Resisting Climate Hysteria

Smurf1976 said:

If it costs $5 to charge an electric vehicle during the day and $2 to charge it overnight then a lot of that charging will in practice be done during the day. As such, electric vehicles won't contribute as much to load leveling on the grid as many assume - sure there will be some off-peak charging but there will be some additional peak load as well.

Click to expand...

I see ford has a proposal to get around this by proposing a new car with solar PV built in on top. What's interesting is their use of fresnel lenses in a canopy that concentrates the sun onto the solar panels. They believe they'll be able to use solar for roughly 75% of all travel, and the car has a small petrol engine for range extension which should discourage panic recharging. Seems the car automatically moves itself when under the canopy to ensure it's receiving the maximum level of light on the built in PV.

I'm wondering it it would be possible to use the same fresnel canopy to increase currently installed home solar PV?? Depending on the cost if it could increase production enough to provide a 3 year ROI it might be popular, especially since in theory it shouldn't run afoul of any of the current Govt programs.

* Fresnel lenses are like those used in light houses.

A solar panel can certainly charge an electric car and the idea makes sense in many ways - practical, economic and environmental.

But a 300W solar panel (and that's about as large as would fit) built into a car's roof comes nowhere near a "fast" charge even with some fancy lenses. For a commuter who works 9 to 5 and parks in the sun it will reduce the need for charging overnight. But for someone wanting to charge in a hurry, and they are the people who would be charging at peak times, 300 or even 900W isn't much.

Take the Mitsubishi i-MiEV as an example. A 16kWh battery pack and it can travel a bit over 100km on a charge depending on whose figures you use (US government test puts it at 100, real world users will tell you that it's a bit more).

Taking it as 130 km on a charge, that's 123 Wh (0.123 kWh) per km. A solar panel that fits on, or within, the roof isn't going to move it that far. Even on a sunny day with no shade and using some fancy lenses you're still only charging at a rate equivalent to about 7km of driving in an hour and it would take 3 days parked to fully charge the battery.

So I can see that solar has some benefit, but it's more likely to reduce the overnight charging load than to reduce the daytime load in my opinion. Eg someone commutes 30km each way to work, so using about 8kWh per day. The car sitting in sun with solar simply means less charging over night. But if they actually needed to charge during the day, because otherwise it's going to run out, well then the solar isn't that much of a benefit. Some perhaps, but it doesn't eliminate the need to charge quickly.

And, of course, if you look around a city well then a large portion of cars are parked somewhere that doesn't get direct sunlight. In a multi-level car park, underground, near buildings, under trees and so on. Some are in the sun certainly, but as a whole that's not the case for parked cars.

There's a solar powered bus running in Adelaide (called "Tindo"). It does run on solar power but there's just one catch. It's actually a battery powered bus, they just charge it with solar energy back at the depot. So it's really an electric bus being charged (in practice using grid power overnight, not solar) at a location which just happens to have a substantial grid-connect solar system installed. We could bring it down to Tasmania, leaving the solar panels back in Adelaide, charge it from the grid and then say that it's water powered. Or take it to France and then say that we've got a nuclear powered bus. It's not as though it's a fully self-contained system without the need for external charging.

Yep.

Real science is never 'settled'. Unless you're a visiting US theoretical physicist on Q & A, playing to it's 'balanced' audience.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus/

“Consensus” is not science, and this science never was “settled”. So thank heavens for a scientific association that defends science against preachers of a religion:

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

Click to expand...

More bad news for the consensus fallacy:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...hange-statement/story-e6frg8y6-1226942126322#

EARTH SCIENTISTS SPLIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE STATEMENT

Date: 04/06/14 Graham Lloyd, The Australian
Australia’s peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.
After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations. [...]

In a short statement published in the latest edition of the society newsletter, Mr Hutton says: “After a long and extensive and extended consultation with society members, the GSC executive committee has decided not to proceed with a climate change position statement.’’

“As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However, diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.

“The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.

Click to expand...

Of particular interest is the latter part of the excerpt, which has been one of my main points

WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY.
MAY 29, 2014
Dr. Daniel Botkin, Professor Emeritus, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara (Full Bio here)
Selected Excerpts: (Full Testimony here)
Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects, and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have, accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted into a political and ideological debate.
…
I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.
3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.
…
The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century.
Nine Environmental Issues that need our attention now

]Energy
Fresh water
Phosphorus and other essential minerals
Habitat destruction
Invasive-species control
Endangered species
Pollution by directly toxic substances
Fisheries
Forests

Click to expand...

