What Carbon

[amaroo]

If simple questions distract or confuse you then don't be ashamed to ask for help. The drron is in (I believe).

You're welcome to overdose on the tortured stats that turn actual recorded temperature into a manufactured desired outcome. Overdosing on the Kool-Aid .... much.

 

[Pushka]

It's a little difficult to rebut a point before it's made.

You know, the manner in which you exaggerate to prove your opinion really says more to me than anything else.

If you cannot see the farce that flying hundreds of people around the world to debate man-made climate change, to an environmentally challenging city and then having to use major environmental resources to make that place comfortable for those people, well, I'm done.

 

[Moody]

...If you cannot see the farce that flying hundreds of people around the world to debate man-made climate change, to an environmentally challenging city and then having to use major environmental resources to make that place comfortable for those people, well, I'm done.

I will hold you to that, Pushka.

 

[RAM]

So many do - though in this case there may be some justification.

I admit to not reading past the point where I realised they were applying a pure statistical method to climate change. Whilst you can say the odds of a coin-toss coming up heads 10 times in a row is about 1000/1 (i.e. 99.9% improbable), the climate is a tad more complex. So though we can prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and can prove that human activity is generating CO2, and prove that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing rapidly, and prove that since the industrial revolution the average global temparature has been rising ...... you can't absolutely prove that this means AGW must be true. That is why the IPCC says that the probability lies between 95-100%. I think that is in "beyond reasonable doubt" territory, yet some on this forum insist the polluters are "not guilty". I don't understand that.

Unfortunately, the 99% probability level has been DISPROVED.

Also at the 95% probability level.

Both of these were in the initial papers cited by IPCC #4.

The WSJ has a good story on it. Note in response to the frequent claims about China being a GW champion - they are voting with their lack of feet. See below.
[h=3]Whatever Happened to Global Warming?[/h]
Wall Street Journal ‎- 1 day ago

[h=1]Whatever Happened to Global Warming?[/h] [h=2]Now come climate scientists' implausible explanations for why the 'hiatus' has passed the 15-year mark.[/h]
Sept. 4, 2014 7:20 p.m. ET
On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won't attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that's left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).
Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.
First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or "hiatus"), but that it doesn't after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

...

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more."
Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That's according to a new statistical calculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.
It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.



The warming in the last three decades of the 20th century, to quote the news release that accompanied their paper, "was roughly half due to global warming and half to the natural Atlantic Ocean cycle." In other words, even the modest warming in the 1980s and 1990s—which never achieved the 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade necessary to satisfy the feedback-enhanced models that predict about three degrees of warming by the end of the century—had been exaggerated by natural causes. The man-made warming of the past 20 years has been so feeble that a shifting current in one ocean was enough to wipe it out altogether.
Putting the icing on the cake of good news, Xianyao Chen and Ka-Kit Tung think the Atlantic Ocean may continue to prevent any warming for the next two decades. So in their quest to explain the pause, scientists have made the future sound even less alarming than before.

 

[RAM]

I am finally convinced - Global warming is explained. So Sorry....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Z0S9yRTyw

It really can have SERIOUS consequences I never thought about!

 

[RAM]

The Great Global Warming Swindle

With piece by Professor John Christy - one of the lead authors of IPCC #4 (whose work was 'edited' at request of some NGOs post final draft)

Originally broadcasted March 8, 2007 on British Channel 4 (especially from 3minutes to 5minutes 30)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52Mx0_8YEtg

 

[Durin's Bane]

Then you will be happy that Clive Palmer and The Adults are now running the show and Australia has its head back in the sand. One predicted consequence of AGW is that the drought/flood cycles in Australia will be shorter and more severe. Capital city water supply is important, but not as critical as agricultural.

[BTW - the fact that this piece was in the opinion pages of the Australian actually tells you all you need to know]

The Opinion pages provide references to the mediums where Tim Flannery made these forecasts. It is irrelevant that they're in the opinion pages, these dud predictions were made by someone who is paid by the Australian Tax Payer to provide professional expertise. He's the Wayne Swan of Climate Science.

The Australian is the best major newspaper we have, with contributors from left, centre, and right sides of politics. Name one better newspaper in Australia. I hope you don't say SMH or the Age, as I can get you another dozen dud predictions from their 'journalists' about climate change.

 

[amaroo]

He's the Wayne Swan of Climate Science.

Classic - I'll use that one

 

[cove]

With several volcanoes going off at the moment it will be interesting to see if it has any effect.

 

[Moody]

Global warming has stopped? That's news to me. I thought that the last decade was warmer than the previous one, which was warmer than the one before that, which was warmer than the one before that .....

I also though that the minimum Arctic ice volumes have continued to decline, which makes sense as the global water temperature has continued to rise.

There has been a slowdown in the global warming rate .... but to point to natural peaks and troughs and say it has stopped is about as justifiable as the 99.999% AGW claim.

