Posted by: Grant | October 15, 2010

Lah, Lah, La Nina

Or how “natural forcings” strike again.

Record cold winters in the north and now the Aussie drought is over.
Aussie pollies are still in full drought mode and madly ducking for cover as a HUGE rural backlash spontaneously errupts.
The new greenie “environmental flow” restrictions have taken off like a lead balloon.

Why do we need “environmental flows” – because “Climate Change” caused the drought?
But the drought is over.
No, we said Climate change causes droughts, plural, not this last drought.
Oh, so we need “environmental flows” despite plenty of water flooding by, in case we have Climate Change and in case it causes more droughts?
Yes.
What a truly bizarre world we live in.

We don’t know exactly what causes ENSO – el nino southern oscillation – but we do know it is not Global Warming (for one thing the globe stopped warming).

BRISBANE COURIER MAIL
La Nina gaining strength as threat of more wet weather in Queensland looms
by Brian Williams
From: The Courier-Mail October 14, 2010 12:00AM
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/la-nina-gaining-strength-as-threat-of-more-wet-weather-in-queensland-looms/story-e6freoof-1225938383091

 

———————————————————————

Another Windpower Primer For Policymakers.

TROY MEDIA
Wind power? Saving the earth or just costing it?
October 12, 2010
LONDON, UK, Oct 12, 2010/ Troy Media/
Peter
http://www.troymedia.com/?p=15716

” …The wind industry plays a little game whereby it constantly fails to explain the difference between capacity and “load factor,” or actual power generated. The Thanet wind farm is a classic case in point. Much was made of the claim that the farm could produce capacity up to 300 megawatts of electricity, or “enough to power 200,000 (even 240,000) homes.” But the fact is, wind farms almost always never get anywhere close to capacity.
The recommended load factor that determines whether a wind turbine or farm is economically viable and efficient is just over 30 per cent. The energy reality, in Britain’s “experience,” is that… ”

 

————— ——————————————

Carbon Leekage.

How do you reduce your “emissions” by 20% while increasing your “carbon footprint” by 40%?

Simple.
Export your “emissions” to China and wait for a global recession.

UK GUARDIAN
Europe on track for Kyoto targets while emissions from imported goods rise
EU states’ progress in meeting protocol targets dampened by emissions from goods produced abroad which have risen by 40%
Juliette Jowit guardian.co.uk,
Wednesday 13 October 2010 17.41 BST
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/13/europe-kyoto-targets-emissions.

———————————————————————

American Physical Society Stuffs Up The Science.

AMERCAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership
http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

They could at least get the science right – being a scientific organisation.

In its response to the indignant resignation of a UCSB professor (previous post below) it gets its science so wrong that it can only be considered abuse.

“On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

  • Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
  • Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
  • The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”


“Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity” – WRONG – science demands a causal link. The carbon isotope data just proves that humans are burning a lot of fossil fuels, NOT that carbon dioxide is “increasing due to human activity”.

“Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity” – WRONG – science demands a causal link. The carbon isotope data just proves that humans are burning a lot of fossil fuels, NOT that carbon dioxide is “increasing due to human activity”. “Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber” WRONG – carbon dioxide is largely saturated in it’s global effect. It is now having an inverse logarithmic effect, otherwise the UN IPCC computer models would not be needed to amplify its effect.

“…and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming” – WRONG – carbon dioxide is a TRIVIAL GHG. Water vapour is the Earth’s GHG. The human contribution to this trivial GHG has no discernable effect on global temperature – even if it was doubled. That is why the UN IPCC relies on human CO2 permanently increasing global humidity and thus amplifying its effect, a very dubious and unprecedented assumption.

“The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years” – WRONG – the UN IPCC does not claim “hundreds of years”. They claim maybe one hundred years, get it right, and this claim is certainly not what  ” .. virtually all reputable scientists agree with.. ” – there is a considerable debate on this “dwell time”. The level of carbon dioxide in air varies by billions and billions of tonnes annually due to natural forces (deciduous trees for one). The biosphere is very active on the level of the gas. It is hungry for it. Plants eat it. They love it.

No wonder that professor resigned. The APS cannot even get its science right.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: