octave

I will try to answer the questions from Octave.

Just out of interest who is Warwick Hughes and what method did he use to compile that graph.?

 

Warwick Hughes

 

Refereed Published Papers:

 

1992 Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, and Warwick S. Hughes. “Long-Term and Recent Anomalous Temperature Changes in Australia.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 23, pp. 2317-2320.

1995 Robert C. Balling, Jr. and Warwick S. Hughes. “Comments on “Detecting Climate Change Concurrent with Deforestation in the Amazon Basin: Which Way Has It Gone ?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 4, 9. 559.

1995 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.

1996 Warwick S. Hughes and Robert C. Balling, Jr. “Urban Influences on South African Temperature Trends.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 935-940. Online at

[/url]www.john-daly.com/s-africa.htm

 

 

 

1997 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on, “Historical Thermometer Exposures in Australia.” by N. Nichols et al. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, pp. 197-199.

Why are climate contrarians just about always individuals? And nearly always not climate scientists?

 

The term climate scientist emerged recently when massive funds became available for climate science. Before that, past climates were studied and modelled by geologists and meteorologists.

 

I have been to a lecture by Plimer. What do geological organisations say on the subject?

 

The organisations globally have been muzzled by politics. There are "secret societies" of geologists communicating by email and trying to get the truth out in public statements, also lobbying to get the societies to do the same. The reason the societies cannot speak is that they would lose members and public credibility in the present environment. Also there are lots of geologists who believe the alarmists so politics plays a role internally. Another problem is that any attempt to organise scientific discussion rapidly attracts ratbags from the fringe that destroy the credibility of genuinely skeptical scientists.

 

You seem to indicate that you believe NASA are part of an international conspiracy along with JAXA and ESA is that correct? What is the motivation?

 

NASA is a victim of the funding trap and the need to maintain public support. There are plenty of credible studies that refute NASA interpretations of the data, but they are almost impossible to get published or peer reviewed. Also reputable popular science journals like New Scientist, for example, refuse to publish material that goes against the alarmist doctrine. Make no mistake, this is public hysteria on the scale of the Salem witch hunts. It isn't evil, just misguided.

 

I will bet you did not read the report compiled by Shell in 1986 in which there own experts discuss the problem.to what end?

 

If you are talking about the film "climate of concern"produced by Shell then it was an excellent example of hysterical alarmism that was not founded on fact or science. I havent seen a report.

 

Do you believe there is such a phenomena as greenhouse effect. At what point do you believe the theory breaks down?

 

Yes I believe that a greenhouse effect exists. Some warming will be due to it. Mostly it is caused by water vapour in the atmosphere. CO2 plays a negligible role. Any contribution from CO2 has already occurred.

 

Is there a a PPM at which you believe there would be a problem?

 

CO2 is plant food. Modern plants cannot live with CO2 below about 200 ppm. For most of the earth's history in the era when plants and animals existed, CO2 was higher than today. So no, I am not alarmed by CO2 at the trace levels forecast by alarmists.

 

What is the first mention of anthropomorphic climate change and when?

 

From the IPCC: The ability to generate an artificial warming of the Earth’s surface was demonstrated in simple greenhouse experiments such as Horace Benedict de Saussure’s experiments in the 1760s using a ‘heliothermometer’ (panes of glass covering a thermometer in a darkened box) to provide an early analogy to the greenhouse effect. It was a conceptual leap to recognise that the air itself could also trap thermal radiation. In 1824, Joseph Fourier, citing Saussure, argued ‘the temperature [of the Earth] can be augmented by the interposition of the atmosphere, because heat in the state of light finds less resistance in penetrating the air, than in repassing into the air when converted into non-luminous heat’.

 

But this is the well-established greenhouse effect, not anthropomorphic climate change. I dont know when that was first proposed, perhaps in the 1950s?

 

I am in NZ at ths moment so a lytle hard to do the usual quote and reply.

