A hotter sun means a hotter earth

[moneyhand]

Today the sun is dragging the whole solar system into a neighboring "bubble" of plasma, which causes the sun to give off more light( and heat). Are these bubbles of plasma around the milky way ,here and there ,remnants of a galaxy that the Milky Way collided with and absorbed eons ago? Man -made increase of CO2 is not the cause of the rapid melting of our ice caps. As the inside of this "lightbulb" ( with the earth in the light bulb) gets hotter ,so will the earth and the other planets too-such as Venus which just recently displayed a "small" looped coronal mass ejection coming out of it.). We should be thinking of how to survive a hotter ,brighter sun ( not carbon credits ) and developing cold fusion devices (free energy) to stop the use of fossil fuels and biofuels. What do you think?

[multiweb]

:whistle: ... looking forward to the fireworks! (in this thread I mean) :lol:

[avandonk]

Been googling have we? Next time leave out wacky theories and complete lack of scientific knowledge and you may get nearer to reality.

If you are serious come back when you have read all the scientific information that is easily digestible from here

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Bert

[Dave2042]

... and bring some citations from scientific sources.

[jjjnettie]

Here is a video explaining that Venus anomaly that was mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oonmWJvFMyw

You can see how it does look a bit like a CME.
But you'd have to have more than one screw loose to think that Venus has miraculously changed from a rocky planet into a ball of hydrogen and helium. LOL

[Paddy]

Why does someone from the US make their first post on this forum a climate change denial bid. Smells like a propagandist to me. Stinks I should say. I'd have a bit more tolerance for this kind of post (I mean drivel) if the poster was a community member.

[Smigatron]

I don't buy the official climate change propaganda, but OP you give us 'deniers' a bad name. C'mon bro your theory sounds like something out of a cartoon.

[marki]

This thread will be long lived, still I expect a short "heated" debate before it is closed :D.

Mark

[ballaratdragons]

Don't panic everyone. The OP is an Annunakian from Planet Nibiru just trying to play with our heads!

before he eats our heads :rofl:

Sounds more like a 'General Chat' section joke :P

[MikeyB]

On the other hand it's great for those of us with Ha solar telescopes to have a second target to observe! :lol:

[joe_smith]

I only agree with this bit. :)

[ballaratdragons]

What? that you think? :rofl:

[bojan]

Cold fusion is impossible.
(this is just to raise the discussion temperature a bit - pun is of course intentional ;):P)

[OICURMT]

If I agree with you, will you promise to go away?

Come on man, we yanks have enough problems with humanities perception of us, your post doesn't help at all...

Might I suggest heavy drugs, and iron mittens so you can't type anymore? I'll buy them for you if you give an address...

Thanks
OIC!

[Keltik]

You must mean "a worse name". It's bad enough already.

[mswhin63]

Wouldn't be bad idea to get references. I may get a toe in.

Cold Fusion, even the idea of bringing this up is ridiculous. If you said Hydrogen and Deuterium fusion then maybe the thread would have got a look in, at least there is a race to get this running.

[OzRob]

It doesn't matter as the Earth will be destroyed in December anyway....:P

[clive milne]

A rudimentarily function cerebrum would probably come in handy too.

btw) As mentioned earlier in the thread, the following page is a must read for anyone interested in the science being applied to anthropogenically forced climate change:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Lots of good info for the deniers to chew on.

[clive milne]

For Example...

The Sceptics argument:
It's the sun
"Over the past few hundred years, there has been a steady increase in the numbers of sunspots, at the time when the Earth has been getting warmer. The data suggests solar activity is influencing the global climate causing the world to get warmer."

What the science says:
In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun has a strong influence on climate. A comparison of sun and climate over the past 1150 years found temperatures closely match solar activity (Usoskin 2005). However, after 1975, temperatures rose while solar activity showed little to no long-term trend. This led the study to conclude, "...during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In fact, a number of independent measurements of solar activity indicate the sun has shown a slight cooling trend since 1960, over the same period that global temperatures have been warming. Over the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. An analysis of solar trends concluded that the sun has actually contributed a slight cooling influence in recent decades (Lockwood 2008).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2009 from PMOD.

Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They found that from 1979 to 2010, solar activity had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 2).

Table 1: Trends in °C/decade of the signal components due to MEI, AOD and TSI in the regression of global temperature, for each of the five temperature records from 1979 to 2010.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Table3.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_Figure7.jpg

Figure 2: Influence of exogenous factors on global temperature for GISS (blue) and RSS data (red). (a) MEI; (b) AOD; (c) TSI.

Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005.

