Resisting Climate Hysteria

[trainspotter]

ts, this is just some of the 1st page of a google search:
http://www.rense.com/general94/onevol.htm
http://conservativecritic.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/the-global-warming-scam-stops-here-2/
http://forum.cyberhorse.com.au/forums/showpost.php?p=826724&postcount=1
http://www.finders.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5963&sid=a149fe872910df52b6a99d17b4d357a2
http://www.past-life-test.com/volcano.html
http://www.kotadama.com/blog.cfm?postid=815718&feature=2089062
http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2011/03/g0427-co2-carbon-tax-scam-has-iceland.html

It's unmitigated bollocks ts. The main Pinatubo eruption released about half a days worth of global CO2 emissions.

If the 'sceptics' spent a fraction of their sceptical energies actually investigating the validity and basic scientific robustness of some of the claims that get posted up here this thread would be less of a sad version of Groundhog Day and people might actually learn something.

bye again

My scientist can beat up your scientist

 

[explod]

I fancy however that he spends more time crouching over his computer than over his veggie patch.

Wrong, about an hour a day trying to entertain on this thread and half an hour on markets and my stocks.

Of course the hour is split all over the place on other things at the same time. Do a check on my posts, about 90% of late on this thread and the thought needed is neglible unless the feathers are ruffled a bit. I should be more focused and really kick the bucket but do not want to upset that lovely little doll Waynel. Who else thinks she is cute?

Its all off topic and why am I reporting to you anyway?

I do not like those who aim at the person, someone could get shot, so stick to the subject Calliope.

 

[derty]

My scientist can beat up your scientist

well here is one that I don't imagine would do too well in the ring. They don't get much nerdier than this, but he does give a very engaging and animate lecture on CO2 with respect to the historic palaeoclimate record.

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

summary: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1453&tstamp=

 

[Calliope]

Its all off topic and why am I reporting to you anyway?

I suppose it's the copper in your blood. You have to report to someone.

You got that right.

about 90% of late on this thread and the thought needed is neglible

 

[Smurf1976]

Smurf have you had look at the Stationary Energy plan produced by the Beyond Zero group? They claim it shows how Australia could go to 100% renewable energy sources by 2020, using existing technology. It would be great to know that this really is technically possible so we can concentrate on the economic / political hurdles.

Cheers,
Ghoti

I haven't read every last word of it, but:

1. They've certainly got the underlying concepts right about (a) a "clean energy" economy is one that uses more electricity rather than less and (b) how to go about running a predominantly renewable electricity grid.

2. Some resolvable issues with design that would cause problems in operation. Specifically, the biomass burners need to be larger (which would actually result in lower burn rates on average through lower reserve minimums being practical).

3. Day to day operation of such a system is fundamentally of a "central planning" nature in order for it to work. Economic theories of a forced market (in a natural monopoly industry) etc are thus a significant obstruction to such a plan.

4. Note that significant potential generation goes to waste. All of this has to be paid for, since the costs are of a capital nature rather than operational, which increases the cost of delivered energy to a level significantly higher than the quoted figures (in the order of 50% increase).

5. Seems to have overlooked the increase in peak loads on distribution networks in many areas resulting from a mass switch from gas to electricity for heating and cooking. Given the sheer scale of these networks, upgrading isn't a simple task.

Overall, I'd give it 97 out of 100. Some minor points which can be resolved (at a cost...).

From a practical perspective, the only thing I can really see of a limiting nature is timeframe. I very much doubt that we'll see ordinary households scrapping perfectly good gas ovens etc for electric all in the space of a few years, and I'd argue that it would be environmentally very questionable (waste of materials etc) to do that anyway. So I doubt that 10 years is really practical - it could be done but it would necessarily be a "crash course" with quite a bit of waste in order to do it.

Bottom line - yes it could work with a few tweaks here and there.

 

[Julia]

I started several years back and I am serious because you will all have to follow in a few years, it is difficult though and I have a long way to go. However each new accomplishment brings huge personal satisfaction

A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water. Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.

Now you know another reason why I collect silver coins. (go to silver thread)

I do walk everywhere but still have a small Toyota truck at this stage.

Have an extensive vegitable garden and also a big one in the rear yard of an elderly neighbor, other neighbour's asssist with gardening and share in goods produced. Another provides eggs. Being off a farm I go to a property some distance (hence the truck) and kill a sheep for meat every few months.

This is a new area of concern and generating our own power is something that has to be tackled. Have a few ideas but not resolved in the mind yet. Thought we were onto a good one the other day but was pointed out a hoax.