Another vindicating article

Climatologist Dr. David Legates tells the U.S. Senate of ‘the silencing of the dissenters’: ‘Young scientists quickly learn to ‘do what is expected of them’ or at least remain quiet, lest they lose their career before it begins’


'A healthy scientific debate is being compromised' - 'When scientific views come under political attack, so too does independent thinking and good policy-making because all require rational thought to be effective.'
'Post-Normal': 'Science emerges where ‘science by consensus’ reigns. It has been strongly argued that even in its early days, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change abandoned the scientific method in favor of this new paradigm (Saloranta 2001, Legates et al. 2013). This inherently morphs the role of the scientist from an impartial observer and seeker of the truth to one who dons the hat of an advocate. This is where the so-called ‘consensus arguments’ arise where an appeal to some very large percentage of scientists appears to give credibility to a particular viewpoint. Most of these consensuses are contrived (see Legates et al. 2014) and serve to push an agenda that diverges widely from truth-seeking. The scientific method has been abandoned by many in the climate change discussion with an appeal to the masses through an imaginary consensus of scientists. This has greatly undermined both the quest for truth in this debate and the respect the general public has for scientists who advocate for anthropogenic global warming disaster scenarios.'

Click to expand...

Fascinating Wayne how you can pull up quotes to justify that somehow global warming is not...really...that...serious.

Or perhaps that some scientists still arn't convinced that humans are the major current cause of the dramatic changes in our climate and the flow on consequences of these changes. (Professor Carter is a scientists. So are a score of others who will fly your flag.)

Trouble is Wayne there are still thousands of other very qualified scientists who will argue very forcefully that global warming is real and caused largely by human actions in the current situation. That analysis has been dissected and is called the consensus paper.

So is it 97% of all climate scientists who agree with the evidence so far seen. ? Is it 93% ? Is it 1% or less ? (If your Monckton you can do all sorts of creative things with maths to show the true figure of scientists who explicitly support the AGW hypothesis is some miniscule figure.And we are supposed to believe that )

But put aside all discussions about who believes what. One question

What is the view of skeptics on the research undertaken in the Antarctic by glaciologist's which says that to all intents and purposes major sections of the Antarctic ice shelf will collapse in the next 200-1000 years because of the effects of warm water eroding the glaciers ? The consequences will be a 3-4 metre rise on sea levels.

Anyone had anything to say about this work ?

bas, It's not about cherry picking quotes, it's about demonstrating that:

• the science is not settled
• that rightly, there is no consensus
• that climate science has been politicized
• that there is an imbalance in funding towards establishing an apocalyptic, anthropomorphic hypothesis
• that there is a campaign to silence dissent from said narrow hypothesis

In reality there are aspects of climatology on which there is broad agreement and aspects where there is little agreement. I no longer think it is kosher to categorize scientists and lay science followers as believers, skeptics, deniers etc. This should not be a team sport or as tribal thing such as politics, but that is what it has become. This does not seem to exist in other scientific fields (except for perhaps evolution).

Rather, I think there should be demarcation based on the predominate hypothesis, similar to proponents of big bang, electric universe, string theory, quantum physics etc. Whilst debate is lively in those fields, it is based on science, rather than politics.

It doubt the politics will leave the field anytime soon, but it is my hope that continued sensible public discussion may moderate the excesses.

As far as the West Antarctic ice sheet, there is some analysis and contextualizing in progress on that, for which myself at least am still digesting. That this has been underway has been known since at least the seventies and may be unrelated to an anthropomorphic forcing. If you read outside of SkS and the Grauniad, there is discussion on this.

For instance, from http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2014/05/23/clock-is-ticking-in-west-antarctic/

“I have a problem with the widespread implication (in the popular press) that the West Antarctic collapse can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change,” said Mike Wolovik, a graduate researcher at Lamont-Doherty who studies ice sheet dynamics. “The marine ice sheet instability is an inherent part of ice sheet dynamics that doesn’t require any human forcing to operate. When the papers say that collapse is underway, and likely to last for several hundred years, that’s a reasonable and plausible conclusion.”

But, he said, the link between CO2 levels and the loss of ice in West Antarctica “is pretty tenuous.” The upwelling of warmer waters that melt the ice has been tied to stronger westerly winds around Antarctica, which have been linked to a stronger air pressure difference between the polar latitudes and the mid-latitudes, which have in turn been linked to global warming.

“I’m not an atmospheric scientist, so I can’t evaluate the strength of all of those linkages,” Wolovik said. “However, it’s a lot of linkages.” And that leaves a lot of room for uncertainty about what’s actually causing the collapse of the glaciers, he said.

