling three-bladed rotor. However, proving that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one local told a Public Radio reporter the turbine is “quite majestic.”

    But as soon as her majesty was switched on, residents began to complain—Wind One was as loud as an old Soviet helicopter.

    Neil Anderson lives a quarter of a mile from the turbine. He’s an avid supporter of alternative energy, having owned and operated a passive solar company on Cape Cod for the past 25 years. “It is dangerous,” he told WGBH in Boston. “Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears never goes away. I could look at it all day, and it does not bother me … but it’s way too close.”

    Tired of the constant chopping sound, pained residents decided to lawyer up. This month a deal was struck with the town to disengage the turbine when winds exceed 23 miles an hour. This is problematic because giant windmills such as Wind One operate at optimum efficiency at about 30 miles an hour.

    So now Falmouth’s investment has taken a hit. According to Gerald Potamis, who runs the wastewater facility, shutting off the turbine during higher winds will cost the town $173,000 in annual revenue, because now they’ll have to rely more on natural gas.

    Truth is, wind turbines have always suffered from the NIMBY—not in my backyard—syndrome. Look no further than the largest concentration of wind turbines in the world, constructed in the 1970s just east of the San Francisco Bay. Some 4,500 windmills are ensconced atop 50,000 acres of grassy hills, generating a modest 576 megawatts of power. Officially known as the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, one would suppose the wind farm is an icon of greenness. But instead, Altamont Pass is the poster girl of eco-infighting.

    Ever since the multitude of windmills was installed, a significant increase in the numbers of dead birds has been reported. Activists immediately went ballistic, demanding action. Over the decades, lawsuits have been filed and millions of dollars spent procuring studies to track the bird body count in an effort to determine how to address the problem.

    In 2008, a two-year, taxpayer-funded examination of the problem was conducted by the Altamont Pass Avian Monitoring Team. During the study period, the monitoring team determined that 8,247 birds were wacked dead by the turbine blades.

    In 2010, a settlement was finally reached between the Audubon Society, Californians for Renewable Energy, and the company running the wind farm, NextEra Energy. Nearly half of the smaller turbines will now be replaced by newer, more bird-friendly models. The project is expected to be complete by 2015 and includes $2.5 million for raptor habitat restoration, all of which is expected to increase the price of energy being supplied to the grid by this portrait of green power.

    Painful to the ears, and especially painful to the birds, the painful lesson environmentalists need to learn is that the answer to America’s growing energy needs is not blowing in the wind.
    Be right back with Part Two.
    Peter

    Sources:
    OPNTalk - First Ever US Hybrid Solar Energy Center
    Human Events Online -
    Painful Lessons for Wind Power
    Ecopolitology -
    Cornfields vs. Oilfields (Infographic)
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  12. #6412
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Sunday, March 27, 2011

    Alternative Energy Farce Part Two


    Solar, Wind, Ethanol

    Hey folks.

    We're back.

    OK. So we just got done talking about Solar and Wind. Remember also, when done Drilling, the Platforms go away and there is no real evidence that they were even there. Windmills? Well, they are just left in place. Cost too much to remove them. Just a bit of a side not there.

    So what about Ethanol? As we have already discussed in the past:

    Not tested.
    Not Cheaper.
    Causing Food Riots.
    And some want to INCREASE the usage.

    So is it a great Alternative? I just got this last week in the Emails.

    Hello Peter!

    Kate here, and we've created an interesting infographic that I think you might enjoy. With today's ever increasing gas prices, it's a wonder why we don't push harder for alternative sources of fuel. But at the same time, these alternative sources aren't as amazing as you would think. We've highlighted the pros and cons regarding corn ethanol, and presented information about just how effective an energy source it really is.
    Now this was put together by Timothy Hurst over at Ecopolitology. Although this guy IS a Environmentalist, I would not call him an Environut. He is a guy that is concerned about the Environment and takes the time to really study things like this. Here is the Chart of the Pros and Cons of Ethanol.



    So what is more important to you? Food, or taking even more land away to grow "energy." Now I appreciate that there may be some positives. Just like there are positives with Solar and Wind, IN THEORY. But the problem is, bringing the THEORY into Reality. To wake up from the "Green Dream" and realize that this is DECADES out in the future, and we have $4.00 a gallon Gas Prices NOW. And going up as we speak. There is no magic switch to switch to. There are no Alternatives on a mass and affordable scale.

    As I keep saying folks, lets do it. Lets keep taking these baby steps toward a "Greener" future. But in the meantime, lets use what we have, and get more of it. Lets USE OUR OWN RESOURCES. Lets increase supply, American Security, and lets lower prices. The answer is right here, in front of our faces.
    Peter

    Sources:
    OPNTalk - First Ever US Hybrid Solar Energy Center
    Human Events Online -
    Painful Lessons for Wind Power
    Ecopolitology - Cornfields vs. Oilfields (Infographic)
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  13. #6413
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Sea ice in the arctic dropped to a new low over the weekend.
    AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L
    As the weather warms and if the clouds clear as predicted there should be good pictures coming off the satellite of the breakup of ice in the north west passage.
    MODIS Rapid Response System Subset - Arctic_r03c02: 2011/170 - 06/19/11

  14. #6414
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Get it right.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    Sea ice in the arctic dropped to a new low over the weekend.
    AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L
    As the weather warms and if the clouds clear as predicted there should be good pictures coming off the satellite of the breakup of ice in the north west passage.
    MODIS Rapid Response System Subset - Arctic_r03c02: 2011/170 - 06/19/11
    Come on champ, you can't just post a weekend weather report.

    What the hell is this supposed to prove, that the weather changes?

    You need to throw in some serious scaremongering about dead polar bears or something. Maybe cities going underwater? Any equally ridiculous scare previously used by your cohort will do.

    Or have you finally realised that most people are now wise to your baseless fear mongering and these ridiculous fake scares just cost you more credibility?

    Well, I don't want to break the bad news buddy, but readers of this thread also realise you can't just post an effect, then assume everyone will assume the cause is the same one that you assumed. Uh uh.

