Posted by: Grant | August 31, 2017

Sophistry

sophistry
/ˈsɒfɪstri/
noun
the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.

A Climate myth – NOT

The following old 2007 condescending “trust me I’m a doctor” “New Scientist” article tries to paper over the most fundamental flaw in the whole climate change argument – it all relies on an increase on global humidity – something they just made up as they went along.

The Earth’s temperature is stable and self-regulating. We started measuring it by satellite in 1980. All rises in temperature are soon countered by a corresponding fall. see here – uah_lt_1979_thru_july_2017_v6 http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ 

The author, Mr Chandler, has the blatant audacity to blandly state at the end of his discourse – “Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it – there is great uncertainty about this.which makes garbage of the whole thing!!!

I have pulled apart the article in detail – my comments in pink to show how they are lying to you.

Capture-1NEW SCIENTIST
Climate myths: CO2 isn’t the most important greenhouse gas
By David L Chandler
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11652-climate-myths-co2-isnt-the-most-important-greenhouse-gas/

Water is a major greenhouse gas too, but its level in the atmosphere depends on temperature. Excess water vapour rains out in days. SPURIOUS – you only have to look at the Earth to see how many clouds there are and therefore how much water vapour there is. It is continuously evaporating from the oceans – Excess CO2 accumulates, warming the atmosphere, which raises water vapour levels and causes further warming.  SPURIOUS – at some point such a positive feedback must stop or the oceans would boil away. There is no runaway greenhouse effect, whatever balances the positive water vapour feedback will act to stop the temperature rise – the dirty little secret of the doomsdayers is that the normal negative feedbacks will act on the small temperature rise in global temperature due to carbon dioxide and neutralise it.  

Is water a far more important a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, as some claim? It is not surprising that there is a lot of confusion about this – the answer is far from simple. The answer is simple – YES – he admits it later, below.

Firstly, there is the greenhouse effect, and then there is global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases (and clouds) absorbing and re-emitting the infrared radiating from Earth’s surface. It currently keeps our planet 20°C to 30°C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity. What, so water vapour is a GHG but it doesn’t cause global warming because we like water but we don’t like “carbon”? Yeah, right.

Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. TRUE Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap. MISLEADING – They do overlap slightly but CO2 has very narrow absorption band while water has a very broad absorption band. At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference. No it doesn’t – the amount of infrared absorbed depends on the amount of the gas – e.g. methane is a very powerful absorber of infrared but, at an almost undetectable parts per billion concentration, it has absolutely no discernible global warming effect.

This means that when it comes to the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four. If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40% less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed. Take away the clouds and all other greenhouses gases, however, and the water vapour alone would still absorb about 60% of the infrared now absorbed. There is a great esoteric debate about all of this – no settled science here!

By contrast, if CO2 alone was removed from the atmosphere, only 15% less infrared would be absorbed. If CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, it would absorb 26% of the infrared currently absorbed by the atmosphere. So we are admitting it then, fossil fuels are adding a very small percentage to a greenhouse gas which is absorbing only about 20% (his figures) of the infrared energy heating the atmosphere.

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder. TO SIMPLIFIED! – Clouds cannot have a greenhouse gas effect because they are not a gas – DURH!!

Water cycle

So why aren’t climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? – Simple – because they like water, and they want to dismiss it from their alarmist theories, they are demonising “carbon emissions” – The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days. NO – water is constantly being evaporated from the tropical oceans. The air over the tropical oceans ALWAYS has a very high humidity and this has a permanent and very large greenhouse gas effect.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn’t), – IT IS! – look at a chimney stack or an exhaust pipe, that white cloud on a cold humid day is condensed water vapour from hydrogen in the hydrocarbons. Water is an equal product to CO2 in combustion of hydrocarbons in oil and a large product in coal – they are both insignificant and equal –there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources).

The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and the temperature is determined by the level of water vapour – they balance each other – and any excess is rapidly lost. Sophistry – Note the clever way he cites the local effect of water vapour and compares it to the global effect of CO2 here – The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up. Trite pap – the Water Cycle is driven by the Sun and balances and stabilizes the Earth’s temperature, the Carbon Cycle is driven by the biosphere which is hungry for the gas carbon dioxide and prospers and flourishes when it is released from those ”sinks”.

Of course, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas emitted by humans. And many, such as methane, are far more powerful greenhouse gases in terms of infrared absorption per molecule. But these, at an almost undetectable parts per billion concentration, have no, zero, nada, zilch, actual global warming effect.