How does NASA making up false data to support climate change help their funding under a Trump presedency?

I posted a link l twice which was a document produced by Shell in 1986 where they discuss the problem of climate change.

PM I read every li k that others post and when a graph is presented I go to the source although sometimes this leads to a dead end.

The first calculations of co2 emmisions and tje effect on climate were done in the 1890s. This does not stop people from asserting that it is somethinhg made up recently.

What are Warwick Hughs' qualifications other than publishing.

The amount of greenhouse heating calculations are quite interesting, as in the video I posted, did you nit accept the calcs or the underlying physics?

So just to be clear you believe there is a conspiracy between NASA JAXA and ESA?

His heart in the right place, he fleeced millions off ordinary wage earners who seem to think his message was the only oneirs almost like a religion to some. Ocrave wgere did i deny NASA on its findings i read as much of climate deniers as well as the"facts" yes there has been to much pollution since the start of the industrial revolution but please do not skip over the main problem To Many people in this world and australia cannot afford to have many more

So you don't mind paying a failed pollitician obscene amounts of money to relay a message to the masses do you think he isnt a big polluter ,private jets ,huge house with a big carbon footprint big gas guzzling cars he has played everyone for fools to make himself richer, and no i am not a climate denier just read more than than doomsday report's

Lots of bald statements are made but every time I follow them up then the statistics dont support them. As a test I chose Facthunter's statement about Perth rainfall. Here is the data.

Warwick Hughes says this data demonstrates clearly that there has been no decline in rainfall. 2001 was only the 15th dryest year since records began in 1876. What has happened to cause our water shortage is that consumption is ever rising, catchments are being steadily degraded by scrub regrowth impairing runoff and we have been less than prudent over a decade or more in putting off projects that could have brought on new supplies from dams.

 

Any other statement about wildfires, tornadoes, dust storms and so on can be checked and the answer is that we are in situation

Just out of interes who is Warwick Hughs and what method did he use to compile that graph.

I should add to the above that Morner, like all climate skeptics, has had his reputation attacked by the alarmists. Geologists are also known as Earth scientists or geoscientists, and it is their profession that has unravelled the history of the earth and its past climate. Ian Plimer, who was the senior lecturer when I studied geology nearly 50 years ago, is the leading skeptic in Australia and he has been attacked repeatedly for drawing attention to facts that don’t fit alarmist prognostications. I just hope we can shake some sense into the global community before they drink the Kool-Aid.

I have posed many questions which you have not addressed.

You seem to indicate that you believe NASA are part of an international conspiracy along with JAXA and ESA is that correct? What is the motivation?

I will bet you did not read the report compiled by Shell in 1986 in which there own experts discuss the problem.to what end?

Do you believe there is such a phenomena as greenhouse effect. At what point do you believe the theory breaks down?

Is there a a PPM ar which you believe there would be a problem?

What is the first mention of anthropomorphic climate change and when?

Dilute the Carbon !by Plant more trees.

 

spacesailot

Planting more trees is of some help but there is a basic problem.

Other than micronutrients plants need water and nitrogen in the correct ratio as well as many other things and of course water. The point is you cant massively increase only one of those nutrients (Carbon) People are quick to point out that plants love carbon but they will only thrive if there is also an increase in nitrogen and other nutrients. To put it more simply if you put a plant in a greenhouse and give it huge amounts of carbon it will also require much more water and much more of the other nutrients required for plant growth.

Planting trees is still good but in itself cannot fix the problem.

Is Shell making stuff up?

Here is a link to their own paper on the greenhouse effect from 1986. I suspect those think it is all a hoax would not read this paper. My question is what is in it for Shell. I would like to know how this conspiracy works Does NASA tell JAXA to adjust its temperature records to match its own?