    This costs your credibility even more.

    Best you stick to the dying polar bears, here, let me show you how:

    They cling precariously to the top of what is left of the ice floe, their fragile grip the perfect symbol of the tragedy of global warming.

    The plight of the bears was highlighted as the prospect of a gloomy future emerged from leaks of the most comprehensive report into global warming yet undertaken, which is to be published on Friday.


    Concluding that it is "highly likely" that mankind is to blame for climate change, it talks of more droughts, torrential rains, shrinking Arctic ice and glaciers, and rising sea levels for the next century.


    But the scientists have observed that in the struggle for survival, the bears - and females especially - are now much thinner.


    Scientists believe that four bears which recently drowned off the coast of Alaska had simply been unable to cope with a violent storm.




    Now that's a tearjerker right there!


    Last edited by Dr Freud; 21st Jun 2011 at 02:44 AM. Reason: I found one bear left...

  15. #6415
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default If only.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Yes. They're our Government - they reflect the people they represent.
    Wrong!

    JuLIAR lied and said "There will be no Carbon Tax under the government I lead".

    The "people" voted in 146 seats out of 150 seats in the lower house saying NO to a Carbon Tax.

    The government is not reflecting the "people", because JuLIAR is a gutless PM who has become Bob Brown's bec and call girl.

    But here's a way for the government to accurately reflect the people they represent:

    The question Mr Abbott would like to put voters is: "Are you in favour of a law to impose a carbon tax?"


    Mr Abbott admitted the cost of the plebiscite would be high, but it was lower than the cost of the carbon tax.


    "What I want is for the Australian people to have a direct say over the biggest economic change in our history," he told ABC radio.


    "This is the vote that the prime minister didn't allow the Australian people to have at the last election. I want that vote to happen.


    "It wouldn't be cheap, but let's not forget that this is an $11.5 billion a year tax that the prime minister wants to impose on people, a tax that she wasn't honest about before the last election."


    Asked if he expected to gain the support of cross bench MPs, Mr Abbott said: "In the end, it's their call.


    "I accept that they're independents but I very much hope that they will believe this is in everyone's interests that we have a plebiscite, a public vote, a popular vote on this very important issue."


    Tony Abbott defends a $70m plebiscite on the carbon tax that would give Australians a say | The Australian
    Do you think JuLIAR wants to "reflect the people", or just keep playing the gimp?

    I think we all know the answer involves desperately hanging onto power regardless of the damage to our country.

  16. #6416
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default They are stark raving mad!

    Just 155,800 jobs lost to make an utterly meaningless gesture? What a great deal:
    The Energy Users Association of Australia has released a new report it gained from forecaster Deloitte Access Economics on the impact of a carbon tax combined with renewable energy targets. It shows that by 2020, the price of electricity on the wholesale market may increase by 121%.


    That claim, and a prediction for up to 155,800 jobs to be lost, will put pressure on the Federal Government to promise compensation measures for certain high-emissions sectors. Much will hinge on whether a global emissions trading scheme is operational or not.



    And the temperature won’t change a flicker | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog




    So we plan to introduce the Carbon Dioxide Tax to send a price signal.

    Then the polls say Aussies don't want a "price signal".

    So we compensate money so that they are "better off".

    So now there's no price signal.

    So everyone keeps doing what they've always done.

    Let's go through the steps.

    1) Industry pays TAX to Government.
    2) Government gives compensation to consumer.
    3) Consumer spends money on higher prices by industry.
    4) Repeat from step 1

    What a bunch of idiots!

    Oh yeh, and then the Planet Earth somehow gets COLDER.

  17. #6417
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Wrong!
    Wrong?

    Frued.....Governments of any and every flavour reflect the people that they represent. Regardless of who claims leadership and how righteous or appropriate others believe that claim to be.

    You claim that our current government is "stupid" and "inept". I certainly don't disagree with you. I claim that our stupid and inept government reflects an equally stupid and inept population. But most of all....our Government reflects what we lack as a both individuals and as a group....a sense of personal responsibility. For example, "It's not my fault - I didn't vote for them" or "It's not my fault - it's those pesky insert preferred nationality here".

    In the end......we all get back what we put in.


    As for the plebiscite.....what is the point of voting for something that still only exists as an idea rather than an actual piece of proposed legislation? The idea as it currently stands is, to my mind, stupid (there's no price signal if ithere's compensation - so there's no point having the signal) .....but until the legislation is actually written then it's just a idea. Ideas are to be explored so as to determine possible options (or even a range of options). Then you vote on the options.......
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  18. #6418
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    To ask for a plebiscite on the one hand and then state a yes vote would only see any carbon tax thrown out by a future Liberal government does make you wonder why waste 70 million or so in the process, it is very poor to ask one side to abide by a vote and refuse to accept the will of people in the same process yourself (assuming a yes vote got up). Australian politics is at a very low ebb with silly political stunts like this matched by some fairly dumb comments from all sides on many issues.

    Perhaps it is time to bin the focus groups and get some real policy from both sides.

  19. #6419
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Come on champ, you can't just post a weekend weather report.

    What the hell is this supposed to prove, that the weather changes?

    You need to throw in some serious scaremongering about dead polar bears or something. Maybe cities going underwater? Any equally ridiculous scare previously used by your cohort will do.

    Or have you finally realised that most people are now wise to your baseless fear mongering and these ridiculous fake scares just cost you more credibility?

    Well, I don't want to break the bad news buddy, but readers of this thread also realise you can't just post an effect, then assume everyone will assume the cause is the same one that you assumed. Uh uh.

    This costs your credibility even more.

    Best you stick to the dying polar bears, here, let me show you how:








    Now that's a tearjerker right there!




    The US coastguard has plenty of information on ice berg movement and ice cover in the Artic, and the ice area really is shrinking, however the Dr Fraud denials come with their usual tedious spin, at least some things are constant. For the benefit of our resident skeptics melting of sea ice does not change water levels by the way, it is water from melting glaciers and other land based ice that will cause the rise in sea levels.