A number of studies have used a variety of statistical and physical approaches to determine the contribution of greenhouse gases and other effects to the observed global warming, like Lean & Rind and Foster & Rahmstorf. And like those studies, they find a relatively small solar contribution to global warming, particularly in recent decades (Figure 3).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_Attribution.png

Other studies on solar influence on climate
This conclusion is confirmed by many studies finding that while the sun contributed to warming in the early 20th Century, it has had little contribution (most likely negative) in the last few decades:

Huber and Knutti (2011): "Even for a reconstruction with high variability in total irradiance, solar forcing contributed only about 0.07°C (0.03-0.13°C) to the warming since 1950."
Erlykin 2009: "We deduce that the maximum recent increase in the mean surface temperature of the Earth which can be ascribed to solar activity is 14% of the observed global warming."
Benestad 2009: "Our analysis shows that the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980."
Lockwood 2008: "It is shown that the contribution of solar variability to the temperature trend since 1987 is small and downward; the best estimate is -1.3% and the 2? confidence level sets the uncertainty range of -0.7 to -1.9%."
Lean 2008: "According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years..."
Lockwood 2008: "The conclusions of our previous paper, that solar forcing has declined over the past 20 years while surface air temperatures have continued to rise, are shown to apply for the full range of potential time constants for the climate response to the variations in the solar forcings."
Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
Lockwood 2007: "The observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.
Solanki 2004 reconstructs 11,400 years of sunspot numbers using radiocarbon concentrations, finding "solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades".
Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970."
Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970."
Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade."

[mswhin63]

Just thought i post a program on SBS last week "Science under Attack (http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/video/2086038819/Science-Under-Attack)"

Has a scientist that agrees with sceptics about 8:30 into the program. He primary reason is about the Sun too. The program says that the primary reason comes from this bloke but not sure if that is the case. Anyway was a good program to watch.

[clive milne]

You do realise that the scientist quoted (at 8:30) is Fred Singer... the same guy who tried to sell us the idea that tobacco isn't responsible for lung cancer... it's the radioactive isotope oxygen15 apparently.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/nysa_ti_s3/TI10841120.html

and here:

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/12/fred_singers_latest_whopper.php

In a world of tens of thousands of scientists, is it unreasonable to expect that one of them will regurgitate utter rubbish or what ever you pay them to?

Here's what the rest of the scientific community has to say on the subject of climate change:


Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/poll_scientists.gif

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009) General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."
This overwhelming consensus among climate experts is confirmed by an independent study that surveys all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus. They find between 97% to 98% of climate experts support the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Moreover, they examine the number of publications by each scientist as a measure of expertise in climate science. They find the average number of publications by unconvinced scientists (eg - skeptics) is around half the number by scientists convinced by the evidence. Not only is there a vast difference in the number of convinced versus unconvinced scientists, there is also a considerable gap in expertise between the two groups.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Consensus_publications.gif

Figure 2: Distribution of the number of researchers convinced by the evidence of anthropogenic climate change and unconvinced by the evidence with a given number of total climate publications (Anderegg 2010).

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:

Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

[clive milne]

But in the mean time...
public opinion is manipulated like so:


http://www.readfearn.com/tag/gina-rinehart/

Speaking engagements for climate change shills, courtesy of Gina Rinehart.

:question:

Gosh... which side of the debate is credible I wonder...

[Dave2042]

Can't resist adding a point, since I just said something similar here:
http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=84528

(Hope that works, it's the faster than light thread.)

Briefly, my point is that science is an integrated body of knowledge, so that all the different things known in science support each other and can't be viewed in isolation. Claim one thing is wrong, and you are generally forced to accept a whole bunch of other things must be wrong too. This narrows down what can 'reasonably' be questioned - not because 'scientists say so', but because there are things we really know on the basis that so much stuff works as a result.

In climate science, we know that burning CO2 is warming the globe because the science that tells us this is the same basic science that makes aeroplanes stay up (fluid dynamics), runs refrigerators (thermodynamics), produces materials (chemistry) and makes TV and radio work (electrodynamics).

Of course, the climate is wildly complicated,which is why (a) there are specific behaviours which are not understood, even though the basics are and (b) scientists continue to research it.

If you're going to say the basic proposition of global warming is wrong, you need to explain why you think the planes stay up and the fridges still run, event though the science behind them is wrong.

I've never heard a 'sceptic' (the inverted commas are important) even try to explain this.

[clive milne]

Excellent point Dave.

One further comment I'd like to add is that I believe the media's is actively inculcating doubt in the public mind with respect to the seriousness (and reality) of AGW. The doco referenced earlier in the thread shows an example of this. ie), the statement is made that 50% of people in the US (30% in Britain) don't believe in anthropogenic global warming, the next sentence is something along the lines of that there are scientists who profess to be sceptics too. (Implicitly, you may be invited to think same percentage of scientists hold this view as well)
These are all true statements, but they do not leave you with an accurate picture.
The truth is; sure, a large portion of the public is sceptical, but that is simply because they rely on the Sydney Morning Herald etc) to mold their opinion. The main stream media is constantly peddling the fiction that climate scientists lack any real consensus on the topic. The fact is that 98% of people working in this field are ringing alarm bells. In contrast, there has not been a single peer reviewed paper published in almost 20 years that questions it.

As for the carbon tax ruining the economy....
Again, this is an example of public opinion following media suggestion.
It's going to add 2c per kWh to your electricity bill. Now why is it that WA electricity prices can go up by more than double that in one hit (with the profits going to the coal fired power supplier) and it gets 5 lines of print on page 17? Where is the economic disaster that should have come from that?
Has the media bothered to tell you that Australia could levy a carbon tax 7x greater than the one proposed, and we would still have cheaper fuel and electricity prices than Germany...

Also... does it not seem curious that solar (electricity & hot water) is viable and economic in countries like Britain and Germany, while a country such as Australia which has double the insolation rate can't make it work?

Has anybody actually read in the paper how much climate change is going to cost us in the long run? From memory, a recent British study put the cost of climate change (once it really kicks in) at 20% of GDP. In contrast, the cost of averting that disaster is estimated to be 2% of GDP. 1/10th the cost.

The insanity of inaction beggars belief. I'm stunned that this even warrants a debate.

Incidentally... for those that weren't aware of it, we have maybe 5 years to drastically decarbonise the world's economy, otherwise the positive feedback loops will pretty much take things out of our hands.

http://www.green-blog.org/2011/11/11/iea-warns-world-headed-for-irreversible-climate-change-in-five-years-greenhouse-emissions-soaring/

btw) How is summer working out for you guys in QLD and northern NSW?

[marki]

The climate debate is rubbish and I will tell you why. One side says yay, the other side says nay but the truth is the majority of homo sapiens don't give a rats RS about it. Why? 100 years you say, oh well the kids can sort it out then, nothing to see here. Don't think the powers that be aren't savy to this you only have to observe their reponse.......i.e nothing proactive just lame attempts of revenue raising. I have upset a number of people making such comments over my time here, even been accused by some of being in denial. They are wrong, I am just sick of seeing these threads argued out in the same fashion over and over again. As someone with a solid scientific background the evidence is plain to see. Stop fighting against an ill informed ignorant group of morons and put a rocket up the backsides of those that can really initiate change.....the bean counters and puppets that are supposed to enforce the will of the people. Until then all you do is argue with trolls. This is a classic example, 1 post then dissappear to watch the fight from the sidelines. Your enemy is not the troll but those that continue to do nothing. Why don't they respond? The numbers are not there to support such action, it has nothing to do with random crap posted by fools.

Mark

[clive milne]

I'm really struggling to parse what you wrote there.

Is this what you are intimating?

The scientist researching climate change (well 98% of them) are saying one thing, but the world's governments, corporations and media are contradicting them, therefore the whole discussion is invalid and we should just shrug our shoulders and talk about something else other than the imminent (partial) collapse of our biosphere?

[snas]

Been a pretty cool Summer here in SE Qld. What does that mean for GW? Pretty much nothing I reckon.

Stuart

[clive milne]

What happens when you put heat in to a body of water (such as a tropical ocean for example)?

[marki]

Nothing so deep and meaningful. I am saying get off your RS and lobby your local MP and encourage everyone you know to do the same rather then wasting time rebuking the ramblings of a troll (in this case the OP). Unless there is a substantial movement to force change then all the rest of it is pointless. Global warming threads have been a no no around here for some time as they usually just start fights.

Mark

[NereidT]

Well said. :)

If I may, I'd like to use this short para of yours, appropriately, in discussions on topics that are (largely based on) pseudo-science (or, sometimes, anti-science).

Is that OK with you?

[Dave2042]

No probs. Absolutely delighted at the thought I may assist in the furthering of scientific understanding in some small way.