Some of this answered above, looking at converting a kero fridge to run on natural oil apparently feasible. The real future will be direct food that does not need refridgeration or much cooking.

As an artist (BA Hons fine art) and in a community alive with intellectuals we can well amuse ourselves and be much happier too. And with computers who needs books anyway.

In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this. The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you. Having my childhood on a farm it is much easier for me too as in the 1950's without power or phones we did well.

Explod, you have painted a very rosy picture, but in reality, a subsistance lifestyle is one of grinding poverty, endless labour and no leisure.

Ruby, you're right, of course. But part of me admires explod for apparently making some attempt to live up to his beliefs, which I expect are quite genuine.

Personally, I have zero interest in doing without every possible modern comfort, but if someone gets to feel good by making their life more arduous, for the sake of what they perceive as a higher cause, then good luck to them.

It's a bit like religion. I don't see any need for it, probably regard it largely as a negative force, but for those who believe, they derive much comfort and support from it. That's totally fine, as long as they don't want the rest of us to subscribe to their views.

Explod, your computer is gobbling up lots of nasty electricity. Reckon you could do without it?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

How disingenuous. "One" non conforming study?

LMAO

I believe there are a few more than one lingering around for alarmists to ignore.

Basilio I hate to belabour the point that sceptics are trying to make, but we all know climate changes, we all know there has been some evidence of warming - since the little ice age in fact.

Regional climate change due to land use considerations aside, the argument is about the purported mechanisms of global climate change. The alarmist models have totally missed the mark and as we see now, alarmists are trying to pin any weather event as climate change. The sad fact is that when proper analysis is undertaken, all these weather events are well within the normal range of what happens on this planet.

Just like you have done in the preceding post, alarmists refuse to acknowledge the (poorly funded and hence far less undertaken) body of science which contradicts the Runaway Global Warming Hypothesis, and that their models are utterly failing to predict climate patterns.

And let's not even mention the gross hypocrisy of you and your fellow doomsday klaxons, Gore, Hansen, Blanchett, that imbecile Caton, et al.

The alarmists here are emotionally attached to the concept of AGW and the "vibes" telling them to act yet cannot point to observed evidence nor do anything personally - hence the obvious increase of rubbish posts that conveniently skip the real discussion. Psychologically they cannot change - kinda like wishful thinking on a bad trade - "I'll hold as I know it will come good"

 

[sails]

Now THAT's alarmist

So does that mean that those that don't agree with AGW are now "alarmists" and those who do agree are now "deniers". Have we switched name tags?..

But then the carbon tax IS an alarming unknown - it is doubtful that the flow on effect has been properly analysed, imo.

 

[wayneL]

The alarmists here are emotionally attached to the concept of AGW and the "vibes" telling them to act....

I see it a bit differently and perhaps more accurately :

The alarmists here are emotionally attached to the concept of AGW and the "vibes" telling them to tell others to act...

************

I don't believe the Bible is the word of God, but it still contains some useful passages:

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Blanchett, Gore, Caton etc come to mind.

And.....

15 ¶ Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits.

The same sort of people come to mind.

Courtesy of a quaffable chardonnay from Ngatarawa Stables, 5 minutes from home.

 

[ghotib]

From the link you gave me:-

What are the main greenhouse gases? Because of all the press coverage it has received in recent years, you may think that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "the big one". Though CO2's role is important, water vapor is actually the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor generates more greenhouse effect on our planet than does any other single gas. Water, in gaseous form (as water vapor) and in liquid form (as tiny droplets in clouds), generates somewhere between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. We'll get back to the issue of the large range that "66% to 85%" represents in a minute; it turns out that separating the impact of individual greenhouse gases is not a simple matter.

Ghotib, I will get back to the rest of your query, but don't have time now.

Cheers,
Ruby

Thanks Ruby, I'm looking forward to your answers.

I don't think you've realised why I suggested you take another look at the Wikipedia reference on water vapour. In the post that prompted my request for citations, all you said was "So is water vapour...." in response to a comment from Wayne that methane is a more potent Gh (presumably greenhouse) gas. As I understand it, water vapour is indeed the dominant greenhouse gas, but greenhouse potency most commonly refers to "global warming potential", which is a technical term in climatology that does not apply to water vapour. That's not because climate science ignores water vapour. It's because the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere adjusts to changes in air temperature, whereas for other greenhouse gases changes in quantity cause changes in air temperature. (This is my over-simplified version of Water vapour: feedback or forcing?)