While methane persists for only about a decade before breaking down, other gases, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), can persist in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands years. Per molecule, their warming effect is thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. (Production of CFCs in now banned in most of the world, but because of their ozone destroying properties, not greenhouse properties.) BTW if you have a look at the photo record, the “hole in ozone layer” is still there not smaller, not larger, completely unaffected by the superstitious elimination of global CFCs – FAIL

Double up

But the overall quantities of these other gases are tiny. That puts it mildly! – they are greenhouse gases in name only. Even allowing for the relative strength of the effects, CO2 is still responsible for two-thirds of the additional warming caused by all the greenhouse gases emitted as a result of human activity. NO these additional greenhouse gas have no discernible effect on global temperature they are all at a virtually undetectable parts per billion in the atmosphere.

Water vapour will play a huge role in the centuries to come, though. – NO water vapour has a real time effect in cooling the planet through clouds – Climate models, backed by satellite measurements, suggest that the amount of water vapour in the upper troposphere (about 5 to 10 kilometres up) will double by the end of this century as temperatures rise. Climate models do not suggest anything. Climate models cannot suggest anything. There is as much chance of climate models predicting climate as Jimmy’s model volcano has of actually erupting real lava. You cannot model climate –   “…we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled nonlinear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible…” UNIPCC WG1 exec. summary.

This will result in roughly twice as much warming than if water vapour remained constant.  NO without this asserted positive feedback from water vapour the theoretical rise in global temperature fron CO2 is actually trivial.  Changes in clouds could lead to even greater amplification of the warming or reduce it – to ZERO?! – there is great uncertainty about this. WTF!! So why has my power bill doubled then!

What is certain is that, in the jargon of climate science, water vapour is a feedback, but not a forcingFALSE – Water vapour is not a forcing because it is a feedback to global temperature – it stabilizes it.

Advertisements
Posted by: Grant | August 26, 2017

The Australian “Renewables” Disaster

The real reason why your aussie power bill is the highest in the world.

No, you are not stupid, or losing it, or imagining things, it was when Leftist greenie politicians decided to save-da-planet.

It is simply because they forced our highly efficient power stations to idle on standby for extended periods.

It is because we are not only paying for very expensive power from windmills and solar panels, but every time we do pay for that power we also have to pay for all the billion dollar power stations to sit there producing nothing.

Of course, it is all a monumental FAIL, it has had absolutely no effect on global fossil fuel emissions which are the same as ever – https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-datafossil_fuels_1

Don’t worry – fortunately, despite this huge, ongoing, unabated, unmitigated fossil fuel output the global temperature is still perfectly normal and unremarkable – no global warming yet – PHEW!

CWN3D6nWUAUmQWW

 

Posted by: Grant | August 25, 2017

Al Gore Box Office Bomb

Capture-2I wish I could say it was because “An Inconvenient Sequel” tells lies, but I think it is just because it is repetitive. Nothing new.
There is no reproducible, scientific evidence of God yet billions of people believe and pray every day.
So it is with this born again preacher of the Climate Change Cult – the most successful doomsday cult ever.

Sorry – I won’t go – seen it all before. The spurious little plausible anecdotes :-

Al goes to Greenland to watch the ice melting as it does every summer – DURH!
Al goes to an isloated glacier to show us what it would look like IF it was melting – it could be just lack of snow feeding it.
Al goes to the 9/11 memorial, which is very low, to show us what would happen if the sea level rose that much in the next few hundred years – YAWN
Al goes to Florida to sinking swampland – which will be in real trouble IF the sea level rises IF the Greenland icecap melts IF the globe also warms – YAWN again.

Al’s big problem is that the global temperature is normal and sea level rise is normal. He cannot show us a crisis because the global temperature is entirely within the bounds of normal natural variability. There is no significant global warming yet.

If you have taken this movie seriously – take the time to buy this detailed, systematic, rebuttal of the whole thing by a real space scientist – Dr Roy Spencer – only a few dollars worth of enlightenment for you.

AMAZON
An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy Kindle Edition
by Roy Spencer (Author)
4.6 out of 5 stars 20 customer reviews
#1 Best Seller in Nature & Ecology
See all formats and editions
Kindle
$3.99 – HERE
Read with Our Free App 

The box office figures herehttp://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2017&wknd=31&p=.htm
AND
DAILY MAIL
The Truth hurts! Al Gore’s sequel to An Inconvenient Truth flounders in 15th place at the box office
By James Wilkinson For Dailymail.com
PUBLISHED: 03:39 +10:00, 8 August 2017 | UPDATED: 04:39 +10:00, 8 August 2017
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4768678/Al-Gore-s-Inconvenient-Truth-sequel-box-office-woes.html#ixzz4qj2mbXfW

 

 

Posted by: Grant | August 24, 2017

Climate Change Denial for Dummies

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL GUIDE
denial for dummiesFirstly, Climate Change is NOT science. It is a spiritual belief. It is the belief that modern western civilisation is always intrinsically environmentally problematic.
Finding solutions to those perceived problems is particularly attractive to leftist politics which loves identifying issues and solving them with penalties, rules, regulations and by confiscating and redirecting resources.