1988 Shell Confidential Report “The Greenhouse Effect”

In reply to Octave, I don’t believe that such minor variations in a trace gas can affect global temperatures. I am not naive about it, I have read a lot about it, and the science is far from convincing. We have had much higher levels of CO2 in the past than now, we are close to a historic low. Temperatures go up and down for reasons that are poorly understood but are driven by the earth and the sun. Computer models are nonsense, their proponents are scamming us. Climate science is actually climate politics.

This is always the defence that comes out, it is political but nobody is willing to explain the motives of I would say pretty much any reputable scientific organisation, including geological organizations. So is in it for NASA? some might say to get funds out of the government. Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to say to Trump give us more money and we will support your view of climate science?.

Are these calculations incorrect and how so?

I believe the science does not even agree with the climater change groups.

That may be what you believe so perhaps provide some evidence.

Which Science does not agree, where do I I find this science? NASA? provide me with links to solid evidence? British Academy of science? Or any one of hundreds of organisations.

You may think it is bollocks and that is fine you are in a minority. I have no wish to change your mind but to suggest that it is made by some none scientist groups is clearly not the case. You should just come out and say you don't trust science.

A question for you, when were the first calculations of the effect of CO2 on the climate made?

If I can't trust any of these organisations who do you suggest is a reliable source?

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

First it was the ozone layer, p[roven not a problem

We actually did something about that didn't we, we banned CFCs You will probably dismiss the link below but it does rather contradict the notion that these things are made up by non-scientists and are not supported by science.

First Direct Proof of Ozone Hole Recovery Due to Chemicals Ban

You talk about it not being scientific and then say

Any major drive to fix the CO2 levels would be instantly undone by bush fires and volcanoes

That is interesting perhaps you could share your calculations with us.

For a deep dive into the history Basic Radiation Calculations

There are countries, as shown on the map, that are still planning lots of new coal fired power stations. They must think the return on investment is OK. They don't have the protesters that we have.

China and India are also leading investors in renewables

Renewable energy in China - Wikipedia

India is now a world leader in renewable energy

Clearly, they see some use in renewables.

Nuclear, I think at this stage has to be considered since the waste problem whilst still, a troubling issue will probably be less dangerous than the alternative. It is insanely costly and probably can only be done huge corporations Have a look at Hinkley point C Hinkley Point C nuclear power station - Wikipedia I know Bill Gates puts money into research with the aim of developing small scale cheaper and safer nuclear power.

Do you think that in 15 years time coal will still be economically viable given the advance in other technologies?

I am still interested in knowing at which point in anthropomorphic climate change theory you believe the theory brakes down? Do you believe that CO2 does not play a role in the temperature of the earth or do you believe it does but it takes a larger concentration. I just want to understand why you think the theory is a dud.

Crikey PM, just when Octave was talking up our future. I doubt that too many of those planned coal-burners will be built, but I find it depressing that anyone could want them.

Agreed, the thing with a coal plant is it must have a long viable life. Whatever people think about renewables now they surely must admit that the price and efficiency of renewables have dropped just like technology does. To dig up coal in one country and truck it to the docks where it will be loaded into coal carrying ships sent halfway around the world (at considerable energy cost) to be trucked to a power plant where it will be burnt to make steam will soon seem ridiculous.

Regardless of climate change issues, we will cease burning things to produce energy. There is absolutely no shortage of energy in the world, I won't bore everyone with links to calculations regarding the solar energy that falls ob 1 square metre every hour. The technology to harness this energy has improved rapidly and will continue to. Yes, I know the sun doesn't shine at night but there are many successful solar thermal plants operating around the world. Energy storage is also improving. To say that we will never develop storage technology is a little short-sighted. computers, mobile phones, aviation. I can see no evidence to suggest that we have reached the peak of what renewables can generate and what can be stored.

[ATTACH=full]4064[/ATTACH]

Those numbers are disputed Deconstructing the case for coal however I neither have the time or interest any comprehensive fact checking so let's say that those figures are accurate and all of those power stations will be completed and no power stations will be scrapped then coal is indeed in its ascendancy and perhaps a lucrative investment and the whole climate change thing is a mere inconvenience to the growth of the coal industry. If so are argument is rather trivial. The coal supporters would seem to be winning.

