Resisting Climate Hysteria

[trainspotter]

Ermmmm you did not read the link from the IPCC?? They are claiming that ocean warming is only accounting for 0.7mm + or - a poofteenth inclusive of the 2 degree rise from El Nino and CC etc ad infinitum or are they wrong as well?

Once again I refuse to debate with someone who is deliberately misunderstanding what I am typing. The Israeli's pioneered the water irrigation for deserts to turn it into arable land for cropping. I am talking about massive solar desal into the desert to create an oasis. but MEH ... you keep on misunderstanding OK !

But we are changing the climate much much more rapidly than has ever happened on the geological time scale. What may have happened naturally over several thousands years in geological time, we are doing in a brief 150 years.

Well well well ... I would have thought when that massive rock ploughed into Earth a few million years ago that would have taken less than 150 years to change the atmosphere

But hey it is all about the hysteria and not about being objective

Earth has been cooling and warming for a looooooooong time now. Irrefutable data.



And finally some sense http://cliffmass.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/does-cold-wave-imply-anything-about.html

 

[trainspotter]

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus causing most of the earth's warming of the last 100 years.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.04% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the "Greenhouse effect". (See here) At current concentrations, a 3% change of water vapour in the atmosphere would have the same effect as a 100% change in CO2.
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.

MYTH 6: The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has proven that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft approved and accepted by a panel of scientists. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.

MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, changes to glacier's extent is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.

MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The Arctic Region had warmed from 1966 to 2005, due to cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean and soot from Asia darkening the ice, but there has been no warming since 2005. Current temperatures are the same as in 1943. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice cap thicknesses in both Greenland and Antarctica are increasing.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.JIbB0AV6.dpuf

Well that came out of nowhere now didn't it !!

 

[noco]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.JIbB0AV6.dpuf

Well that came out of nowhere now didn't it !!

Geez TS be careful what you post.......The Alarmists will try to jail you if you don't step into line with what they preach..

 

[Smurf1976]

*Edit: just realised you did say plus minus 35pc. Still In the land of droughts and flooding rains the European textbook approach doesn't work where in our case we can get an average over 5years of -35pc compared to long term average and then a year (or month...) of +300pc on average rainfall. Ie we don't get anything like consistent rain and never have.

It really depends on the storage size relative to inflows. Two examples:

Great Lake (Tas) - storage volume of 3063.3 GL versus annual inflows of 698 GL (122 GL of which is itself pumped from another storage with 448.79 GL capacity). So if it were empty, and we get average inflows, then it would take 5 years to reach full supply level (FSL).

Great Lake was first dammed in 1916, that dam replaced with a much larger one immediately downstream in 1922 and replaced with a bigger one again in 1967, that dam itself being raised in 1982. In short, the Lake has never reached the current FSL (though it did reach the previous, lower, maximum levels on various occasions) and almost certainly never will.

For the other extreme, Lake Gairdner (Tas). Storage capacity of 6 GL versus annual inflows of 228 GL useful (that is, excluding flood flows which in practice go straight down the spillway given the small size of this storage).

Looking at those two examples, Lake Gairdner, the purpose of which is to supply water to Wilmot power station (with re-use of that water at Cethana, Devils Gate and Paloona power stations) is certainly useful in that it adds energy (main purpose) and a bit of peak capacity (secondary benefit) to the system.

The basic operating principle is use the small dams first, then release from the major storages when there's insufficient water in the smaller ones. In the Tasmanian context, that's done by adjusting the operation of power stations rather than actually moving the water as such - the system is interconnected electrically but not hydraulically between catchments (with some very minor exceptions).

Whilst that example applies to the generation of electricity, the exact same principles apply no matter what the water is used for. If you can capture it when it rains and store it then dams can certainly provide a reliable supply of water / electricity.

Getting a bit of the topic of climate change as such, but my point is that intermittent water or energy inflows aren't a problem if you've got enough storage so as to be able to disassociate inflows with production over the medium term. Works with water and could also work with things like solar and wind power if we can store enough of it, that being primarily an economic problem rather than an engineering one as such.

All that said, right now there's stuff all so far as inflows are concerned. Incredibly dry.

 

[Tom32]

Whilst that example applies to the generation of electricity, the exact same principles apply no matter what the water is used for. If you can capture it when it rains and store it then dams can certainly provide a reliable supply of water / electricity.