    The reducing ice cover is causing problems for amongst other things shipping information, and is stretching the resources in that region to monitor the change. I'm pleased someone feels sorry for the polar bears.

  20. #6420
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists - Telegraph

    Climate change: The elements conspire against the warmists

    An international team of scientists has used the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover that the Arctic ice is in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected, says Christopher Booker.



    By Christopher Booker
    6:15PM BST 09 May 2009
    55 Comments


    As the clock ticks down towards December's historic UN Copenhagen conference on climate change, the frenzied efforts of the warmists to panic us over all that vanishing Arctic and Antarctic ice are degenerating into farce.

    That great authority Ban Ki-moon, the UN's Secretary-General, solemnly tells us that the polar ice caps are "melting far faster than was expected just two years ago". Yet the latest satellite information from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (passed on by the Watts Up With That blog) shows that, after the third slowest melt of April Arctic ice in 30 years, the world's polar sea ice is in fact slightly above its average extent for early May since satellite records began in 1979.

    This news came as the skiinfo.com website was reporting "It's snowing all over the world". Snow was still falling in the Alps after a record winter, while in the southern hemisphere the skiing season was starting "five weeks early".

    Meanwhile, up in the Arctic, after yet another delay for bad weather, the hapless Catlin trio, sponsored by an insurance firm which hopes to make money out of alarm over global warming, continue their painful progress towards the distant North Pole, measuring the ice with an old tape measure and assuring Prince Charles by satellite telephone that it is "thinner than expected".

    When the trio heard a passing aircraft, which they hoped was bringing much-needed supplies, they little realised it was a DC-3 carrying an international team of scientists, using the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover rather more efficiently that the ice was in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  21. #6421
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Never thought it possible; an idea so stupid that even Sen Fielding won't support it.
    Tony Abbott under fire for plebiscite bungle after Steve Fielding effectively kills bill | The Australian

    Despite this recent outbreak of common sense from the Family First god botherer, the senate will be richer on his departure at the end of the month.

  22. #6422
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Do you think JuLIAR wants to "reflect the people", or just keep playing the gimp?

    Mr Abbott proposed the poll yesterday, but said he would still oppose a carbon tax even if voters gave it the thumbs up.
    Fielding kills Abbott's carbon plebiscite - Yahoo!7

  23. #6423
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    I didn't usually bother to read the crap that Marc cuts-and-pastes - and I somehow doubt that he even bothers to read then himself.

    Let's look at some of the crap he has posted and check a few facts. See the text in bold and comments in red. There is just too much erroneous information to correct it all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Wisdom From Wenchypoo's Old Bat Cave: The Farce That is Alternative Energy (L-O-N-G)—2007 Redux




    The Farce That is Alternative Energy (L-O-N-G)—2007 Redux


    Solar, wind, ethanol, hybrid cars…none of them is going to be our savior when the oil music stops playing. You’re wondering why? Efficiency, that’s why--energy in vs. energy out.

    To oil’s benefit, it took less energy to get for the energy it gave. Even at $40/barrel, it was the cheapest source of energy, with the most output, per barrel (or even BTU). Now that cheap source is destined to come to a thin trickle, if not a screeching halt. What do we have as replacements?

    Solar panels, made from petroleum, only provide us with about 10% of our current energy needs, and we’d have to line I-5 in California with solar panels just to make 6 megawatts of power (the standard used in today’s electric generation plants)—the golden rule used to measure the electric needs of an average U.S. city.

    Six megawatts equals ONE power plant.

    Maybe you should search and see the typical size of a generator. 500MW is typical for a single generator. A power plant is considerably bigger - usually in the GW range.


    It takes 12 solar panels working constantly just to run 1 refrigerator, and we don’t live in the land of the midnight sun.

    A 1.5kW solar system is usually made up of 9 panels. These will produce about 1,800kWh per year (without running 'flat out'). A typical fridge uses 600~900 kWh per year.

    Note: even the current off-the-grid guru Ed Begley Jr. says his rooftop-covered solar panels are no longer enough to supply his energy needs, and succumbs to sending money to a third party “green power source” for his additional energy needs. Al Gore even spends an additional and needless $600/month in guilt money to get his power from a green source. Is “conservation” in the cards for either of these households? Not on your life! It’s so much easier to spend money to assuage guilt—theirs and others.

    To use wind energy, we’d have to cover hillsides and mountain ranges with windmills to get the equivalent of that magic 6 megawatts—13,000 turbines, spinning constantly at maximum speed, equal one 555 megawatt plant (enough to run an average sized state).

    On shore turbines are typically between 1MW and 2MW. they have a utilisation factor of about 35%. To generate an average of 6MW using 1MW turbines will require 6MW/(1MW x 0.35) = 17 turbines - a long way different to 13,000 quoted in Marc's cut-and-paste crap article. These turbines are not "spinning constantly at maximum speed", they are just doing typical average duty.

    Hang on! A "power plant" is now 555MW. it was 6MW before!


    Let's do the calculations again for 555MW: to make an average of 555MW using 1MW turbines will require 555MW/(1MW x 0.35) = 1585 turbines - still a very long way different to 13,000 quoted in Marc's cut-and-paste crap article.
    These turbines are not "spinning constantly at maximum speed", they are just doing typical average duty.

    I think you will get the drift. The article quotes numbers and some might just accept the numbers even though they don't make any sense. Perhaps it is because it supports their "gut feeling" as to what is "right"?

    The bottom line to me is that the article is fabricated rubbish. I don't know why Marc wastes his time cutting-and-pasting such rubbish. It only makes him look foolish.

    Does Marc actually read and analyse the stuff he cuts-and-pastes? I doubt it!


    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  24. #6424
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I didn't usually bother to read the crap that Marc cuts-and-pastes - and I somehow doubt that he even bothers to (critically) read then himself.