This feels like a big deal to make of what was probably a flip comment, but there's a lot of talking past each other on this thread and one of the difficulties for people of good will is that so many words have both technical and general meanings.

Cheers,
Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

I haven't read every last word of it, but:

1. They've certainly got the underlying concepts right about (a) a "clean energy" economy is one that uses more electricity rather than less and (b) how to go about running a predominantly renewable electricity grid.

2. Some resolvable issues with design that would cause problems in operation. Specifically, the biomass burners need to be larger (which would actually result in lower burn rates on average through lower reserve minimums being practical).

3. Day to day operation of such a system is fundamentally of a "central planning" nature in order for it to work. Economic theories of a forced market (in a natural monopoly industry) etc are thus a significant obstruction to such a plan.

4. Note that significant potential generation goes to waste. All of this has to be paid for, since the costs are of a capital nature rather than operational, which increases the cost of delivered energy to a level significantly higher than the quoted figures (in the order of 50% increase).

5. Seems to have overlooked the increase in peak loads on distribution networks in many areas resulting from a mass switch from gas to electricity for heating and cooking. Given the sheer scale of these networks, upgrading isn't a simple task.

Overall, I'd give it 97 out of 100. Some minor points which can be resolved (at a cost...).

From a practical perspective, the only thing I can really see of a limiting nature is timeframe. I very much doubt that we'll see ordinary households scrapping perfectly good gas ovens etc for electric all in the space of a few years, and I'd argue that it would be environmentally very questionable (waste of materials etc) to do that anyway. So I doubt that 10 years is really practical - it could be done but it would necessarily be a "crash course" with quite a bit of waste in order to do it.

Bottom line - yes it could work with a few tweaks here and there.

That's about the most heartening thing I've read all year There is hope!!

I've only skimmed the report. There's a section called "Minimising Peak Demand" which I would think attempts to cover your point 5. Not good enough?

Lots to think about; maybe in its own thread.

Thanks Smurf.

 

[basilio]

Derty that was an excellent post on the actual amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. In case others havn't read it, the paper outlines how much CO2 is emitted, the comparison between various countries emissions and volcanoes and some excellent analysis of what would happen if in fact volcanoes were spewing out the amount of CO2 alleged previously.

So what do we make of the statements about "hold onto your seat " ect.
They are complete and total fabrications, with not a sherrik of evidence.

They are amongst the biggest of big lies with the intention of providing some nominal support to those who want to distance human produced CO2 from it's role in increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Believe and propagate the volcano lie and you are simply being stooged. If you continue to accept the lie after it has been shown to false - then perhaps some people just don't care what the truth might be as long as they don't have to face some unpleasant consequences.

It would be a bit like going a huge spending spree on credit card and when the bill comes in declaring that it's just not true and I'm just not going to pay it.

Lets move onto some other examples of deliberate and outrageous deceptions that masquerade as "fact". Professor Carter threw up a story in the papers yesterday and tried to come up with simplistic one sentence statements to disparage current knowledge on AGW. He was systematically dismantled in todays paper and it's worth quoting it at length because the analysis address a number of the statements belted to death by some forum memebrs.

]Half the truth on emissions
John Cook
June 28, 2011


Cherry-picking the evidence to suit a pseudo-scientific argument misses the alarming reality.

A Yiddish proverb states ''a half truth is a whole lie''. By withholding vital information, it's possible to lead you towards the opposite conclusion to the one you would get from considering the full picture. In Bob Carter's opinion piece on this page yesterday, this technique of cherry-picking half-truths is on full display, with frequent examples of statements that distort climate science.

The partial truths are further bolstered by scientific statements that have almost no basis in fact. It is not surprising that people present such fallacies, since the blogosphere is full of climate pseudo-science, but it is surprising that newspapers are still reporting such statements. Opinion is one thing, but scientific fact is another. Every major science body in the world has effectively refuted the assertions made by Carter.

So what is the full picture? To understand what's happening to the global climate, we need to look at temperature change over the entire planet. Two scientific teams - NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecast - have constructed temperature records spanning the whole globe. Both find consistent results, using independent methods, with the two hottest years on record being 2010 and 2005. Both find the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet, with melting sea ice acting as a positive feedback that amplifies the warming.

More importantly, temperature trends are not established by drawing lines between individual warm and cool years. It's the long-term trend that counts and the most recent decade was the warmest on record. Long-term warming trends are agreed upon by all international meteorological agencies.