Click to expand...

Wolovik concludes by saying "...that leaves a lot of room for uncertainty..."

If we are uncertain then to not act if the worst case may be correct is stupid in my view. Particularly when we have such exciting clean alternatives that could be rolled out so much faster and more efficiently if they had full Government and community support.

explod said:

Wolovik concludes by saying "...that leaves a lot of room for uncertainty..."

If we are uncertain then to not act if the worst case may be correct is stupid in my view. Particularly when we have such exciting clean alternatives that could be rolled out so much faster and more efficiently if they had full Government and community support.

Click to expand...

You are of course entitled to your viewpoint, however, you might want to carefully consider the panorama of belief systems to which such mandates for action on uncertainty could equally apply.

I have not been witness to lengthy queues of greens at the confessional in recent times!

Geocentrism was investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was false and contrary to scripture, placing works advocating the Copernican system on the index of banned books, forbidding Galileo from advocating heliocentrism.

These historical geocentrists have contemporary soulmates in the modern day AGW cult, who would also have forced Galileo to recant, at the point of a sword.

Ignore these latter day charlatans, they'll go away. They're not scientists.

Who's Galileo they'd all think, they're all Arts faculty graduates.

Global warming??????what global warming?????Climate change.....yes we have always had climate change .!!!!!

So when the dinosaurs become extinct it certainly was not man made?

One of the Yankie boys rejects the idea of man made climate change.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...saurs-go-extinct/story-fnihsmjt-1226950570596

noco said:

Global warming??????what global warming?????Climate change.....yes we have always had climate change .!!!!!

So when the dinosaurs become extinct it certainly was not man made?

One of the Yankie boys rejects the idea of man made climate change.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...saurs-go-extinct/story-fnihsmjt-1226950570596

Click to expand...

Duh! The earth was hit by a giant rock from space that sent the world into darkness and wiped out many species, not just the dinosaurs. That guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?
Or maybe his link to global warming was Noah's ark. The dinosaurs died out because there wasn't room on board.

Knobby22 said:

Duh! The earth was hit by a giant rock from space that sent the world into darkness and wiped out many species, not just the dinosaurs. That guy isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, is he?
Or maybe his link to global warming was Noah's ark. The dinosaurs died out because there wasn't room on board.

Click to expand...

And why can't this happen again? Global warming? Who cares when a meteorite the size of a bus has the ability to level a small city with the impact of a nuclear bomb roughly half the size of the one that hit Hiroshima in 1945.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-astronomers-discovered-it.html#ixzz34Nlm5rC3

Here is a fun website that you can dial in the size of the asteroid and where you want it to hit earth:

http://www.killerasteroids.org/interactives/impact/impactCalc1024.html

Try medium size meteorite on CBD Sydney ... that will fix their property price problem right up in a blink :

The other theory as to why the dinosaurs became extinct is because the tectonic plates our continents float upon had a major collision causing volcanoes etc - climate change whatever catastrophic event. For example, the plate containing Australia and India is moving north at the rate of 7cm a year, causing an intracontinental collision with the Eurasian Plate in the Himalayas. That is why these mountains are so high. Because continents are part of these plates, they also move. An earthquake occurs when the rocks break and move as a result of stresses caused by plate movements.

http://www.ga.gov.au/hazards/earthquakes/earthquake-basics/causes.html

Just think in 50,000 years or so Sydney will be on the Equator. That's if it doesn't get hit by a meteorite first !!!

The Global Warming aka Climate Change Scam
Global Warming scam

Global Warming scam

Take the Global Warming scam for example. First they presented their pseudoscience backed up by “authoritative experts” like Al Gore. They trotted out various ‘scientists’ to back up their claims, and the people lapped it up because it all sounded so plausible and fuzzy feel-good. After all, the ‘experts’ couldn’t be wrong, could they?

But even a cursory glance at the credentials of these so-called ‘experts’ showed that they were not qualified weather experts. In fact, while some of them were indeed scientists, they were not qualified to comment on the weather…not even on the state of the weather outside their own windows.

Did you notice what happened soon after Al Gore went around the world crying out that the end of the world was neigh due to global warming?

Europe experienced its coldest winter in centuries, laying waste to the apocalyptic claims of Gore and his fellow scammers.

But they were undeterred. They just shrugged their collective shoulders and changed the name to “Climate Change” instead. Same silly claims, just a different name.