[space oddity]

Reckon we need a separate forum section on the climate issue. It IS a topic that people have passionate ideas one way or the other and an outlet for discussion is appropriate.
I am passionate on the climate change issue-so passionate I am attending a climate related talk tonight with several dozen like minded people. The 'warmists" treat the issue as though it were a RELIGION - "the science is settled" is taken on FAITH. The only "evidence" out there IS the claim "the science is settled" statement from the IPCC. The IPCC itself is very over represented by the environmental movement. Several of the key points that underpin their argument have been shown to be untrue. The "hockey stick" on which the whole fry-and-die scenario is based has been thoroughly debunked, but continues to be the basis for carbon taxes and other crazy measures. The Himalayan glaciers have not been retreating . The earth has not warmed since 1998. Solar activity(the main driver of climate change) does not feature much if at all in the climate models. Other important variables are missing altogether!
These guys are supposed to be the pinnacle of science, yet their key points are BUNK. Could there be a hidden agenda operating behind the IPCC ? I will post my view on this in a later post- too disturbing for now.

[clive milne]

^^^ Could you point me in the direction of a single peer reviewed scientific paper published in the last 20 years that lends any substance to just one of the suppositions you have stated as fact.

N.B. (David Icke & Greg Sheridan don't count)

[marki]

Here we go again :(

[clive milne]

Actually.. the side of the debate denying the veracity of the science hasn't gone there at all (as in, hasn't gone to the trouble of supplying any hard data that lends some credibility to the rhetoric they subscribe to)

[andyc]

I almost promised I would not coment on this, but... Too many climate myths there to go on, space oddity (I count at least six), so why not take yourself over to www.skepticalscience.com (http://www.skepticalscience.com), a great Aussie site, and perhaps the best resource in the world to find out the actual scientific evidence that relates to your claims.

The hockey stick ... has been thoroughly verified by science (see for example NAS, 2006), and appears in a range of records, not just tree rings, e.g.:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

Notwithstanding that, the hockey stick does not underpin climate science, it's the physics of the atmosphere that does that, key observations being that less energy is escaping to space at wavelengths specific to greenhouse gases (e.g. Harries 2001), and more radiation is returning to Earth at those same specific wavelengths (e.g. Philipona 2004), a property of CO2 understood since Tyndall and a consequence predicted all the way since Arrhenius (he forecast back around the start of the 20th Century a 2-5C warming per doubling of atmospheric CO2).

And it's not just the physics of the atmosphere that leads us to the inescapable conclusions, as part of a huge consilience of consistent evidence ranging from palaeoclimate, physics, observations and models, there are particular fingerprints that lead us there in the pattern of warming:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

As astronomers, we should all be extremely aware of the capability for certain elements and molecules to emit and absorb radiation at particular wavelengths. It's what makes most of astrophysics and our understanding of the Universe possible! It's why our UHC and OIII filters work so well on nebulae. Unfortunately for us, we are vastly increasing the concentration of one of the key scatterers of longwave radiation in our atmosphere. To pretend that either it is not happening or it won't be a major change means, like the great quote below by Dave2042, you have to pretend a vast amount of other, related, science does not work either.

[clive milne]

Hey Andy,

If you like John Cook's work, he does the odd cameo on 'the climate show'

http://www.theclimateshow.com/

Click on any of the youtube feeds if you have an hour to kill.

best,
~c

[clive milne]

If you would like an opportunity to test your ideas, you will not want to miss the following opportunity:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-mythbusting-Lane-Cove-Sydney-Feb-28.html

John Cook will be giving a presentation Climate Change: Busting the Myths at Lane Cove, Sydney on Feb 28, organised by Sustain Me Consulting. The evening will feature climate mythbusting followed by examples of local climate action. The mythbusting will take an interesting, interactive approach. The audience will break into groups and select 3 climate myths they'd most like to hear about. He'll then attempt to debunk the myths. Next, the audience will rate his effort, deciding whether the myths have been busted or not. Given that he has no idea what myths will get thrown at him, the evening could be an engaging, illuminating experience for all... or it could be a train wreck. Either way, bring popcorn! You can register for the event here (there are around 20 spots still available).

http://sustainme.wufoo.eu/forms/climate-change-q-and-a/

[avandonk]

Check out this expose

http://www.skepticalscience.com/denialgate-heartland.html


Bert

[clive milne]

I'm not surprised in the slightest.

I suppose Gina Reinhardt deserves credit for having the guts to not hide her willingness to fund climate shills.

[Dave2042]

...and for building her business out of nothing but her own hard work and intelligence with never a helping hand from anyone.

[clive milne]

Inheriting her ex-husband's vast fortune, business empire and mineral rights might have helped her a bit too.

[Deeno]

Chicken feed;)

[Dave2042]

Sarcasm on my part - should have been clearer, maybe.

[clive milne]

Sorry Dave, I should have picked the irony (especially coming from you).
You just never know on this forum.

best
~c

[clive milne]

Was this a slide from an Exon or Shell power point presentation?

[clive milne]

:confused:

.... Still waiting for a single reference to a credible scientist or peer reviewed scientific paper that invalidates anthropogenic global warming...


come on, just one

surely there should have been something published in the last 20 years... ?
Could it be that there isn't anything to be found?
Say it aint so!

[Scopie]

1. Earth has finite resources, if at all possible, reducing or eliminating consumption of the non-renewable ones is a good thing eh? Saving water, power, etc. saves you money- so why not? It's the hidden stuff that gets us as westerners. We think of what comes out of the power socket but the cost of a beef steak or even an orange to the environment is where it really hurts. How much power did it take to build your TV, then how much power did it take to build the machinery that built your TV. Then how much power did it take to research the technology that went into your TV and the equipment that built it. Every year we use 3% more energy on average. Just like compound interest you'd be astonished at how quickly 3% a year becomes dire.
2. Carbon trading is an idiotic way of appearing to do something while actually wasting stupid amounts of money (A trillion dollars in the case of Australia or a year of our GDP) doing nothing at all. Unfortunately, actually building and maintaining something that works has been too hard for any government in Australia since the 1950s. Our political system is incapable of conceiving and executing a long term plan. I can buy certified carbon credits in Australia NOW for $9 per ton- they come from China and India. Isn't that ironic? So much for $23 per ton. Furthermore, increasing business costs in Australia, which has excellent environmental and emissions controls will drive more business to China, whose energy intensity is significantly worse than ours as are their pollution laws. Burning fuel to ship raw materials there and finished products back here further exacerbates this problem.
4. Did you know that there are natural gas fields offshore vietnam and china. They intersect very similar high CO2 gas reservoirs. The Vietnamese re-inject the CO2 into depleted reservoirs. The Chinese vent their CO2 straight into the atmosphere. Millions of cubic feet of it per day just from that one tiny operation. You want to do something meaningful about carbon emissions? Jolly good luck!
5. I know now why we have anti-globalisation people going insane. I may not agree with them totally but I can understand their point. Westerners are still living on a diet of about 4 times what the Earth can sustain and globalisation hides this from us. In the first three decades of this century, global population will increase by 50%. We just made our fastest billion people in history and are on track to make the next two in 9 years each. Even if they are all the poorest of subsistance farmers we are still in deep trouble. Increasing global population 50% AND holding emissions to 2000 levels or 1990 levels? Please give me some of what you are smoking.

The fact so far as I'm concerned is that all of these things, should you think they are a problem, stem from the number of humans on the planet. Solve the population problem and just about everything else either goes away or at least becomes manageable. Now, where I'm from you don't solve a problem (AGW if that's your bag baby) by addressing one of the symptoms (carbon emissions). That's like taking an asprin if you have leprosy- it makes you feel better temporarily but is actually achieving nothing at all with respect to the disease. All it does is cost you an asprin.

If you can suggest a reasonable and achievable solution to carbon emissions I'd love to see it. If you think we only have 5 years left to implement that solution (as one of the earlier posters commented) you better start preparing your grandkids for the worst now.

[clive milne]

Already done....a detailed, costed blueprint for an afordable transition to a completely decarbonised Australian economy by 2020, Here:

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020



Opinions are not nearly as important as the harsh reality of action and consequence.
Nature is absolutely non-negotiable on this. The terms it impose, simply stated are;
'Pull your (collective) heads in, or learn to live with the consequences' - period -

Now, make your choice.

[Scopie]

Offsetting Australian carbon emissions by 2020 IF the blueprint could achieve it (which I sincerely doubt) would have a negligible effect on total carbon emissions given that Australia generates .25% of those emissions. Energy consumption rising at 3% a year, global population 50% higher in 20 years... tick tock.

Try these for size:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/10-billion-plus-why-world-population.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_water

In particular, a quote from the energy consumption article:

More than half of the energy has been consumed in the last two decades since the industrial revolution, despite advances in efficiency and sustainability.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_note-Western_Oregon_University-6) According to IEA world statistics in four years (2004–2008) the world population increased 5%, annual CO2 emissions increased 10% and gross energy production increased 10%.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_note-7)

Limiting global temperature rise at 2 degrees Celsius, considered as a high risk level by Stockholm Environmental Institute, demands 75% decline in carbon emissions in the industrial [notice it doesn't say western] countries by 2050, if the population is 10 mrd in 2050.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_note-12) 75% in 40 years is about 2% decrease every year. - and really... good luck with that because...

The single most coal using country is China. It s share of the world coal production was 28 % in 2000 and 48 % in 2009. Coal use in the world increased 48 % from 2000 to 2009. In practice majority of this growth occurred in China and the rest in other Asia.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_note-energisve2010Coal-25)


I could include one about the collapse of fish stocks by 2050 ... You're just up the road Clive. We should chat!