 

[RAM]

. He's the Wayne Swan of Climate Science.

Gee that's a bit harsh!

Wayne Swan comes up like Mother Theresa compared with Toothless Tim.

Did you hear the rumour Tim is first in the queue to buy the soon-to-be-released land BEHIND the Warragamba Dam!

Trouble is there's some 'phantom' water stopping the surveyors.

 

[RAM]

Global warming has stopped? That's news to me. I thought that the last decade was warmer than the previous one, which was warmer than the one before that, which was warmer than the one before that .....

I also though that the minimum Arctic ice volumes have continued to decline, which makes sense as the global water temperature has continued to rise.

There has been a slowdown in the global warming rate .... but to point to natural peaks and troughs and say it has stopped is about as justifiable as the 99.999% AGW claim.

Well not according to the latest IPCC report "...The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades."

Perhaps a 2011 research paper says it best - covering a questionaire completed by the IPCC members themselves. Here is the link to it as I am sure anyone with intellect and an open mind would want to see what the panel members themselves think of the IPCC panel members and final reporting process.

678-page PDF (A good bedtime read)

Or an article about it on the Foundation web site from the man who started the global publicity juggernaut himself;

IPCC Nobel Laureates Lack Scientific Credibility | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

IPCC insiders say many of those who shared in the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize have weak scientific credentials. They were chosen because they are of the right gender or come from the right country. {Note it was the Peace prize NOT Physics nor Chemistry nor Economic Sciences}

After all if people are prepared to accept 73 lines out of a 400+ page IPCC report as gospel then surely they would believe what those same authors say about the process and people involved in creating it? Otherwise would that not be hypocrisy?

So for the answer straight from the "horse's mouth" (they can be trusted can they not?):

"Since I have been selected for several IPCC reports, I have no personal prejudice (or grouse) on the process. However, regarding the selection of Lead Authors, I am more worried since the distortions, opaqueness and arbitrariness that is lately creeping into the process seems alarming. It seems that knowledge and scientific contributions are increasingly at discount in selection of authors compared to the personal connections, affiliations and political accommodations. (p. 78)"

or

"There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter in AR4 we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent. (p. 138)"

or

"…lead authors, especially from developing countries, are approached to participate (or be nominated) and often have their “arms twisted” to participate. They then battle to meet the work load…Their names are included in the list of authors and hence add to the credibility of the output – but the input has been limited. Secondly I have experienced the addition of lead authors or [contributing] authors during the process who often seem to come with a political mandate – generally from developed countries and as such they can be very disruptive – let alone the dubious nature of the science they contribute! (p. 277)"

or

"The repetitive process of an entire review at five year intervals has become burdensome to the key scientists, many of whom would prefer to remain doing science rather than sitting in committees. One result is that eventually the B-team or C-team are nominated to serve, while the A-team stays at home to do the work. (p. 332)"

Remember these are responses from the people inside the IPCC process. Look at the full IPCC reports and google some of the 'authors' and look at their qualifications or lack thereof. The number who have never been anything but a bureaucrat or even a lawyer (via NGOs) is astounding.

Always good to research the researchers.

 

[RAM]

Global warming has stopped? That's news to me. I thought that the last decade was warmer than the previous one, which was warmer than the one before that, which was warmer than the one before that .....

I also though that the minimum Arctic ice volumes have continued to decline, which makes sense as the global water temperature has continued to rise.

There has been a slowdown in the global warming rate .... but to point to natural peaks and troughs and say it has stopped is about as justifiable as the 99.999% AGW claim.

It comes down to those troublesome statistics. When the model does not work in the future ie; after you have published it and received your 5 year research funding then you need some way to ensure your funding continues.

Please read the links if you wish to learn about what was claimed would happen by some of the leading lights of AGW in their taxpayer funded papers, then look at the results post publication and they bear ZERO resemblance to the predictions.

An example, the normal way to create a model is either to assume either 'normality' or 'non-parametric nature' of the underlying data. Then you run untold tests with varying start/finish dates (a fishing expedition) to find the one equation that provides the line of best fit. So when it fails, start using moving averages - that at least gets you a few more years funding. Extending the same graphs used since 2000 for AGW using the same data sources and methodology shows a declining trend - averaging this decline yields a "hiatus". Some of the more 'press' hungry ones went so far as to state that ANY hiatus would disprove AGW and so WILL NOT EVER HAPPEN.

No they bear no relation to Tim Flannery!

Interlude - get those eyes open - A Finance Professor at UNSW in an attempt to stop 3rd yr students, intending to do honours, wasting his time had run a pure fishing expedition using his high school son to do the data entry one Xmas holidays. Prof wanted to create a model that predicted Australian Share market falls of 12% or more.