    Let's look at some of the crap he has posted and check a few facts. See the text in bold and comments in red. There is just too much erroneous information to correct it all.



    I think you will get the drift. The article quotes numbers and some might just accept the numbers even though they don't make any sense. Perhaps it is because it supports their "gut feeling" as to what is "right"?

    The bottom line to me is that the article is fabricated rubbish. I don't know why Marc wastes his time cutting-and-pasting such rubbish. It only makes him look foolish.

    I suspect he thinks he is being clever, however the cut and paste responses usually just demonstrate thet he has either not read or not understood what he is attempting to respond to.

    As to Artic ice thickness there is no getting away from the fact that it is thinning and shrinking over recent decades. The attached link gives a few graphs and comments. Arctic Ice June 2010 might be of interest to anyone with an open mind but Marc might prefer to google "ice thinning is crap" or resort to the usual denier favorites.

  25. #6425
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Some of the rubbish in his cut and pastes is really weird. The story of scientists using a DC-3 in the arctic is off the planet, these aircraft are over 60 years old. Anyway aren't these guys supposed to be on the funding gravy train, where's the lear jet? Posting a two year old quote from a pommy tabloid is as far from science as you can get.

  26. #6426
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I didn't usually bother to read the crap that Marc cuts-and-pastes - and I somehow doubt that he even bothers to read then himself.

    Let's look at some of the crap he has posted and check a few facts. See the text in bold and comments in red. There is just too much erroneous information to correct it all.



    I think you will get the drift. The article quotes numbers and some might just accept the numbers even though they don't make any sense. Perhaps it is because it supports their "gut feeling" as to what is "right"?

    The bottom line to me is that the article is fabricated rubbish. I don't know why Marc wastes his time cutting-and-pasting such rubbish. It only makes him look foolish.

    Does Marc actually read and analyse the stuff he cuts-and-pastes? I doubt it!


    A blogger has devised a word to describe the way they do math over at wuwt, mathturbation.
    Chaos | Open Mind

  27. #6427
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilT2 View Post
    A blogger has devised a word to describe the way they do math over at wuwt, mathturbation.
    So that's how Marc 'produces' those numbers! It all makes sense now.

    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  28. #6428
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Are you saying this is not what the IPCC projected as the warming we should expect?

    The blue lines are subjective and are the authors estimation of what may happen. Over exagerated? Maybe! but anywhere in between the Blue and .05 line will be the end of AGW. Nice thought eh!
    For your benefit, the red line in the carefully selected graph is a prediction at a point in time on the information available at that time that hasn't come to pass. The blue lines look exagerated and equally are unlikely to come to pass. As a result the graph is an illusion, it tells us little other than that there are plenty of experts making guesses which surprise! surprise! are all predictions are. This is a worthless graph when quoted out of context, even if you read the link it is contained with-in it is no more than a minor illustration of the authors main thrust. The thrust is sun spots not the predictive capacity of the science community and the work of Easterbrook, a well known skeptic, has it's own critics as you would be well aware. It is no more than a highly selective grab of a tiny piece of information in an attempt to bolster the authors argument.

  29. #6429
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science « Hot Air


    Former “alarmist” scientist says Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) based in false science


    posted at 6:00 pm on May 15, 2011 by Bruce McQuain
    printer-friendly



    David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine. He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:
    The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.
    And with that he begins a demolition of the theories, premises and methods by which the AGW scare has been foisted on the public.
    The politics:
    The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.
    He makes clear he understands that CO2 is indeed a “greenhouse gas”, and makes the point that if all else was equal then yes, more CO2 in the air should and would mean a warmer planet. But that’s where the current “science” goes off the tracks.It is built on an assumption that is false.
    The science:
    But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.
    Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.
    The disagreement comes about what happens next.
    The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas. [emphasis mine]
    But it didn’t increase the height of the moist air around the planet as subsequent studies have shown since that time. However, that theory or premise became the heart of the modeling that was done by the alarmist crowd.
    The modeling:
    This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.
    That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.
    What did they find when they tried to prove this theory?
    Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.
    This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.
    Evans is not the first to come to these conclusions. Earlier this year, in a post I highlighted, Richard Lindzen said the very same thing.
    For warming since 1979, there is a further problem. The dominant role of cumulus convection in the tropics requires that temperature approximately follow what is called a moist adiabatic profile. This requires that warming in the tropical upper troposphere be 2-3 times greater than at the surface. Indeed, all models do show this, but the data doesn’t and this means that something is wrong with the data. It is well known that above about 2 km altitude, the tropical temperatures are pretty homogeneous in the horizontal so that sampling is not a problem. Below two km (roughly the height of what is referred to as the trade wind inversion), there is much more horizontal variability, and, therefore, there is a profound sampling problem. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the problem resides in the surface data, and that the actual trend at the surface is about 60% too large. Even the claimed trend is larger than what models would have projected but for the inclusion of an arbitrary fudge factor due to aerosol cooling. The discrepancy was reported by Lindzen (2007) and by Douglass et al (2007). Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data.
    Evans reaches the natural conclusion – the same conclusion Lindzen reached:
    At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.
    And why will it continue? Again, follow the money:
    We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!
    Indeed. How extraordinarily unexciting for the proletariat who will be the ones stuck with the bill if these governments ever succeed in finding a way to pass the taxes they hope to impose and extend even more government’s control over energy.
    While you’re listening to the CEOs of American oil companies being grilled by Congress today, remember all of this. They’re going to try to punish an industry that is vital to our economy and national security, and much of the desire to do that is based on this false “science” that has been ginned up by government itself as an excuse to control more of our energy sector, raise untold revenues for its use and to pick winners and losers. All based on something which is, according to Evans and other scientists, now demonstrably false.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  30. #6430
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Clearly to support the false theory that supports the corrupt government who support taxing us to support their gravy train that supports the crooked scientist that feed the lies that support a false theory you must be either be on the gravy train (good for you) or extremely stupid.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  31. #6431
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The Inconvenient Skeptic » How Quickly does the Climate Respond to Change? Part 1