But there's a bigger picture still. The temperature record tells us what's happening to surface temperature. But signs of warming are being observed all over the climate system. Over the past decade, ice loss from the huge ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica has been steadily accelerating. Currently, Greenland is losing 300 billion tonnes of ice a year. Over the same period, Arctic sea ice has been thinning and melting, glaciers have been shrinking at an accelerating rate and seasons are shifting due to warming temperatures. All these facts, including their uncertainties, are not considered in isolation by scientists; it's the overall picture that matters.

What's driving this warming? There is no mystery or guesswork about the cause of recent global warming - it can be directly measured. Satellites observe less radiation escaping to space at those exact wavelengths that carbon dioxide absorbs radiation. Less heat escaping to space means more heat returning to Earth and this is confirmed by surface measurements. An increased greenhouse effect should also cause a cooling of the upper atmosphere, and this is confirmed by satellites and weather balloons. From these observations, scientists concluded ''this experimental data should effectively end the argument by sceptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming''.

Enter Bob Carter and his deliberate brand of climate cherry-picking and false, but plausible, assertions. He has long hung his hat on the proposition the climate has been cooling since 1998. But with 2005 and 2010 being the hottest years on record, he resorts to cherry-picking which dataset to use. Rather than use temperature records that cover the entire globe, he opts for datasets that do not include the Arctic region, where warming is the strongest. These temperature records underestimate recent warming and are the darling of those who wish to deny global warming is happening.

The half-truths become more tenuous as Carter's piece progresses. He argues that carbon dioxide is beneficial as it acts as a valuable plant fertiliser. Studies show mixed results for carbon dioxide fertilisation for different species and different climate regimes. But this line of argument fails to recognise that plants also need water and the right temperature range to flourish. Over the past 40 years as temperatures have risen, drought severity has also increased. This is exerting significant pressure on agriculture as water supplies become strained.

Labelling Carter's final ''scientific fact'' as a half-truth is giving it too much credence. According to Carter, it's a fact that "extra carbon dioxide helps to shrink the Sahara Desert, green the planet and feed the world. Ergo, carbon dioxide is neither a pollutant nor dangerous, but an environmental benefit."

These are ludicrous statements that fly in the face of 20 years of scientific research. Rapidly increasing carbon dioxide will most likely lead to a rapidly changing climate, and decades of research has not painted such a rosy picture of the environmental and socio-economic impacts. Dismissing all of that science on the basis that carbon dioxide is plant food is like dismissing that effluent can ever be a pollutant since blood and bone gets put on garden beds.

It is not really possible to assess Carter's other assertions on the economy since, unlike climate, the economy is not constrained by fundamental physical laws of the universe. Nevertheless, it is interesting that a self-professed sceptic is able to present, as fact, that reducing carbon emissions will result in the closing down of the Australian economy. This is despite the fact that numerous economic analyses find the benefits of climate action outweigh the costs several times over.

It is also interesting that self-professed sceptics, who believe that there is simply no way of determining to what degree carbon dioxide concentrations will affect climate, can precisely estimate the effect of Australia's emissions on global-mean temperature. Everyone understands that global efforts are required to reduce carbon pollution. Australia, as one of the highest carbon emitters per capita, is in an ideal position to positively influence global negotiations. Those who argue that Australia is an insignificant player underestimate our role on the global stage and our potential to be a leader in reducing carbon pollution.

Bob Carter exhorts us to "pay attention to the facts and keep an open mind". Ironically, he has closed his mind to any evidence that conflicts with his preconceived views and suspends critical thought when presenting his own doomsday scenarios. Carter's article shows how cherry-picked information can mislead and distort the science - embodying the proverb, "a half-truth is a whole lie".

John Cook runs the website skepticalscience.com and is co-author of Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, with environmental scientist Haydn Washington.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...n-emissions-20110627-1gne1.html#ixzz1Qa3yTTCi

 

[basilio]

If you would like to see just how Professor Carter (and others in this debate) managed to make the bald statement that the earth has stopped warming in the past ten years check out the following link.

It's interesting to note that the graph Professor Carter wants to use is the Hadley set of figures. This is the organisation he sprayed on as totally dishonest with regard to Climate gate. But he'll use their graph when it suits him (particularly as it doesn't include those pesky Arctic temperatures that are unreasonably high)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-half-truths-turn-out-to-be-whole-lies.html

 

[mexican]

This guy has alot of credibilty Bas!


http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/ho...ves-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/

 

[Calliope]

So what do we make of the statements about "hold onto your seat " ect.
They are complete and total fabrications, with not a sherrik of evidence.