Thanks for the explanation.

This has me thinking about your other post now:

Key point there is that it works because we can (1) store food and (2) move it around. A poor wheat crop in Australia doesn't really matter as long as someone else has a good crop. Same principle can be applied to energy - if we could move electricity around like we move food around then there's no reason at all why we couldn't easily use solar, wind and hydro to generate 100%. That we can't move it around or store it easily (apart from hydro) is the crux of the difficulty there.

Apart from hydro.

After reading your posts it has only just dawned on me now that hydro schemes are just like a big battery.

Are there any of these schemes where wind power is used to run pumps that pump water back above the hydro turbines during high wind and allows water through to generate power the rest of the time? With a big enough wind scheme and pump and storage you would have power all the time even if you had only enough water inflow for losses. You could potentially run the pumps directly from wind rather than an electric pump. Say a direct wind over hydraulic pump.

Apologies if you have explained all this previously in this thread, as I am new here I haven't had time to read through the 333 pages yet but am considering going back and doing that now.

 

[SirRumpole]

Apologies if you have explained all this previously in this thread, as I am new here I haven't had time to read through the 333 pages yet but am considering going back and doing that now.

You might want to check out "The future of energy generation and storage" thread also.

 

[basilio]

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.JIbB0AV6.dpuf

Well that came out of nowhere now didn't it !!

It certainly did Ollie!! I believe that that "Lords Creed" managed to encapsulate every piece of doggeral in the deniers handbook.

And in so few words! Very elegant indeed.

If you or anyone else takes that stuff on face value then you have to also believe that the entire science community are mistaken or deliberate liars. The oceanographers, the glaciologists, the meteorologists, the earth scientists, the lot.

One can go through that litany line by line and provide reams of physical evidence that refutes it. It has been done a hundred times. I also know that the people who produce this misinformation and the people who choose to accept it have made their minds up.

 

[basilio]

Another question TS.

Do you actually accept the graphs of Harris and Mann in their depiction of temperature changes in the past 5000 years ? Are you offering that as proof that Global Warming is just BS ?

_______________________________________________________________

Well, I can't pretend to know the answer to that question but after I "stumbled" across the following chart, I realized that conservatives may be deluding themselves with false data. Reproduced below, this chart suggests that there has not been an increase in global temperature changes over the last 4500 or so years. The moment I saw this graph, the hair began to rise on the back of my neck. First, anybody that shows a graph without indicating the units of the y-axis has something to hide. Second, to depict something as variable and complex a global temperature as such a smooth curve suggests dishonesty. Third, the labeling of the chart with the words "Nomanic Time" in bold is bizarre What is Nomanic? Fourth, why does this data go back only 4500 years? Most sources of climate data that goes back several thousand years also include data that go much further back. Fifth where did this data come from? It looks nothing like any climate data that I have seen. Finally, who on earth are Climatologist Cliff Harris & Metereologist Randy Mann? Well keep reading if you are at all interested.

If you look very carefully at the graph, you will find that the baseline of the graph is 57˚F (label on the far right) and there was a point labeled 58˚F for now. They are reporting huge shifts of average global temperature which vary at most a couple tenths of degrees from year to year. The absence of normal variations that one sees in temperature charts indicates that the data must have been made up. Regarding "nomanic times", the Scythians are known as "nomanic invaders" but this is a esoteric word used mostly by historians referring to an obscure Iran-Afghan race. Perhaps it was a mispelling for "nomadic" and a period when the ancient Hebrews were nomadic. This also is consistent with a mostly biblical time line of the earth. The source of the data for the graph is unclear. Finally, if you look up Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, you will find that they are two guys who run a website http://www.longrangeweather.com/About-Us.htm and that neither are trained as a climatologist or a metereologist, unless one considered appearing on television to report weather or studying geology to be training for such a field. Harris apparently is a conservative Christian who believes in looking in the Bible for clues on what the weather will be (Source).

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?92074-Why-Do-Conservatives-Deny-Global-Warming


_______________________________________________________________________________

Climatologist Cliff Harris presents a new book on the scientific and spiritual approach on how the WEATHER played a MAJOR ROLE in the BIBLE.

Some topics include:
- How God is using the weather to get our attention.
- When are the major climate and cultural cycles colliding?
- What are the futures prophecies based on the Bible?
- How did the weather influence major events in the Bible?
- How the weather could play a role in the "End Times."
- What will the "New Jerusalem" be like?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weather-Bible-Prophecy-Cliff-Harris-ebook/dp/B00VGS3LN8

 

[Smurf1976]

Thanks for the explanation.

This has me thinking about your other post now:



Apart from hydro.

After reading your posts it has only just dawned on me now that hydro schemes are just like a big battery.

Are there any of these schemes where wind power is used to run pumps that pump water back above the hydro turbines during high wind and allows water through to generate power the rest of the time?

In short, yes there are.

I'll post a more detailed explanation in the "Future of energy generation and storage" thread in order to keep this thread on the climate change topic as such.

 

[trainspotter]

Another question TS.

Do you actually accept the graphs of Harris and Mann in their depiction of temperature changes in the past 5000 years ? Are you offering that as proof that Global Warming is just BS ?

_______________________________________________________________


http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?92074-Why-Do-Conservatives-Deny-Global-Warming


_______________________________________________________________________________


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Weather-Bible-Prophecy-Cliff-Harris-ebook/dp/B00VGS3LN8

Are you trying to discredit Harris by insinuating he is a religious fruitcake? You own a computer right as you keep on banging on in here how the world is at a tipping point and we are all going to perish due to CC. Try GOOGLE and DYOR for a change.

The last five million years of climate change is shown in the next graph based on work by Lisiecki and Raymo in 2005 [2] . It shows our planet has a dynamic temperature history, and over the last three million years, we have had a continuous series of ice ages (now about 90,000 years each) and interglacial warm periods (about 10,000 years each). There are 13 (count ‘em) ice ages on a 100,000 year cycle (from 1.25 million years ago to the present, and 33 ice ages on a 41,000 year cycle (between 2.6 million and 1.25 million years ago). Since Earth is on a multi-million-year cooling trend, we are currently lucky to be living during an interglacial warm period, but we are at the end of our normal 10,000 year warm interglacial period.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/



And where have I ever written that Global Warming / Climate Change is pure BS ?? I have agreed with you on multitudinous occasions over the years that the Earth temperature is getting warmer and cataclysmic events (weather) seems to be getting more frequent (more than usual) as well as citing many links and paragraphs where MAN is trying to do something to reduce C02 output.

I have elucidated to you that no matter how shrill your argument is that if you step back and take a closer look at what is really going on it would be better to mitigate the risk then to run around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling (read Greenland & Antactica & Arctic are going to completely melt and ice flow is going to raise the oceans by 10 metres) and we are all going to drown unless we immediately go back to the dark ages.

 

[Tisme]

I wonder how our species will change in response to higher temps and higher carbon dioxide/GHG levels?

 

[SirRumpole]

I wonder how our species will change in response to higher temps and higher carbon dioxide/GHG levels?

We may grow more hair to the consistency of Pink Batts.

 

[Tisme]

We may grow more hair to the consistency of Pink Batts.

You might be right. In my early schooling we were taught that sapiens survived and evolved because of the drier hotter climates, but also highly adaptable to different climates ... the two legged cockroach.


Looking at the following pic I reckon I've met everyone of them in my world wide travels. I hope they survive the next 100 years, before the heat, thirst, hunger, pestilence, war and Koran gets them:

 

[luutzu]

In short, yes there are.

I'll post a more detailed explanation in the "Future of energy generation and storage" thread in order to keep this thread on the climate change topic as such.

You know a lot of these Smurf.

What are your thoughts on refilling the aquifers? with those reverse dams Andrew Forrest was talking about?

 

[noco]

Some interesting facts on wind and solar power........it is not all it is cracked up to be.....costly and inefficient.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...578977109?sv=be083cec1d923804ad747317119bf2ff

When considering climate change, most people think wind turbines and solar panels are a big part of the solution. But, during the next 25 years, the contribution of solar and wind power to resolving the problem will be trivial — and the cost will be enormous.

The International Energy Agency estimates that about 0.4 per cent of global energy now comes from solar and wind.

Even in 2040, with all governments implementing all of their green promises, solar and wind will make up just 2.2 per cent of global energy.

This is partly because wind and solar help to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions only from electricity generation, which accounts for 42 per cent of the total, but not from the energy used in industry, transport, buildings and agriculture.