[Dave2042]

Just one comment. Thank god for someone finally making the point that whether global warming occurs, and what to do about it, are two separate issues. If you think carbon taxes are a bad idea, fine, (I'm dubious myself), but that has nothing to do with the science. If you want to argue the science, argue the science. If you want to argue the economics, argue the economics. Vocal people on both sides are prone to getting this wrong in my opinion. One tries to claim that the economics doesn't work and that this somehow invalidates the science too. The other claims the science is solid and then presents their preferred economic solution as a fait accompli.

No wonder these threads rarely make any sense.

[clive milne]

Australia could decarbonise its economy if the will to do it was there. Unfortunately the general public are labouring under the misconception that their lifestyle(s) are going to be less negatively impacted by pursuing a course of inaction. This is a fiction that has to be addressed before anything meaningful is done.

Also, our low percentage of global GHG emissions should not be used as an excuse to prevent us from decarbonising our economy. Perhaps we should look at it as an opportunity to lead by example. In that context, we could leverage far greater change (in others) than we actually effect by ourselves. The natural resources we have at our disposal puts us in an enviable position. If we lead the pack and put the infrastructure in place before the looming energy crisis kicks in properly, we could be positioned as the 'Saudi Arabia' of renewable energy. The idea that we can maintain our lifestyles without effecting fundamental changes in our energy currency is pure fantasy. The only question that remains to be resolved is whether we make the transition before we do irreparable damage to the real operating system of the planet, our biosphere, or not.




Yep, there are two elements that we need to face, unrestrained population growth will precipitate an unmitigated disaster irrespective of what we do. There will be no better time to take action than now.




I'd be surprised if they last that long.




Sure, any time mate... :)

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money. ~Cree Proverb

[TrevorW]

Whoa from such a ridiculous post I amazed it has elicited 50 odd responses

[clive milne]

I personally think it is flawed, but for what it is worth here is an explanation of the economic logic underpinning the carbon tax:
___________________________________ ___________

The price elasticity of household electricity demand is quite low, around -0.1, meaning that a 20% increase in price leads to a 2% reduction in demand. The addition of a carbon price into the cost of electricity is unlikely to have much impact on consumption unless carbon prices were to be very high. You might be wondering why are we doing this?

The point of a carbon price is not to lift energy prices so high that we turn down our consumption. The objective of a carbon price is to restructure the economy to lower emissions. Changes in household consumption of energy intensive goods may be a secondary and perhaps intended outcome but it is not the objective. It represents one source of potential abatement, but it would come at a relatively high abatement cost.

The emission reductions come from much lower abatement cost sources. The well-known McKinsey Curve showed some of these abatement activities, stacked in order of cost. When a carbon price is implemented, the abatement becomes viable. The “tax” we would be paying is the pass-through of some of these costs into the goods and services that we buy.

109328


That being said, it’s important to preserve the price signals on emission intensive goods such as energy. That’s why the compensation package for households is not embedded as a subsidy in electricity prices; that would remove any incentive to reduce demand. Rather, it’s designed as a lump sum or income adjustment. So the incentive to reduce consumption (eg by installing solar panels, replacing end-of-life appliances with new energy efficient ones, improving insulation etc) is preserved.

This is not economic rocket science; when the US was designing their ETS, household assistance was also delivered as a fixed income benefit (as part of the fixed charges in utility bills) rather than impacting on the variable cost of energy … a different way of doing it but on the same economic logic.

___________________________________ _

It might be a nice idea in principle, but I personally think it will be ineffective at reducing GHG emissions for the simple reason that people seldom respond to this sort of approach.
It is also dangerous in as much as it implies that if we return to 1990 level emissions, the job is done.

[clive milne]

The original post was such a ridiculous treatment of an important topic that it is probably not surprising it has elicited 50 odd responses.

[TrevorW]

Lets not forget that modern living, cost cutting to increase profits and media driven consumerism has been the impetus for higher electrical consumption.

I mean really a new Apple Ipad every year and this is only I example (Yes I'm against new models coming out every year) where technology is being fed to the public in dribs and drabs to encourage tech heads etc to buy the newest latest device.

Electrical devices with standby modes (instead of rechargeable battery backup) who thought up the standby mode

Inefficient house designs, whatever happened to verandahs, high ceilings and open eaves that encouraged flow through ventilation, I'm surprised the double glazing isn't mandatory in house designs as well as building materials that provide up to 4 times more thermal insulation than brick.

Increased need for air conditioning, houses with mutilple TV's, computers etc

Yet Govt seem intent on screwing the man in the street by increasing electricity prices which do little to reduce consumption as this is lifestyle driven then remove incentives for people who go solar

Solar energy incentives should be at least 1 for 1 rebate on excess energy created but these excessive subsidies have only driven up electricity prices, and in some states tariffs have been axed.

Yet drive through any major city at night and see how much energy is being wasted lighting empty buildings and streets, you really must wonder if the Govt actually knows what they are doing if their intent is really to reduce our carbon footprint.

[clive milne]

A sobering thought; The Earth's climate responds to a number of factors, Atmospheric CO2 being just one of them. There is however a certain amount of inertia in the process, so we are not seeing anywhere near the full impact of our actions, yet. So far the Earth's global average temperature has risen by 0.75 degrees in the last 100 years. A conservative estimate of the consequence of our actions to date, suggests that we will experience a rise of 2 degrees once the system reaches equilibrium over the next couple of decades. And this assumes that we radically decarbonise our economies in the mean time.

To lend some perspective on what that means to us, consider this quote from the CSIRO:

During the last major ice age, the global average temperature was only 3-5 ºC cooler than today and sea levels were more than 120 m (400 feet) lower than present.
About 125 000 years ago our ancestors lived through an inter-glacial period in which the polar regions were 3-5 ºC warmer than today, and sea levels were about 4-6 metres higher than in the 20th century.
This illustrates that even a few degrees change in global temperatures can create a vastly different environment.

[tlgerdes]

I have to have A/C, because it is too dangerous to leave the windows open at night to let air in.

We left our side gate open once, wont do that again :mad2:

[clive milne]

Hey Trevor,
Yep, some good ideas there, but there is a fair bit more that could be said on the subject. I'll have a nibble on a few.



Just to put some numbers on this, standby power draw is typically somewhere between 4 & 40 watts depending on the device. It is not uncommon to see 100 watts total in an average home. This will cost you around $220 a year (@ 25c kWh) If you leave you PC on 24/7 add the same amount again. The total GHGe for this scenario is close to 2 tonnes of CO2 per year.



Double glazing is a curious one, it certainly has its place, but if you do every window in your house the payback period (in Australia) is measured in decades. The best return on your money with respect to windows is to use double glazing on only the south side of the building, reflective film on the windows facing east and west and just standard panes on the north side with some way of shading them during summer. That gives the best balance of insulation/heat rejection whilst still giving you free heat energy from the sun over winter. Of course this does not apply to the tropics.




Yeah, you would think that that would be a no-brainer. Bricks are pretty much thermally transparent. The only reason that they provide a remotely tolerable living environment is that they have a large thermal mass (read thermal inertia) There are much better building materials available.



Well yeah, although there are some builders who are switched on to efficient housing design, the majority of them do not have the faintest clue. The star rating system applied to domestic homes these days is an imperfect solution. There is no accounting for stupidity (or ignorance) and most of them pay only lip service to the building codes which were initiated to ensure sound design practice. Architects, even in the high priced commercial sector are often little better in practice.



In a climate as mild as ours, there really shouldn't be that great a need for air-conditioning or heating. If you see a large seasonal swing in your utility bills, odds on that there is thermal management issues with the building design or its operation.



Best solution to a rigged game is to either stop playing it or if you can't do that, limit your exposure to it. Solar is still a good idea, but there are much better ones.




You're preaching to the choir here.



Self preservation is their only priority. The trick to getting some meaningful action from a politician is to imbue them with sense that their survival depends on serving your best interests.

[Scopie]

I agree completely. My beef is that the government plan achieves little, is poorly conceived and its implementation will be even worse. A trillion dollars could do a far better job than either side of politics is prepared to commit to.



Agree with most of that. Unfortunately renewable energy is largely not as exportable as fossil fuels. So the notion of Australia exporting it will need work. We're already exacerbating the food issue by wasting good arable land on biofuels.



And this is the essence of my concern. Spending vast amounts of resources addressing a single symptom of overpopulation will mean those resources are not available to counter cause. Furthermore it will mean that all the nations of the world willing to do something are heading up the wrong path. Leading by example is no good if you are setting the wrong example. Unfortunately, addressing population is even more sensitive than getting people to change their lifestyles and comes with an even bigger conundrum: The best way to reduce burgeoning population is to increase affluence. Greater affluence results in greater consumption! Will the reduction in population be enough to offset that higher consumption?

If you ask me the best thing you could do at this point in time is kick the Catholic church until it gives up its anti-condom stance. A travesty which condemns millions to poverty and disease.

[Scopie]

Not only that but it does nothing at all to address the explosion of coal consumption. Look at how green we are! No pollution in Australia, wonderful power generation... and yet our coal exports to other countries have grown by vast amounts in the last decade alone and our LNG exports are set to do the same. If we're exporting it then someone is burning it and they're NOT doing it cleanly either.