What's an "ect" and what's a sherrik?? I'm afraid your work is getting slovenly.

 

[basilio]

Hi Calliope.

Perhaps you might like to stop at " Complete and total fabrications"

Short and simple mate.. I appreciate you don't like reading too much.

 

[Ruby]

Thanks Ruby, I'm looking forward to your answers.

I don't think you've realised why I suggested you take another look at the Wikipedia reference on water vapour. In the post that prompted my request for citations, all you said was "So is water vapour...." in response to a comment from Wayne that methane is a more potent Gh (presumably greenhouse) gas. As I understand it, water vapour is indeed the dominant greenhouse gas, but greenhouse potency most commonly refers to "global warming potential", which is a technical term in climatology that does not apply to water vapour. That's not because climate science ignores water vapour. It's because the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere adjusts to changes in air temperature, whereas for other greenhouse gases changes in quantity cause changes in air temperature. (This is my over-simplified version of Water vapour: feedback or forcing?)

This feels like a big deal to make of what was probably a flip comment, but there's a lot of talking past each other on this thread and one of the difficulties for people of good will is that so many words have both technical and general meanings.

Cheers,
Ghoti

Ghoti, yes, it was a bit of a flippant comment, so I suppose I deserve your response. However, it has been found that with increased CO2 in the atmosphere the temp does not increase in a straight line - in fact it levels out. This comment has been made by several people who have also posted references and graphs. (I will try and find a ref as it was one of the things you asked me for.)

And yes, you are correct in saying that a lot of us are talking past each other in this thread when no ill will is intended.

Cheers,

Ruby

 

[Calliope]

Hi Calliope.

Perhaps you might like to stop at " Complete and total fabrications"

Short and simple mate.. I appreciate you don't like reading too much.

They say you can spot a polluter by the amount of garbage he generates. If only your post were "short and simple" they might be read. As it is your emissions are of volcanic proportions, and you are only preaching to the converted.

 

[mexican]

Hi Calliope.

Perhaps you might like to stop at " Complete and total fabrications"

Short and simple mate.. I appreciate you don't like reading too much.

Cook does not like reading too much either.
Getting desperate if you are using this guy as a example.
Like I said, he has no credibility on this topic!

 

[trainspotter]

Derty that was an excellent post on the actual amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. In case others havn't read it, the paper outlines how much CO2 is emitted, the comparison between various countries emissions and volcanoes and some excellent analysis of what would happen if in fact volcanoes were spewing out the amount of CO2 alleged previously.

This is taking into consideration an "average" of volcanic activity. A few more eruptions as well as bit of undersa volcanoes heating the oceans and VIOLA ... more CO2.

Termites are the next big thing on the CO2 radar ! http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html

So what do we make of the statements about "hold onto your seat " ect.
They are complete and total fabrications, with not a sherrik of evidence.

My what big bold letters of defence you have there basilio. Is a sherrik a big green ogre type creature with a second cousin called Shrek?

They are amongst the biggest of big lies with the intention of providing some nominal support to those who want to distance human produced CO2 from it's role in increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Believe and propagate the volcano lie and you are simply being stooged. If you continue to accept the lie after it has been shown to false - then perhaps some people just don't care what the truth might be as long as they don't have to face some unpleasant consequences.

The biggest of the big lies??? You mean like Al Gore and the "inconvenient truth" he failed to tell the punters?

8 Mar 10 - "Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting ”” and seas are rising," said Al Gore in an op-ed piece in the New York Times on February 27

Never mind that Mr. Gore dismisses the IPCC's fraudulent claims that the oceans are rising precipitously. ("Partly inaccurate," he huffs.)

Never mind that Mr. Gore completely ignores the admission by the CRU's disgraced former director Phil Jones that global temperatures have essentially remained unchanged for the past 15 years.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Our_glaciers_are_growing_not_melting.htm

It would be a bit like going a huge spending spree on credit card and when the bill comes in declaring that it's just not true and I'm just not going to pay it.

What ? You mean like Greece?

Lets move onto some other examples of deliberate and outrageous deceptions that masquerade as "fact". Professor Carter threw up a story in the papers yesterday and tried to come up with simplistic one sentence statements to disparage current knowledge on AGW. He was systematically dismantled in todays paper and it's worth quoting it at length because the analysis address a number of the statements belted to death by some forum memebrs.

Why is it when "Alarmists" state somehting it is gospel but when deniers state something it is B/S ??