    This is one of the least discussed aspects of global warming, but it is absolutely critical for future projections of warming. If there is little to no time lag, then the full effects of current CO2 emissions are already being felt. If the lag is 50 years, then we are only starting to feel the effects of the emissions from 1960 when the CO2 level was still around 320 ppm. The importance of understanding how quickly the climate responds is critical to future projections. Not surprisingly the warmists relentlessly claim that the time lag is long, often decades or centuries, but sometimes even longer. This belief shows up in multitudes of comments that most of the warming has yet to happen, but we are always assured that it will happen. The statement “yet to happen” is a vague statement, but one that shows the belief that the time lag is long. Implicit in that statement is the belief that the time lag is greater than 50 years which is when CO2 levels started to show significant increase.


    travis-dtr-550x550.png
    mt-pinatubo-impact-550x385.png
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  32. #6432
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    272

    Default

    Heres Kris Sayce' take on the carbon rip off...

    Now let’s say the carbon tax comes in...
    And food, fuel and transport providers – just to name a few – have to fork out $20 for each tonne of carbon they emit.
    And in order to cover this cost, these companies add 10% to the cost price of their goods/services. And then recalculate their margins. And at the end of the day, you’re stuck paying 15% on top of today’s prices for your semi-fixed living costs and the same for your discretionary items.
    (That’s probably conservative.)
    So semi-fixed living costs leap to 40.25% of your income.
    Leaving you with 21.75% for discretionary spending and saving.
    But the 17% you were spending on ‘luxuries’ has now been bumped up to 19.55%.
    That would leave you 2.2% of your pay cheque to put away for a rainy day. We don’t know about you, but that doesn’t leave us much for saving.
    What does it mean? It means you’ll need to rely even more on government handouts… which apparently the government wants to cut.
    But somehow we’re told a carbon tax won’t harm the economy. According to Ross Gittins in The Age, he reckons:
    “Sometimes I suspect many business people regard it as quite ethical to lie and mislead the public…”
    We don’t know if individuals or business people are lying and misleading about the carbon tax. And we don’t care.
    But we do know this: it’s every person’s right – and obligation – to do all they can to stop the government from taking their money and the money of their shareholders.
    Strip away the emotions of the carbon tax and global warming, what you’re really left with is another excuse for the government to take more of your money and give it to someone else.

  33. #6433
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CPE W&C View Post
    Heres Kris Sayce' take on the carbon rip off...

    Now let’s say the carbon tax comes in...
    And food, fuel and transport providers – just to name a few – have to fork out $20 for each tonne of carbon they emit.
    And in order to cover this cost, these companies add 10% to the cost price of their goods/services. And then recalculate their margins. And at the end of the day, you’re stuck paying 15% on top of today’s prices for your semi-fixed living costs and the same for your discretionary items.
    (That’s probably conservative.)
    So semi-fixed living costs leap to 40.25% of your income.
    Leaving you with 21.75% for discretionary spending and saving.
    But the 17% you were spending on ‘luxuries’ has now been bumped up to 19.55%.
    That would leave you 2.2% of your pay cheque to put away for a rainy day. We don’t know about you, but that doesn’t leave us much for saving.
    What does it mean? It means you’ll need to rely even more on government handouts… which apparently the government wants to cut.
    But somehow we’re told a carbon tax won’t harm the economy. According to Ross Gittins in The Age, he reckons:
    “Sometimes I suspect many business people regard it as quite ethical to lie and mislead the public…”
    We don’t know if individuals or business people are lying and misleading about the carbon tax. And we don’t care.
    But we do know this: it’s every person’s right – and obligation – to do all they can to stop the government from taking their money and the money of their shareholders.
    Strip away the emotions of the carbon tax and global warming, what you’re really left with is another excuse for the government to take more of your money and give it to someone else.
    Nice to see you dip you big toe into the mud hole!

    This is about right!
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  34. #6434
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CPE W&C View Post
    Heres Kris Sayce' take on the carbon rip off...

    Now let’s say the carbon tax comes in...
    And food, fuel and transport providers – just to name a few – have to fork out $20 for each tonne of carbon they emit.
    And in order to cover this cost, these companies add 10% to the cost price of their goods/services. And then recalculate their margins. And at the end of the day, you’re stuck paying 15% on top of today’s prices for your semi-fixed living costs and the same for your discretionary items.
    (That’s probably conservative.)
    So semi-fixed living costs leap to 40.25% of your income.
    Leaving you with 21.75% for discretionary spending and saving.
    But the 17% you were spending on ‘luxuries’ has now been bumped up to 19.55%.
    That would leave you 2.2% of your pay cheque to put away for a rainy day. We don’t know about you, but that doesn’t leave us much for saving.
    What does it mean? It means you’ll need to rely even more on government handouts… which apparently the government wants to cut.
    But somehow we’re told a carbon tax won’t harm the economy. According to Ross Gittins in The Age, he reckons:
    “Sometimes I suspect many business people regard it as quite ethical to lie and mislead the public…”
    We don’t know if individuals or business people are lying and misleading about the carbon tax. And we don’t care.
    But we do know this: it’s every person’s right – and obligation – to do all they can to stop the government from taking their money and the money of their shareholders.
    Strip away the emotions of the carbon tax and global warming, what you’re really left with is another excuse for the government to take more of your money and give it to someone else.

    Your figures are rubbish and anyone who has read anything regarding the Treasury modelling would be well aware of that. Under the GST we faced an average price rise of 5% a pain most have probably forgotten as it happened 14 years ago. Under a proposed $20 a tonne cost it is proposed that we drop fuel excise to compensate for the change in fuel. Fuel price rises due to demand/supply are expected to push up prices far more than any carbon tax anyway. Price rises are expected to average a mere .7% for households with the average weekly food bill tipped to rise .80c, electricity $2.70 and gas $1.40. don't forget lower income earners will receive compensation so the impact should not be felt by that group.