[Scopie]

Sorry to pick on you mate, but you should think outside the box. Security screens are a lot cheaper to run than AC.

[Scopie]

Awesome!!! :prey2:

Bah I hope this smoke haze buggers off. I just bought a 16 inch dob and I'm hanging for first light.

[TrevorW]

Unfortunately due to medical reasons air-conditoning is a necessity in our household :)

Most of the coal and gas we produce goes to China and they are very carbon conscious ;)

If it wasn't sold by us someone else would do it :shrug:

[Scopie]

Hey Trevor, I don't agree with this statement. I know for a fact that the Chinese vent vast quantities of CO2 directly from gas fields - so that's a massive source of carbon emission before they generate a single erg of power from the methane itself. Those kinds of activities aren't even measured by the two references below demonstrating that China emits more CO2 than the next two largest emitters combined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide _emissions
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-energy-bp-emissions-idUSTRE75728120110608

Or you could try this one:

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf

In my opinion China doesn't give a rats proverbial about CO2 or any other form of pollution. But pointing our fingers at them and saying "naughty, naughty" is the tail wagging the dog- they're only doing it because the western world demands those cheap ipads and other disposable goodies.

Fair enough re: medical reasons for running AC! Besides, I have AC too, though it is evaporative.

[luvmybourbon]

my definition of an "expert" X is an unknown factor and a "pert" is a drip under pressure.

[KenGee]

per head China produces a lot less CO2 then us, that's the point.

[clive milne]

Do you have a reference for this Brad?
Separating CO2 from methane is not a trivial undertaking so I'd be surprised if this is done at the well head.

[TrevorW]

Brad didn't you pick up on the the sarcasm by the smiley at the end of the sentence

[Scopie]

Simply saying: oh, China is ok because they produce less CO2 per head is completely irrelevant when they produce 50% more than any other country in the world. CO2 doesn't respect national boundaries. What is relevant is that theoretically it should be easier for the greater polluters per capita to reduce their emissions, however, having been to China I'd say there is far more room for improvemet there than here.

[Scopie]

No sir I did not! Apologies :)

[Scopie]

No its done from the gas gathering facility not the wellhead. Because the facility is offshore its even less economically appealling to recompress the CO2 and take it off- so they just vent it. It's actually a common practise globally, however, in many western nations they've put a stop to it since people started worrying about carbon. The only reference I have for it is I work with people who have been there. Here's an example from the Netherlands:

http://www.co2-cato.org/cato-2/locations/regions/western-netherlands/gdf-k12-b-offshore-co2-injection-project

So the field has been producing from 1987 to 2004 and venting at least 13,000t of CO2 per year until they started injecting it (remember they say PARTLY, not mostly, predominantly or some other positive word- so how much is still vented?). As you know hydrocarbon fields produce at higher rates initially and decline naturally over time unles they are facilities constrained so initial CO2 venting may have been much higher.

Another chinese project that vents stripped CO2 to the atmosphere can be found here:
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-138399-PA

By the way, Dong Fang produces 24x10^8 m^3 of methane gas a year from a field that is over 19% CO2. All that CO2 is vented to the atmosphere- they are only just discussing the possibility of using some of it for other industrial processes. That's 5.2 million tons a year from a single project. If it were a country it would be 115th on the list for CO2 production circa 2008.

A 2009 discussion about how carbon capture and storage needs a jump-start in china can be found here:

http://www.nrdc.org/international/chinaccs/files/fchinaccs.pdf

So much for the other 92%. Basically they are saying it will cost them $20 per tonne to sequester and they don't want to pay it and raise the price of energy so they need to find a way to make money off it before they will stop venting it. tick tock.

[marki]

Not difficult at all, just take a sample do little gas chromatography with the correct column will allow seperation though there are other ways of detecting CO2 concentration and removing it on a large scale which the gas chromatagraph cannot do.

http://www.newpointgas.com/naturalgas_carbondioxide.php


On the Burrup gas coming in from the Rankin platforms is closely monitored.


Mark

[clive milne]

Funny you should mention it... I worked as an analyser technician for quite a few years. The chromat's and (NDIR) CO2 analysers on the Burrup are amongst those I commissioned and calibrated during Woodside's stage 2 expansion back in 1988 through 1989.

Small world hey?

[marki]

Sure is, I was there from Nov 84 through Oct 88 but on the construction side of things. Didn't finish my Chem degree until a couple of years later. We built the second stage of the project so you must have been there at the end to finish up.

Mark

[clive milne]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDpGdC3HNas