Since you posted this without comment I can only guess what message you wish to convey. Perhaps it is that it doesn't matter what we do the ppm of carbon is going to rise.

I am interested in where you and I disagree, do you believe carbon in the atmosphere has any bearing on how much heat is trapped in the atmosphere? I guess I am not sure at what point you depart from the accepted theory.

If the shade sail absorbs the heat it will just melt or destroy itself. In a vacuum it can't cool. If it reflects the light energy it will be propelled somewhere. Energy can't just disappear.. Nev

It doesn't absorb (perhaps some), it reflects, a black object would absorb large amounts of energy but a reflective surface would reflect it. Remember when Skylab was overheating and they installed a reflective shade? I think the figure required is to reduce solar radiation by 2%.

The James Webb Space Telescope has a sunshade to keep it cool enough (when it finally gets launched) Also probes near the sun such as the Parker Solar Probe (6.9 million kms from the sun).

Also, consider solar thermal power plants which have banks of mirrors which reflect solar energy on to a central tower, the tower gets extremely hot but the mirrors do not.

However, for the record, it is not an idea that I can get enthused by.

Optimism may be a more comforting condition than realism...Reality has to be faced if something effective is to be done. Nev

Nev the problem is that people tend toward the negative as does the media. The statistics show that the world in most respects is improving. Health, longevity, poverty etc have all increased rapidly but most people instinctively believe these things are getting worse.

I do actually believe my view is based on realism. I don't think we can mitigate all of the negative effects of climate change, the way we live will change. I post plenty on this thread about climate change, if I thought it was hopeless I would not bother.

I am optimistic for several reasons. Humans do have the intelligence and ingenuity to solve very big problems once they make a decision to do so. During two world wars, it must have seemed like it would never end.

I am a follower of news on new technologies especially renewable technology and it is great to see just how many businesses are out there doing research. There are dozens of companies developing new cheaper lighter and more efficient battery storage. Ultimately most of these will lead to a dead end although learning how not to do something is also important. I suspect that at this point governments will not provide the solutions.

EVs I believe have reached a tipping point and are now inevitable. By the way, EVs will not be our saviour, they will be a huge help but not the whole answer. Renewable energy continues to become cheaper and more efficient. Investors are wary of investing in coal-fired power plants from a financial perspective. A coal-fired plant is a very long term investment and it is hard to see that it would not be obsolete before it has made a profit. Shell is moving into renewables because they can see the writing on the wall.

I think optimism is crucial if we are to beat this problem. A smoker has to believe that giving up even after many years is worth it and also that all of those failed attempts in the past do not mean it is not possible in the future.

I actually think that in most respects the society is in the best shape it has ever been in. I know this may seem controversial but statistically, in terms of health, longevity, human rights and even poverty things are better than they have ever been.

Optimism also means I get to live a happy life, I may be wrong but I would rather be happy than right.

Lots of people Want to stop Global Warming, but other than stopping using certain products (In this country ). Not many positive solutions.How about a few suggestions for our scientist to decry !.

 

First off the post, shade cloth is cheap as chips to manufacture.

 

Take a couple of rolls out into space & deploy between Earth & it's Sun.

 

rotating the object will keep the "Shade Sail" out-stretched.

 

spacesailor

Not necessarily as daft as it might initially sound:

Here is an interesting talk on mega projects. Most of these projects require investments and leaps in technology which may be better-used to move us into the post-fossil fuel era however if the worst case scenario occurs it may be mega projects or lay down and die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfRo8_RfefA:677

I think it discusses what you are suggesting at around the 12-minute mark but IMHO well worth watching the whole thing

There is an American professor who reckons Methusela's tipping point has already been passed. He says that 6 degrees of warming is already unavoidable and people will go extinct in ten years. He says it is too late to stop it and agrees that it is not fair on the kids.The mechanism is permafrost methane release. He says that this has happened more than once before in geological time.

 

Gosh I hope he is wrong and I reckon NASA thinks he is wrong too. They put the methane release at a much lower contribution to heating.

As I have said before I am an optimist, I think that intelligent humans can solve or probably, in this case, mitigate the worst effects. That does not mean that there will be massive upheavals and there will be winners and losers. For me, it is more a matter of whether we want to be in the driver's seat and have some control or whether we want just continue along the easy path until it is no longer easy.

I just read an article that put the proposition that the issue is not how much climate change action will cost but how what is the price of doing nothing?

The bottom line is if we take the 2 extremes, that is certain climate catastrophe and we need to move away from fossil fuels or it is just a made up thing and we can continue on burning the remaining fossil fuels, The fact is going down one of those roads means we may switch to technologies that are INEVITABLE anyway before fossil fuels run out with the downside that we may pay a little more for our electricity and personal transport versus a world in which living will become more difficult.

The second option requires a greater level of certainty than the first option. I would be much more comfortable explaining to my grandchildren (should I ever have any) that I am sorry we cut down the annual rate of growth and that electricity prices were 10% higher than they could have been and that they had to drive a plug-in EV rather than a nice big V8. I feel this will make me look like someone who had their best interest at heart rather than "I want my electricity as cheap as can be and I want my V8, I want to use all those fossil fuels during my lifetime."

For those who think anthropomorphic climate change is made up I ask this question. What is it about our present response you find unacceptable and why?

If you were forced to drive an EV would your life be miserable?

Sorry a bit ranty but it is Shiraz afternoon.

Again I am an optimist. I think the younger generations will have the balls to do what is required.

.

For some years now, I have been looking for a climate change denier to take me up on the following bet:For every day COLDER than the long term average, I give $20 to him. For every day HOTTER than the long term average, he gives me $19. Yes, I am willing to take the risk of a hit, so sure am I that change is indeed occurring. We just need to agree on the place and the measuring setup.

 

So, if there is no change, he will get $182.5 per year, since half the days will be colder and half hotter.

 

Alas there turn out to be no deniers prepared to put their money up. They tend to say things like " the climate always changes for mysterious reasons ".

I am sometimes amused when deniers within the same argument will suggest there is no ice loss and no average temperature increase and no ocean acidification but will then suggest other reasons for warming, perhaps a natural cycle etc. Sometimes they will move to a position of it is warming but that is good. I usually like to pin down what they do believe is happening before moving on.

To sum their position can appear to me to be it's not warming but if it is then it is natural and good, They will also alternate between all of these positions. I suspect the goal is to create uncertainty much like the cigarette industry done and continues to do.

Deniers are usually more comfortable debating this topic as a political problem. The science should not be political, what we do about it, of course, has political and economic aspects.

The question I put to doubters is at what point in the theory do they find it hard to accept.

1 Fossil fuels contain large amounts of carbon

2 This carbon was absorbed from the atmosphere of millions of years

3 Carbon is released when this fuel is burnt.

4 Carbon allows visible light through but traps a large portion of infrared

5 Without any carbon in the atmosphere, the earth would be too cold to support life as we know it.

8 The composition of the atmosphere has a large effect on the temperature of Earth (or Venus)

7 The amount of carbon being released is large in terms of human history.

8 The increase in carbon is enough to change the temperature and this was first calculated and warned about in 1824 by Joseph Fourier

True expensive at the moment,But

 

It will change when the chopper falls on us,

 

I asked both Telstra & Optus for a NBN phone, both say "you will have to have a bundled NBN plan", just to have the landline phone.

 

spacesailor

It is a matter of personal choice but I am wondering why you need a landline phone? For me at least there is no reason to have a mobile and a landline phone.

I refuse to accept the $hundreds to replace my $60 for 120G's, that I have now.

That sounds expensive, at the moment I pay $60 for 500Gb with Internode or when NBN arrives shortly they are offering 500Gb for $64.99

Octave, without a landline & ADSL, do you connect to the net via your phone only?

What I meant was I have naked ADSL and I do not use a landline phone.

As more people just stop answering calls from unknown numbers surely the business model of cold calling will become less viable. Of course, for some people there are compelling reasons to answer all calls but I find I even with a business people with a genuine need to talk to me will leave a message.

It may seem like a long bow to draw but for me in order have a happy life I need to feel like I am in control and choosing not to answer is a power I have. Those who need to talk to me know how to get hold of me.

All energy (except geothermal tidal and nuclear) is solar energy. The sun drives the wind and bathes the planet in energy. Likewise, coal is solar energy in that the sun provides the energy for the ancient forest to grow which then after millions of years becomes coal.

The energy stored in fossil fuels is stored solar energy, in fact, you could say it is the energy we have in the bank and solar energy from the sun is more like daily income. Humans have benefited in their early history from drawing out energy from the energy bank (digging it up). This has allowed us to create our modern age. As with a business, it is probably necessary to start off with good savings to operate from but any business must transition from operating on savings to operating on income. Once operating on income those remaining savings are always there if needed in an emergency. If we move away from fossil fuels it is not a position from which we cannot return, in fact moving away from fossil fuels (at a sensible rate) is the option that provides the maximum number of options in the future.

In rational decision making, we have to weigh up probabilities against possible outcomes. If I am heading out for the day I can gather information on the weather, I may decide that there is a 50% chance of rain, my gut feeling is that I think the rain will pass so I will not take an umbrella. This is fine since the maximum consequences are that I may get wet, this is acceptable. If I go to my flying club and there are three mechanics gathered around the plane and one of them says "I don't like the look of those wing attachment bolts" I will take a precautionary decision since the outcome could be catastrophic. To say that we should do nothing until the problem is obvious (or the wing falls off) is to effectively say "lets do nothing")

What are the negative consequences of a vigorous program (perhaps like Apollo) of developing the next technologies? Is there any benefit from Australia hanging back whilst other countries develop the technology for us to buy at a later date?

I usually don't bother arguing with climate contrarians as the odds of changing their mind is small and not that it is a competition but if it were they are on the losing side. The scientific consensus is only growing stronger, not weaker. All the time renewable energy is getting cheaper, storage continues to become more economically viable. No business that I know of wants to build a new coal-fired power station. Fossil fuel companies do know this and do acknowledge the science of climate change, even if contrarians don't. Fossil fuel companies know that they must change the nature of their business

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-new-energies-director-on-investing-in-clean-energy?

Whilst people are arguing about whether or not the science is settled or not others or doing things.

New Perth housing estate to be run entirely from renewable energy

I do not have a landline but when it comes to mobile I never answer it unless the number is in my phone or I am specifically expecting a call. If the call is important they will leave a message and I can call straight back. Given that there are situations where you can not answer your mobile such as driving or whilst working etc. I think people do not necessarily expect you to answer. Also, most of my communications especially for work are texts. My phone so seldom rings that I jump when it does, perhaps I am just deeply unpopular.

old man emu is right, Marty. The term donkey vote only refers to marking the ballot paper in order -eg: 1,2,3,4,5 in preference from the top down. That's why pollies are happy when they draw the top spot on the ballot paper, as they pick up the donkey vote as well. Some might go from the bottom up as o.m.e. suggested, but from the top down is most common. What you're talking about is an informal vote - any ballot paper not marked or not marked correctly. A donkey vote is marked correctly in that all boxes are filled in.

Yes, I was surprised to learn that but it does beg the question of how an individual ballot paper can be declared a donkey vote rather than a voter who genuinely wanted to vote for the candidates in the order that they happen to be printed.