    The link is to a West Australian newspaper article that contains these figures and is a reprint of a release that appeared in several publications and news sites. Start price set for carbon tax - The West Australian

    By all means join in CPE W&C but you have to decide if you want to expand peoples knowledge or mislead with false information and hyperbole.

  35. #6435
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    The press seem to be over reacting to Monckton's use of nazi terms to describe his critics, something he has done for years. Some are saying this is the silliest thing he has ever said.

    Not by a long shot.

  36. #6436
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    The correlation between labour/green-red apologist and global warming is irrefutable.
    The debate is closed on that one more labogreenred, more heat.

    Just like the rise in labour-green-red cheerers and clappers brought along the global warming we had to have, clearly, and due to the reverse effect, the demise of the labo/green-red will bring along global cooling.
    Start stocking firewood guys, and don't forget to jump on the solar panels gravy train before it stops, we are in for a long winter.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  37. #6437
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    As for the link between Nazional Sozialism and Greens, try a search and amuse yourself with what you find. There is the libertarian nazi, the ecofascist, and many more. No need to call the greens names. They do it all by themselves.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  38. #6438
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    The correlation between labour/green-red apologist and global warming is irrefutable.
    The debate is closed on that one more labogreenred, more heat.
    Marc,

    It is great to see some non-cut-and-paste posts from you - keep up the good work!

    BTW, regarding your contention, is this a local (i.e Australia only) phenomena or is it a global phenomena?

    I didn't know Australia had so much world influence that it could generate a globally recognised atmospheric issue.
    There is no middle ground between facts and fallacies - argumentum ad temperantiam

  39. #6439
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,307

    Default

    Well this is good news.
    Lawrence Solomon: Supreme skeptics | FP Comment | Financial Post
    The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world’s most august global warming sceptics. Not by virtue of their legal reasoning – the global warming case they decided turned on a technical legal issue — but in their surprising commentary. Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

    Slowly but surely we are winning the race against this farce. People skeptical of AGW are growing all the time as more stuff like this hits the media.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  40. #6440
    1K Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Logan Qld
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    This decision by the US Supreme Court follows on from a similar decision they made in 2009. There the court decided that the congress had given the power to the EPA to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act. In that decision they determined that CO2 was a pollutant and a greenhouse gas and that the Act gave the EPA the authority to regulate them.

    In this recent decision they adhere to that, stating that "federal judges lack the scientific, economic and technical resources" to determine what are acceptable limits on greenhouse gases. I think that the court has decided correctly here, acknowledging that it is not the proper role of the courts to make decisions on what standards the community wants to impose on industry. This should be left to the legislature which has the capacity to consult with communities and experts that the courts do not have. I don't see this as having been decided on a "legal technical issue" but the courts deciding that there are areas that are outside their jurisdiction.

    If congress were to remove the authority from the EPA to regulate in this area then I think that would invalidate this decision and leave the way open for action against the power companies to begin again. But the EPA has regulations in the pipeline.
    I found a copy of the decision here. 10-174 American Elec. Power Co. v. Connecticut (06/20/2011)

  41. #6441
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    ← HB 198 Eminent Domain is Stalled in Senate Committee
    Dear Gov: Please Veto HB 161 “Repeal medical marijuana law” →

    Scientific Report says to end Global Warming Programs and Regulations

    Posted on April 1, 2011 by Dr. Ed
    “The global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.”

    Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm
    Testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
    Committee on Science, Space and Technology – March 31, 2011 (Rev)
    Professor J. Scott Armstrong, University of Pennsylvania,
    with Kesten C. Green, University of South Australia,
    and Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
    Abstract (Full Report PDF)
    The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scientific forecasts of

    1. a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations,
    2. serious net harmful effects due to global warming, and
    3. cost-effective regulations that would produce net beneficial effects versus alternatives such as doing nothing.

    Without scientific forecasts for all three aspects of the alarm, there is no scientific basis to enact regulations. In effect, it is a three-legged stool.
    Despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have been unable to find scientific forecasts for any of the three legs.
    We drew upon scientific (evidence-based) forecasting principles to audit the forecasting procedures used to forecast global mean temperatures by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) –leg “1” of the stool.
    This audit found that the procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles.
    We also did an audit of the forecasting procedures used for two papers that were designed to support proposed regulation related to protecting polar bears – leg “3” of the stool. On average, these procedures violated 85% of the 90 relevant principles.
    The warming alarmists have not demonstrated the predictive validity of their procedures.
    Instead, their argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with the forecasts. Such an appeal to “voting” is contrary to the scientific method. It is also incorrect.
    We conducted a validation test of the IPCC forecasts based on the assumption that there would be no interventions. This test found that the errors for IPCC model long-term forecasts (91 to 100 years in the future) were 12.6 times larger than those from an evidence-based “no change” model.
    Based on our analyses, we concluded that the global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.
    We then turned to the “structured analogies” method to forecast the likely outcomes of this movement. In this ongoing study, we have, to date, identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts for the analogous alarms proved correct.
    In the 25 alarms that called for government intervention, the government imposed regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.
    Our findings on the scientific evidence related to global warming forecasts lead to the following recommendations:

    1. End government funding for climate change research
    2. End government funding for research predicated on global warming (e.g., alternative energy; CO2 reduction; habitat loss)
    3. End government programs and repeal regulations predicated on global warming
    4. End government support for organizations that lobby or campaign predicated on global warming
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  42. #6442
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Climate Change (Proof).

    Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript « Prior Item | Item 47 of 48 | Next Item »

    About this Item
    Speakers - Phelps The Hon Dr Peter
    Business - Adjournment, ADJ


    CLIMATE CHANGE
    Page: 72

    The Hon. Dr PETER PHELPS [9.55 p.m.]: Tonight I plan once again to travel up the Congo of government largesse into the heart of darkness of anthropogenic global warming swindlers. Two weeks ago the Hon. Peter Primrose rather ill-advisedly repeated the outrageous claims that anthropogenic global warming scientists at the Australian National University [ANU] were subjected to death threats and had to be moved to high-security complexes. That has now been exposed as a complete and utter fabrication. I give full credit to Andrew Carswell from the Daily Telegraph, who wrote:

      • Claims prominent climate change scientists had recently received death threats have been revealed as an opportunistic ploy, with the Australian National University admitting that they occurred up to five years ago.