But the main reason wind and solar power cannot be a major solution to climate change stems from an almost insurmountable obstacle: we need power when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

This has major implications for claims about costs.

For example, wind power, we are told repeatedly, will soon be cheaper than fossil fuels — or even, as a recent global news story claims, it is already cheaper than fossil fuels in Germany and Britain.

This is mostly a mirage; large-scale wind power will not work any time soon without subsidies.

 

[trainspotter]

You might be right. In my early schooling we were taught that sapiens survived and evolved because of the drier hotter climates, but also highly adaptable to different climates ... the two legged cockroach.

Looking at the following pic I reckon I've met everyone of them in my world wide travels. I hope they survive the next 100 years, before the heat, thirst, hunger, pestilence, war and Koran gets them:

View attachment 64723

Tisme you have startled me with your eloquence. Adaptable, survived and evolved all in the one sentence pretty much sums up what man is all about. We need to adapt to the climate change that we are experiencing to survive and evolve our strategies to combat rising sea levels (1.8mm per annum according to the IPCC).

The Netherlands with 16.5 million people and 1/8th of their country 1 metre below seal level must be sh1tting bricks right about now. But they have a fantastic attitude to living with water ...

That is why a new paradigm ”” Living with Water -- infuses our policy and our public investments today. Of course: we must always be on guard against floods. That cannot and will not change. The new paradigm means, however, that we can’t always fight the water. Instead, we need to accommodate water, and give it room. And in the world’s 3rd most-densely populated country, giving room to water means taking space from something else. It is a zero sum game. Or is it? Climate change, oddly enough, is reminding us of both the beauty and resiliency of nature, and the benefits of sustainable design. The sober optimist is again making lemonade…

http://www.the-netherlands.org/key-...ion/water-management-apa-conference-2012.html

The dude up the back in that picture ... he looks familiar

 

[Tisme]

The dude up the back in that picture ... he looks familiar

Maybe you came to my house for a bbq sometime ago? I'm rather proud of the mantelpiece family photo; the kids are so cute and the wife is a beauty, yeah?

 

[luutzu]

Tisme you have startled me with your eloquence. Adaptable, survived and evolved all in the one sentence pretty much sums up what man is all about. We need to adapt to the climate change that we are experiencing to survive and evolve our strategies to combat rising sea levels (1.8mm per annum according to the IPCC).

The Netherlands with 16.5 million people and 1/8th of their country 1 metre below seal level must be sh1tting bricks right about now. But they have a fantastic attitude to living with water ...



http://www.the-netherlands.org/key-...ion/water-management-apa-conference-2012.html

The dude up the back in that picture ... he looks familiar

Too much wine with that nice sunset again?

Evolution takes millions of years. The pace of sea level rise scientists are predicting is within a century or two at best... you can't adapt to that kind of changes naturally in time to survive... the few that do will be the rich people in rich countries, of which there might be 1 out of 7 or 9 billion at best.

Not many countries could afford to build dikes and live below sea level like the Netherlands. They'd build high walls and watchtowers loaded with bullets and rifles though.

 

[trainspotter]

Too much wine with that nice sunset again?

Evolution takes millions of years. The pace of sea level rise scientists are predicting is within a century or two at best... you can't adapt to that kind of changes naturally in time to survive... the few that do will be the rich people in rich countries, of which there might be 1 out of 7 or 9 billion at best.

Not many countries could afford to build dikes and live below sea level like the Netherlands. They'd build high walls and watchtowers loaded with bullets and rifles though.

Once again failure to comprehend the written word luutzu. I wrote ...

We need to adapt to the climate change that we are experiencing to survive and evolve our strategies to combat rising sea levels

Not talking about evolution of the species but more along the lines of looking at the strategies in place to mitigate the risk ... just like the Netherlands. Read the article in FULL, it is very interesting as to how their psyche is rationalised for the inevitable.

There are a lot of low lying areas around the world that the salt water could be funnelled into rather than just let the tide keep rising old chum

Like the Netherlands they look at this as an opportunity for business and for civil works, construction, jobs and also for the greater good of the country. What are we doing?? Wringing our hands is all.

 

[trainspotter]

Maybe you came to my house for a bbq sometime ago? I'm rather proud of the mantelpiece family photo; the kids are so cute and the wife is a beauty, yeah?

We must be brothers in law as I am pretty sure I married your wife's sister after taking a closer look at that photo.