Climate Change is not science because science must be able to be debated and discussed and this is almost never engaged in. We never got any debate. Attempts at debate are just sniggered and sneered at and dismissed out of hand.

The following superstitious “scientists say” beliefs are never debated,

BELIEF ONE – Fossil fuel “carbon” exhaust stays forever. Actually all green vegetation is hungry for the gas and absorbs it greedily along with more sunlight and water in photosynthesis. The biosphere flourishes.
BELIEF TWO – Carbon dioxide is the global greenhouse gas. Wrong. Water vapour is the Earth’s GHG. It is much more powerful than carbon dioxide and thousands of times more abundant. It is superstitious and very, very dubious to claim that a small increase in this tiny trace gas will affect global temperature badly.
BELIEF THREE – That a human-caused rise in global temperature is unlike all other rises in global temperature in that it alone will cause global humidity to rise dangerously with a “greenhouse” effect. Without this assumption there is no significant problem – even doubled, carbon dioxide is a trivial GHG. They do not claim a runaway greenhouse effect so where this alleged feedback starts and stops is pure fantasy – the science is not there yet. (here) Global humidity actually appears constant with a self regulating response to any perturbations in global temperature. (here & here & here)
BELIEF FOUR – If it does warm it must be human-caused. This is the doctrine that the Earth is perfect and static and anything bad must be human-caused and anything human caused must be bad. Global temperature has been actively measured for nearly 40 years now – it is NOT stable and correlation is not causation.
BELIEF FIVE – That “greenhouse” radiation directly effects Earth. Actually heat from the Sun and the Earth’s interior is buffered by the oceans and radiated back to space at the poles via gigantic, hugely complex, self-regulating, convective systems on a very long time scale. Heating the Earth with more carbon dioxide is like trying to heat your bathwater with a fan heater.
BELIEF SIX – That a warming will be all disastrous. This, again, is the doctrine that the Earth is perfect and stable and humans must be a problem. Actually there would be good effects and there would be bad effects and the good effects could greatly compensate for the bad effects. We do not know.
BELIEF SEVEN – The Causes-all-the-bad-weather theory. We haven’t been accurately recording global temperature or global meteorology long enough to establish any connection between global temperature and weather. Plus, why is it always bad? What if the Globe is warming and there are some minor bad weather effects but the good effects far outweigh them?!
BELIEF EIGHT – The Causes-all-the-bad-weather-storms theory – That global warming will agitate the atmosphere and cause more storms. This is not science. They just made it up as they went along and got away with it because it sounds plausible. Agitating the atmosphere and causing severe drought at the same time is not yet reconciled – not surprisingly.
BELIEF NINE – Sea level rise. For various reasons it would take a very long time for a rise in the GHG effect to melt that much ice – a very, very, long time. Far exceeding the useful lifetime of any affected coastal infrastructure. Low level Pacific islands are not in danger. Coral atolls rise and fall with the sea level because coral can grow faster than the icecaps can melt and the waves can wash them away.
BELIEF TEN – Climate change must be bad. Climate is always changing by natural causes everywhere. Sometimes this is good. Who can say?

Posted by: Grant | July 7, 2017

Revenge on George Pell – Climate Denier

Poor George. If you are wondering why the Leftists are attacking the unfortunate Cardinal Pell, an old man now living in the Vatican for alleged sex offences which occurred when he was a very very young man.
The answer is simple –  in 2011, like the Pope, he was a climate denier.

Rabid greenies NEVER forgive and NEVER forget Climate denial.
follow these links…

Be prudent with climate claims
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/be-prudent-with-climate-claims/news-story/b35294c8be77c91298c7530d4faf593b

Climate scientists slam George Pell’s ‘utter rubbish’ claims – Crikey
https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/28/climate-scientists-slam-george-pells-utter-rubbish-claims/

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom – Daily Mail Online
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501316/The-Pope-condemns-climate-change-prophets-doom.html

Capture-1

Posted by: Grant | April 20, 2017

Scott Pruitt – FAIL

Groan. While Congress conducts the excellent inquiry into “the science” The new EPA head is not listening to it.
He needs to get climate change sceptic experts in to brief him ASAP.

Delingpole: EPA’s Scott Pruitt Gets Eaten Alive by Fox
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/02/delingpole-epas-scott-pruitt-gets-eaten-alive-by-fox/

“…How could Scott Pruitt not do this?Scott-Pruitt-Fox-News-Sunday-April-2-2017-640x480

Any one of us on the skeptical side of the argument could have pointed him to dozens of leading scientists — and hundreds if not thousands of papers and articles — that could easily have enabled Pruitt to say what needed to be said.

He could have noted the incompetence, corruption, and mendacity of the heavily politicized IPCC; the dishonest manipulation by organizations like NOAA — indeed especially NOAA — of the raw temperature data; the utter meaninglessness of the “hottest year evah” claims so often made in the liberal media.

And he could easily have batted off the “What if you’re wrong?” question by making perhaps the most important point of all that needs to be made about the “war” on “carbon”: that what it all comes down to is cost benefit analysis. To whit: the trillions of dollars being spent every year on the possibility that there might be a problem, a) could be spent much more usefully elsewhere and b) are doing more harm than good.

Pruitt was incapable of doing this though because, trained lawyer though he is, he is simply not on top of his brief…. “

There is simply no point in rolling back the demonization and politicisation of the plant food carbon dioxide if you are unable to refute the tired old arguments of “the science”.

POSTSCRIPT – what Scott could have said –

“Mr Pruitt there are all kinds of studies that contradict you the UN’s panel….”
I don’t know if you have ever noticed this Chris, but all climate changers are leftist liberals – the UN panel on “Climate Change” is never going to say there is nothing to worry about. Its whole reason to be is to generate climate change alarm. 

“NOAA says there is more carbon dioxide now than in the last 400,000 years…. “
Yes, but despite a huge human output of the gas the global temperature is still normal. The predicted dire effects are still not apparent. 

“NOAA says 2015 and 2016 are the hottest years on record… “
Since when? How much hotter?  The Earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age but it is not yet as warm as the Roman Warm period yet. Global temperature is well within normal natural variability. 

“What if you are wrong? What if it is causing dramatic climate change?… “
Despite massive fossil fuel burning there is no sign of any unusual global warming. Temperature variation is normal.

“Coal plants belching carbon emissions into the air… “
Carbon “emissions” are colourless odourless gaseous plant food. Properly regulated Coal Plants are not “belching” anything harmful into the air.

 

Posted by: Grant | April 3, 2017

Lies Damned Lies and Chas Licciardello Statistcs.

If you were dubious about this outrageous claim on “Planet America” that coal fired power “simply cost more”, you were right to be dubious, very dubious.

levelized

If you cover your roof with solar panels and wind turbines and plug them into a battery and go self-sufficient then you never have another power bill – BUT – the first power bill is a real killer. You are effectively paying all your power bills ahead for 20 years or more.
“Lazards Cost Of Energy Anaysis” that Licciardello cites above does exactly that. It spreads the huge cost of solar and wind power over decades and then calls the power they produce cheaper.

LCOEYou only need look at the above (wikipedia) definition of Levelized Cost Of Energy – LCOE – to realise that it is a classic “garbage in – garbage out” situation where, like climate models, you can keep adjusting your input until you get the desired output.

This author points out other issues with LCOE – https://www.sparklibrary.com/9-reasons-why-lcoe-can-mislead/ – google it. 

“Lazards Cost Of Energy Analysis” misleads because it does not include the intrinsic cost of energy storage systems or Gas generators required by Solar and Wind generators. Energy storage considerably raises the needed capacity of these systems, and thus the cost, because high energy losses are incurred converting and storing the power. A large gas fired power station kept idling on standby is also not cheap and cannot be ignored.

Posted by: Grant | March 31, 2017

Trump’s New EPA

downloadGreenies beware – you can’t use “settled” science anymore – it now must be real science. This is very clever. It forces the Courts to look at “the science”. Science becomes an issue in all the litigation.

US Congress
House passes US EPA science transparency bill
30 March 2017 / United States
https://science.house.gov/legislation/markups/full-committee-markup-hr-honest-and-open-new-epa-science-treatment-act-2017

The US House of Representatives has passed a measure to bar the EPA from taking regulatory actions based on science that is “not transparent and reproducible”.

Sponsored by Lamar Smith (R–Texas), the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act (HONEST Act) passed the chamber on a 228-194 vote.

If it becomes law, it would block the EPA from proposing, finalising or disseminating regulations, assessments, guidance and other actions unless all scientific and technical information relied upon to develop them is:
the “best available science”;
specifically identified;
and
publicly available in a manner “sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results”.

Having invested so heavily in their star doomsday story, the mainstream media continue to ignore the debate we never get to see.
These are not rabid right wing politicians – they are all highly qualified scientists – over 2 hours of it.

US Congress
Full Committee Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method
Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2017 – 10:00am
Location: 2318 Rayburn House Office Building
Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method
https://science.house.gov/legislation/hearings/full-committee-hearing-climate-science-assumptions-policy-implications-and Congressional Hearing

Posted by: Grant | March 29, 2017

Trump’s Environment Agenda


Where will he go on it? Its quite simple really – there it is in nutshell – “We will have safety, we will have clean water, we will have clean air” but that’s it – see video below.
So far he does what he says and they get what they voted for.
The days of the EPA treating the human race like a disease on the face of the Earth could well be over.

Older Posts »

Categories