        Only two of the ANU's climate change scientists allegedly received death threats, the first in a letter posted in 2006-2007 and the other an offhand remark made in person 12 months ago.

        ... Reports also suggested the threats had forced the ANU to lock away its climate change scientists and policy advisers in a high-security complex. The Daily Telegraph has discovered the nine scientists and staff in question were merely given keyless swipe cards—routine security measures taken last year.

        ... ANU communications director Catriona Jackson would not reveal the exact wording of the threats, but added: "Abusive emails are par for the course for most climate change scientists."

    The poor petals—abusive emails! As I understand it, the scientists have tonight left their steel and concrete bunkers to emerge through the death threats and abusive emails to tell politicians that the campaign being run against scientific evidence of man-made climate change "is undermining the nation-building work of all scientists". The nation-building work of all scientists! What happened to neutral objectivity in science? Is this a bit of mission creep creeping in? Why would scientists need nation-building as part of their work unless they were instruments of the state? If the anthropogenic global warming disciples displayed more credibility and ceased their relentless Lysenkoism, perhaps they would not draw such ire from the community. If the science is settled, why do they keep lying about it?

    In recent times we had reports that anthropogenic global warming scientists have artificially inflated sea rise by three centimetres. Why? Because it is not recording that the continents are actually rising up. They have had to fabricate a three-centimetre rise in water to give their ideas some credibility. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a report last month suggesting:

      • ... renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world's energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years, and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


    That just about says it all about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its reports. There is an unquestionable nexus between funding and political outcomes. I refer to Matt Ridley in today's Australian, whonoted:

      • ... the deep prejudice towards pessimism that dominates the intelligentsia.

        ... What is more, pessimism has become a hallmark of the Left, chiefly because it justifies activism.

        ... Today, infected by Malthusian ecology, the Left relentlessly preaches millennial doom and technological risk: ... A dramatic change in human stewardship of the planet is needed.


    Members can guess who wants to be the steward, who wants to be in charge. The article continued:

      • There's a broad constituency for pessimism. No pressure group ever got donations by telling its donors calamity was unlikely; and no reporter ever got his editor's attention by saying that a scare was overblown; and no politician ever got on television by downplaying doom.

    There is always a crisis in the great global warming swindle—water level rises of 100 metres, Sydney dams becoming empty, Perth having to be abandoned. There are always crises because crises demand government funding and government intervention. As Jonah Goldberg stated in his recent study on totalitarianism:

    • Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascist movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  43. #6443
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    It is increasingly becomming necessary to skip most post written by contributors and concentrate on copies of articles and graphs avoiding with surgical precision all foolish and patronsign comments wich seem to constitute the bulk.

    A bit like a visit to the newsagency where you skim the newspapers headlines, pass over cleo, playboy and those magazine dressed in plastic to check out the boats or blacksmithing magazine. Just like in the shop, it is an additional satisfaction to ignore the crap and still enjoy what I like.

    I must say that I increasingly concurr with Silent's signature.
    Crap is so much aboundant!
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  44. #6444
    3K Club Member johnc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Sale
    Age
    65
    Posts
    3,893

    Default

    How on earth the Libs could have made the mistake of selecting a loonie like Phelps is beyond me, well known for his comments linking scientists with Nazi's he makes Brandis look like a left winger. What makes his only two deaths comment repugnant is that it is not even true, and it is not hard to work that out.

    Marc is not going to read any posts? there was never any sign that you did mate, or if you have you seem incapable of either understanding or writing plain English.

  45. #6445
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default And the truth shall set you free...

    Hey JuLIAR,

    You forgot to mention this about your negotiations:

    Greens leader Bob Brown says ultimately the carbon price has to result in shutting down the coal industry.

    Brown says coal industry will be replaced - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
    Another LIE, huh, JuLIAR?

    This country is getting well and truly f---ed by greenie idiots dominating a gutless lying PM!

  46. #6446
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Global warming - Scientific conclusions?Emissivity and the so called "greenhouse effect"

    Emissivity is a problem in the screens that hold ground based thermometers. White paint does not exactly have low emissivity. Picking a best surface is complicated. TiO2 (the stuff that makes white paint white - used to be lead oxides) has an emissivity of 0.77. White paint with :
    a = 0.28
    e = 0.87
    a/e =.32
    Obviously does not have an A/e of 1.
    It is also important to note that painting the inside of screens can also make a difference.
    Other emissivities of interest:
    Wood - planed oak 0.90
    Snow 0.85
    Water 0.96
    Dry soil 0.92
    Wet soil 0.95
    Brick - common 0.93
    Concrete 0.92
    Aluminum Polished sheet (I would guess aluminum foil would be similar) 0.05
    Emissivity changes with temperature a bit. These numbers are from Infrared System Engineering by Richard Hudson JR.
    Two things to keep clear when thinking about emissivity, it is commonly under stood that emissivity = absorptance. This is just not true for solar radiation. (Comes close for some materials, but not for others. Polished aluminum has an a/e of over 14!)
    Also, the darkness of a color is not a good judge. I quote from Hudson's fine book:
    "We must resist the temptation to estimate the emissivity of a material on the basis of its visual appearance. A good illustration of this point is furnished by snow "
    White Paint a = 0.28 e = 0.87 a/e =.32
    Sherwin Williams (A8W11)
    Concrete a = 0.60 e = 0.88 a/e =.68
    Aluminum foil a = 0.15 e = 0.05 a/e = 3.00 (aluminum foil get very hot in the sun for this reason)
    Asphalt a = 0.9 e = 0.95 a/e =0.95 (not sure I believe this number?)
    So the best selection of a surface for a screen would be a low e value combined with a/e close to 1. The understanding of emissivity was not so good when the standards for screens was developed - during the space program it became critical to have craft with an a/e close to 1 and low emissivity so as to not cook or freeze the electronics.
    It is important to note that solar radiation at the earths surface is not black body radiation!
    The confounding issues I've come across are :

    1- Negative feed back by the water vapor heat-pump - the moving of the condensation layer to a higher altitudes as temperatures increase - this is further confounded with the strength of convection currents dependent on temperature gradients and has me convinced that clouds would need to be much better modeled to claim any meaningful error band for AGW.