He'd show a graph of the model and it's prediction for the next 6 months. Then he'd ask we eager billionaires of the future what variables did we think were in the model. He made a big song and dance about it being proprietary, secret etc but promised he'd reveal if someone guessed any of the variables correctly.

Strangely enough - nobody did.

Why 12%, well that was the figure that gave the best results he explained after the 100+ students dismal failure, then he theatrically said as we were likely to be destitute in real life given such a poor showing he'd take pity on us.

The data used in the equation to create this model included:

South's win/loss/draw record 'stretched' over a 12 month period = totally fake statistics
The number of students who handed in the first assignment for a 2nd yr subject (he took) more than 2 days before the due date - again stretched to create a full year's data
Whether or not someone else parked in his reserved car space each day (value =0 or 1)
coughnal's win/loss/draw record 'stretched' over a 12 month period = totally fake statistics

plus another 7 or 8 explanatory variables equally as spurious.

How do I know he told the truth? I stood up and asked to verify what he had just revealed.

His response - that's the first sensible thing I've heard in weeks. He duly gave me access to the model, the data and the SMH results pages (cut out pile) to verify the sports figures, his student records (with the name column cut out) for the date assignment handed in etc.

His point - if one of you intending to do honours comes to your interview me with anything remotely resembling a fishing expedition then be warned.

 

[RAM]

Now this is irrefutable proof of man-made Warming!

‘Alarming’ Rate Of Bird Deaths As New Solar Plants Scorch Animals In Mid-Air

• Date: 18/08/14 Associated Press

Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair

Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one “streamer” every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator’s application to build a still-bigger version.
The investigators want the halt until the full extent of the deaths can be assessed. Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group.

The deaths are “alarming. It’s hard to say whether that’s the location or the technology,” said Garry George, renewable-energy director for the California chapter of the Audubon Society. “There needs to be some caution.”
The bird kills mark the latest instance in which the quest for clean energy sometimes has inadvertent environmental harm. Solar farms have been criticized for their impacts on desert tortoises, and wind farms have killed birds, including numerous raptors.

“We take this issue very seriously,” said Jeff Holland, a spokesman for NRG Solar of Carlsbad, California, the second of the three companies behind the plant. The third, Google, deferred comment to its partners.
The $2.2 billion plant, which launched in February, is at Ivanpah Dry Lake near the California-Nevada border. The operator says it is the world’s biggest plant to employ so-called power towers.

More than 300,000 mirrors, each the size of a garage door, reflect solar rays onto three boiler towers each looming up to 40 stories high. The water inside is heated to produce steam, which turns turbines that generate enough electricity for 140,000 homes.
Sun rays sent up by the field of mirrors are bright enough to dazzle pilots flying in and out of Las Vegas and Los Angeles. {and directly applicable to AFFers!}
Federal wildlife officials said Ivanpah might act as a “mega-trap” for wildlife, with the bright light of the plant attracting insects, which in turn attract insect-eating birds that fly to their death in the intensely focused light rays.

 

[amaroo]

Not just the birds that are feeling the impact of solar panels http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-on-his-property/story-fnihsrf2-1226680913995

Wouldn't it be great to live next to this idiot!

 

[RAM]

Not just the birds that are feeling the impact of solar panels No Cookies | The Courier-Mail

Wouldn't it be great to live next to this idiot!


View attachment 34811View attachment 34810

Now I don't suppose the house with the solar farm on wooden supports was rorting the Feed-in-tariffs like the NSW 60c/kwh one that is costing every other dwelling in the state over $240?

I hope they don't get termites!

 

[juddles]

.....Wouldn't it be great to live next to this idiot!..

Cool, another argument arises! What on earth has he done wrong? The other roofs have panels, what exactly is the precious ¨view¨ that neighbours have lost?

 

[amaroo]

Cool, another argument arises! What on earth has he done wrong? The other roofs have panels, what exactly is the precious ¨view¨ that neighbours have lost?

We're all different and I respect your view (pardon the pun)

IMO planning laws aren't doing their job if this tosser can impact multiply neighbours with this OTT eyesore and glare producing contraption.

 

[RAM]

Cool, another argument arises! What on earth has he done wrong? The other roofs have panels, what exactly is the precious ¨view¨ that neighbours have lost?

Well it appears to be built right to the boundary - that creates a fire hazard as well as creates shadows over the neighbours open space (2 normal building no-no's).
It is likely to have breached the minimum open space requirement (Floorspace or envelope) for the property.
If it is creating glare then that is another issue normally covered by council regulations - use of non-reflective or crazed glass.
It is not in keeping with the street scape.

just the first 60 seconds of normal regulations/requirements it would have breached if not solar panels.

 

[amaroo]

Now I don't suppose the house with the solar farm on wooden supports was rorting the Feed-in-tariffs like the NSW 60c/kwh one that is costing every other dwelling in the state over $240?

Yeah, It's a bit like that "terminal" Pink Batts initiative ... seemed like a good idea at the time ... kinda thing