The Fabianists hijacked the environmental movement and used it for their own political purposes. The ultimate aim is to unite people behind “fixing” environmental issues to push people into demanding a “global government” that would have the authority to do the job; something that individual national governments would not, and could not do.

Another Fabian program is the UN’s Agenda 21 that is designed to set international standards to control what people learn at educational institutions, how they travel, what they eat, their communications, and so on. The sole purpose of Agenda 21 is to control the people, shackling them to standardized methods that the rulers…sorry, the UN…can easily control.
Hugo Chavez is one of the rare politicians who has worked for the good of the people

Hugo Chavez is one of the rare politicians who has worked for the good of the people

Fabianists have infiltrated governments world-wide. Once we know what to look for we can see the mark of their slippery methods on everything they do. This is why people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have been demonized. Yet, when you travel to their countries they enjoy immense support from the citizens. These leaders may not supply the very latest technology and creature comforts that nations under the control of the UN enjoy, but their citizens are happier, cared for with excellent social and health systems, and they grow enough food for themselves so that they do not face many of the uncertainties citizens in “wealthier” societies do. Hugo has upset the banks and big oil companies by nationalizing his country’s oil industry and using the profits to improve the lives of the citizens.

Ever since Gough Whitlam took power, we have seen the Fabian fingerprint on everything successive Labor governments have done. It’s not just that they spend all the money so carefully built up by their opponents the LNP or its predecessors whenever they are in power. The Laborites have made sweeping changes to the social fabric of our country, whittled away little by little at our freedoms, and pushed us ever closer to the communist ideal of collectivism.

As well, we have been disarmed, a key element in the Fabian agenda. An unarmed citizenry is unable to face the overwhelming force at the disposal of a Fabian-led government. So far, they have not had to implement force against us. Over the decades they have perfected ways to strip our rights and subjugate us, until we have a population so used to being told how to behave and what to do that our citizens willingly accept the impositions a free people would never submit to.

http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/fabians-and-pm-gillard/

Noco. I think that site has been hacked. Did you read paragraph 9?

Knobby22 said:

Noco. I think that site has been hacked. Did you read paragraph 9?

Click to expand...

Fabianists have infiltrated governments world-wide. Once we know what to look for we can see the mark of their slippery methods on everything they do. This is why people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have been demonized. Yet, when you travel to their countries they enjoy immense support from the citizens. These leaders may not supply the very latest technology and creature comforts that nations under the control of the UN enjoy, but their citizens are happier, cared for with excellent social and health systems, and they grow enough food for themselves so that they do not face many of the uncertainties citizens in “wealthier” societies do. Hugo has upset the banks and big oil companies by nationalizing his country’s oil industry and using the profits to improve the lives of the citizens.

So why is there so much poverty in Cuba and South Korea......Why did so many leave Cuba to live in the USA?

noco said:

Fabianists have infiltrated governments world-wide. Once we know what to look for we can see the mark of their slippery methods on everything they do. This is why people like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro have been demonized. Yet, when you travel to their countries they enjoy immense support from the citizens. These leaders may not supply the very latest technology and creature comforts that nations under the control of the UN enjoy, but their citizens are happier, cared for with excellent social and health systems, and they grow enough food for themselves so that they do not face many of the uncertainties citizens in “wealthier” societies do. Hugo has upset the banks and big oil companies by nationalizing his country’s oil industry and using the profits to improve the lives of the citizens.

So why is there so much poverty in Cuba and South Korea......Why did so many leave Cuba to live in the USA?

Click to expand...

Did you actually say that Noco or is it just a quote from somewhere ? I realise you are way out there but supporting Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro.

It just doesn't make sense anyway.

And what the hell is it doing in this thread ?

Chavez is actually doing quite a bit to reduce CO2 emissions.

By firing all the competent staff and replacing them with his mates, he substantially destroyed the technical capabilities of PDVSA (the Venezuelan national oil company).

This resulted in a production decline for crude oil, thus cutting Venezuela's exports and also the government's income. Meanwhile he also effectively tore up the Orimulsion contracts with practically every buyer.

So by exporting less oil he's helping the climate you see. And by sending his own country broke he's doing is best to cut fuel use there too.

Smurf1976 said:

Chavez is actually doing quite a bit to reduce CO2 emissions.

.....

So by exporting less oil he's helping the climate you see. And by sending his own country broke he's doing is best to cut fuel use there too.

Click to expand...

Smurf, I don't think Hugo Chavez is doing very much right at this moment....

Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías; 28 July 1954 – 5 March 2013) was a Venezuelan politician and the President of Venezuela from 1999 until his death in 2013.