    Much of cloud formation and precipitation is nonlinear to the point of chaos - even lightning strikes induce changes in rain rates. Prediction of chaos even on small scale systems is computationally intensive. There are also effects of nucleation triggers such as cosmic rays, dust etc that don't seem to be controlled for.

    2- The interplay of irrigation - a spot check on Wichita I found a historic RH increasing about 5% (I would like to see historical graphs of this (and in other locations) - or just a source of raw data). How can I know that changes in water vapor aren't totally confounding the CO2 story? (The argument that the water vapor is only in the air for about a week is strange as water re-evaporate as it hits the ground and aquifers really have gone down.)

    3- The interplay of the black body radiation and absorption of CO2 and H2O, spectral emission/absorption, and kinetic transfer.

    Relevant Quotes

    Religion provides the means for the ignorant to declare with absolute certainty that they know the unknowable.
    True wisdom is knowing how little we know for certain
    "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." Andre Gide:
    In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. --Galileo Galileo
    I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know. -- Mark Twain
    Inconsistent Truth
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  47. #6447
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Global warming - Scientific conclusions?

    Why is Water Vapor Swept Under the Rug?

    One of the biggest confounding issues is that of man caused changes in humidity. Almost the entire flow of the Colorado river now goes across the content by air, rather than flowing into the Gulf of California as it did 100 years ago1. Water vapor is also a green house gas - it differs from CO2 in an important way in that it is limited to the lower part of the atmosphere - if it goes higher it condenses, dumping heat in the upper atmosphere. If the temperature is higher, water vapor rises higher and pumps heat to a higher altitude thus forming a negative feed back system that should tend to stabilize temperatures. On the other hand, water vapor is a potent 'green house' gas that blocks the heat flow from the earths surface even better than CO 2. Further complications are due to the fact that the altitude of condensation are effected by dust and even cosmic rays. Much of the water used in irrigation evaporates and only stays in the air for a number of days before being rained out - yet this rain evaporates again continuing the elevated humidity and the heat that is pumped to the upper atmosphere is a climatic effect..On the other hand, CO2 stays in the atmosphere much longer, but once it is removed from the atmosphere tends to stays out. Water vapor in the form of clouds blocks the warming of the earths surface by the sun. Temperature can effect humidity and humidity can effect temperature. This total process is played out in the clouds, something that is not at all well modeled at this time.
    Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Water vapor, a potent green house gas, averages 25,000ppm of the lower atmosphere compared to CO2 which is only about 360 ppm. The Atmospheric CO2 change is only about +60 ppm. Realize that we are talking about a change in CO2 from 0.030% to 0.036% or a 0.006% change as a percentage of the atmosphere. The global warmers don't use these numbers instead 'warmers' say it increased 30% (for maximum rhetorical effect?). Over the same periods specific humidity has increased several percent and could be a change of 25,000ppm to 26,250ppm or 2.5% to 2.6% or a 0.1% change. This change in water vapor (probably due to irrigation) is about 16 times larger than the change in CO2 near the ground. (remember in the stratosphere is possibly cooling and has very little water vapor). see:
    Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis
    Both CO2 and water vapor have similar emissivityso that any change in greenhouse effect due to CO2 would be swamped by changes in water vapor. One could also speculate that this explains the change in global temperatures at lower altitudes with out effecting the upper atmosphere. But lets not draw conclusions based on speculations.
    Here is a quote from Reid Bryson, Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences)

    "Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay? ...: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."
    If (and I mean IF) man is causing climate change it seems possible it is due to irrigation - not CO2. (Would banning irrigation be a popular political movement?)
    Atmospheric CO2 may have a slight effect, but there is no proof that man's contribution as a source of CO2 (ESTIMATED at about 4% of all sources) is the reason temperature is slowly trending upward. It is entirely possible that CO2 is going up due to natural variations more than mans contribution - probably not - but the point is that even this is not a scientific fact.(BTW I think we should be taxing oil imports (in place of income taxes) for other reasons.)
    One other detail - the ice core data shows that increases in CO2 follow warming periods - instead of proceeding them. This is expected, because sea water holds less CO2 as it warms and absorbs more as it cools (a established testable fact!).
    Low altitude warming has not been established as anything historically out of the ordinary. The data just isn't there to do this. At this time and into the foreseeable future it is unknowable. Being unknowable is the heart of the problem of calling climate speculations,"climate science".
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  48. #6448
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    “It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.”
    Anton LaVey

    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  49. #6449
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    Global warming - Scientific conclusions?


    Beware of Regressions - Polynomial and Otherwise: they can fool you

    Back when punch cards ran the world, they called it dynamic programing, You would vary all the coefficients of an equation via nested loops until the equation would produce the data with some amount of accuracy. It is a useful tool to help tease out hypotheses from data.
    Once it works on past history and predicts the set of data it is tempting to think it means something. To really test it, you have to run it and make predictions to be tested with experiment. If the prediction is complex (ie. wave forms) and matches we can assign a confidence. Of course if all we have is a trend - there is only a 50:50 chance that it means anything. The idea that once it predicts the past it will also predict the future is just wrong. If on the other hand, they froze the computer model and collected data over several solar cycles and then ran the model, - over several such runs, we could start to attach a probability of the model's output being predictive.
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

  50. #6450
    4K Club Member Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13,412

    Default

    By H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."
    Fear is the foundation of most government.
    John Adams

Page 129 of 377 FirstFirst ... 29 79 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 179 229 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •