Hottest Ever!

Sorry folks, I’m still going on my next Libertarian post, but you can continue the AGW debate below.

I read an interesting article here on Lord Monckton’s SPPI blog today, poking fun at the claims that 2010 is “set to become the hottest year ever”. Worth a read.

This entry was posted in AGW. Bookmark the permalink.

223 Responses to Hottest Ever!

  1. Locusts says:

    Memory Vault,

    A reply to your ozone post, though not from me:

    The Dobson unit is a measure of ozone in a column, but it has nothing to do with imagining it to be compressed at sea level. Instead, it’s a measure of the total amount of ozone. Yes, the units are in dekamicrons (how’s that for a bastardized unit?), but 10 µm at IUPAC standard temperature and pressure is just a different way to express the number of molecules.

    UV doesn’t exactly create ozone. In fact, UV photons split ozone molecules into oxygen gas and free oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms react with oxygen gas to reform ozone, or with each other or with ozone to form one or two molecules of oxygen gas, respectively.

    Ozone is formed in areas with more sunlight, but those “slipstream currents” of moving air relocate parts of the atmosphere and can take a while to do so. generally, air moves from the equator to the poles, and does so slowly.

    The biggest problem with the argument posted is that its structure posits that the hole in the ozone is false, argues that Dobson demonstrated atmospheric currents and showed that the Antarctic ozone is not most depleted in winter, and therefore concludes that the hole in the ozone is false. Winter isn’t when the Antarctic ozone hole appears, though; it’s in the spring, which is the fall for those of us north of the equator.

    So yes, ozone circulates, and its behavior isn’t what we’d expect from the total absence of movement. But there is a hole, and the mechanisms by which some alkyl halides catalyze ozone depletion have been well documented in labs. You can either reject all the scientific work as the publications of corporate shills that nobody has bothered to verify or you can accept that the argument is both factually wrong and poorly constructed.

  2. fenbeagle says:

    I interrupt this thread, to bring a Dire announcement.
    We have completely run out of wind!!!!!

    NETA figures today…..The whole of Great Britains Wind fleet is producing 3MW between them (0.0%) (the name plate capacity rating for one large wind turbine)

    ….Its worse than we thought!

    Chris the Huhne is Jetting to Honolulu to discuss the emergency with world leaders. Foreign wind imports are a possibility. Wind Expert B J Edwards will be following shortly. Its hoped to generate the extra wind as soon as possible.
    Meanwhile a wind pipe ban, is in force. All over Britain cars are queuing at wind ‘farms’. Electric cars are noticeably absent, stranded on roads countrywide.

  3. Locusts says:

    Could this be peak wind?

  4. Edward. says:

    If the wind blows at it’s peak, then all turbines are redundant.

    Ed.

  5. Edward. says:

    Can the greatest windbag in history be persuaded to bellow into the wind, he would be an asset for the grid surely.
    Neil Kinnock – I importune thee to put something back!!

    Ed.

  6. Locusts says:

    I can see the newspapers a few years from now:

    “When commenting on the connections that climate deniers have made between the closing down of the wind farms and the miraculous recovery of the bird population, the IPCC said that ‘such a link was complete nonsense, and that any recovery in bird numbers was much more contingent on the previous year’s successful implementation of the “Candlelight at Night” campaign; and also lower rates of avian leukemia resultant from the long overdue closure of nuclear power plants.'”

  7. Pointman says:

    After having a look about the net for the Gimp, I found the following –

    Blow Job Edwards LOL LOL LOL LOL !!!

    Blow job Edwards is so stupid, he thought Taco Bell was a Mexican phone company.

    Blow Job is so stupid, he went out the door and got lost! (Someone, show him the door)

    Blow Job is so stupid, that he tripped on a cordless phone

    As I recall, BLOW JOB EDWARDS is so stupid, he believes a 100 ton airliner can DE-MATERIALIZE or pop into other dimensions.

    Blow Job is so stupid, he believes that Arabs can sneak onto airliners and get killed and NOT show up on the OFFICIAL CORONER’S report.

    BLOW JOB is Sooooo stupid he believes that steel melts in kerosene fires –proof that BLOW JOB has never heated up a can of spam on a camp fire stove.

    BJ is so stupid he can do no better than label people. BJ is a ‘labeler’! That’s what people WHO CANNOT THINK do. They label. BJ is an idiot!

    Pointman

  8. Edward. says:

    An illuminating post on how to blag the system big style, the Nigerians ain’t the only ones who are wise to this, this is why Britain is such a soft touch, the multiculturalists have made it so.
    There is a vast neon sign over the British Isles, reading;
    “Come to Britain, abuse the system, the bigger the lie, the more money you can have, it’s a piece of piss!”

    http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2010/08/lagos-school-of-scamming.html

  9. scud1 says:

    Brian Sussman writes at American Thinker…

    “However, beneath the glaze, there’s a clot of overpowering government spending and social engineering.”…

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/poison_pill_the_new_senate_ene.html

  10. manonthemoor says:

    Google – Good or Bad?

    As I process my thoughts time and time again, each benefit or advance seems to have a good side and a down side. Is this by accident or is this a property of life and our existence. Who knows, but the examples below seem to suggest a pattern.

    My examples:-

    Nuclear Energy – Power Generation v Bombs, Radiation and Missiles

    Medicine – Antibiotics v Nerve Gases

    White Goods — Household Freedom v Working wives for money

    Motor Car – Freedom v Commuting, Traffic Jams and Speed Cameras.

    Fossil Fuels – Industrial revolution v Peak Oil and AGW

    Land Marks – Victorian Folly’s v Wind Generators (Thanks Ed)

    Internet – Info and Communication v Wiki and Porn etc.

    and so on……………

    However my topic today is Google

    Google as now a major force in the internet world is accused of many things here I attempt to separate the good from the bad.

    The good things:-
    An effective Search Engine, Gmail, Google Maps, Google Street View, Google Chrome, Google Docs and Google Books.
    Here I listed Google features in approximately their importance and use to me, but accept others may have different priorities.

    Now the bad things
    Preference logging for advertising purposes.
    Access to sites visited information.
    Imposition on personal liberties. (Street View)
    Collection of WiFi data locations. (Street View)
    Key logging surveillance via Chrome.
    Market dominance.
    Here I list the common perceived negatives of Google, others may have more concerns. But to demonstrate the good and bad aspects of Google.

    Now I want to concentrate on my most influential application for the future:- Street View which to me is a revolution in technology as least as important as the original Google search engine.
    My reasons are set out below for those areas covered by street view.

    1. View localities based on postcode, place names, addresses or attractions
    2. Linked to Google Earth and Google maps.
    3. A snapshot in time 2009/2010
    4. Ability to drive/cycle to a location of interest, unhampered by time or traffic.
    5. House hunting or locality investigations eg school routes, churches etc.
    6. Travel Encyclopaedia for those for whatever reason unable to travel.
    7.Trip down memory lane — Visit previous homes or towns for changes.
    8/ Unusual options like gazing down a railway track at a crossing or better views than available from a car, in safety.

    More unusual options
    1/ Using SV as basis for water colour or oil painting.
    2/ Using SV to search unusual objects eg fords, pubs bridges etc
    3/ Using SV as a basis for a novel or travel guide.
    4/ Using SV to checkout holiday venue and hotel including parking.
    5/ Using SV to travel down roads you pass every day but never knew where they led.

    As you may guess I am a huge SV fan but how does this relate to AGW ?

    SV is a record of our countryside before it is despoiled by Windmills.
    SV is a record of our lives before the economy collapses.
    SV is a snapshot of our history and western civilisation.
    These things are at the great risk of destruction by AGW thinking.

    In summary Street View is:-

    A window on our world.
    An interactive un-photo shopped view of 2009/2010.
    A world without wind farms.

    I think SV in L’Aquila Italy before the earthquake last year unfortunately demonstrates my point.

    What will Street View II look like in 20 years time?
    Will it ever happen?
    The same questions apply to AGW, but AGW seems to be destructive with regard to our lifestyles and our countryside.

    No doubt others will disagree with me but one day our historians and ancestors will praise Street View.

    Man on the Moor

  11. NoIdea says:

    I remember the “hottest” winter ever, it was very cold.

    Not just here but all over the world. (Well the northern bit)

    Texas had snow, China was very deep

    Even India was hit by the cold white sleep

    But all over the world it is still hottest ever

    All the folks dying down south, well that’s just the weather

    Another cold and wet summer’s day

    The warmest ever is what they will say

    Glaciers melting a mile in day!

    Where is the water? All gone away!

    The truth is out there for all to see

    Just go outside, get wet and cold like me

    It used to be warmer in days of old

    If it is so freaking hot, why am I so fukin cold?

    NoIdea

  12. suffolkboy says:

    @MOTM July 31, 2010 at 9:05 pm
    Also @Edward.
    July 31, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    […]
    I cannot in any way challenge your view of the propaganda machine that infests the BBC, the MSM, our schools (thanks suffolkboy) and our universities all driven by politics and money.[…]

    I just half-stumbled upon this while following this thread on this blog:

    <<>>
    Or if the tags didn’t work, see:
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-School-Bus-Climate-Challenge/dp/0590108263/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

  13. orkneylad says:

    motm – Yes Sv is an incredible use of tech……I however am very glad my entire village is covered with the same postcode…….

  14. izen says:

    @- Noidea –

    The first link you give is to the Miskolvic(?) paper on the unchanging (apparently) atmospheric opacity from sixty years of balloon measurements.
    This is the third time its been cited, it clearly the (non)smoking gun of AGW disproof amongst the deniarati at the moment.

    I’ve read through it, but will need to examine it a bit more closely before a firm conclusion. Some of the math is well outside my comfort zone, and the various assumptions made in the first half of the paper about the simplifications and omissions he can justifiably make in his computational model of the atmosphere I don’t have the first-hand knowledge to judge.
    You do realise that it is a mathematical (computer) model of the atmosphere that he is using to process the balloon data, they are not usually held in high esteem by the ‘skeptics’….
    The other point is with his data source. It has been notoriously difficult to derive a consistent historical temperature record from the balloon data because of multiple methods and instrumentation over the years. His reliance on the balloon data for a consistent record of IR and water vapour levels seems…. optimistic.

    However the conclusion that neither changes in CO2 OR water vapour have had any effect on the opacity of the atmosphere in the IR seems in conflict with direct measurement from ground and space, and contradicts the long established role of GHG in having SOME effect on the energy balance.

    In the absence of a more in depth analysis I have to fall back on simpler indicators. One is in the acknowledgments of the article. Crediting K Gregory and the Friends of Science Society for their help is rather like finding the Amazon data were coming from WWF or Greenpeace. It dosn’t automatically mean the data is suspect, but it does indicate it comes from a non-neutral source.

    Suffolkboy made a good post earlier in the thread calling for a pause at least on these extended discussions of the science, because while some details may be wrong, the basics are solid, there IS a ‘greenhouse’ effect, Stefan-Boltzman is valid and the ozone layer exists.
    He argued that the focus should be on the POLITICAL aspects of what is happening, not spurious and frankly ridiculous denials of well established science.
    Of course my interest would then drop sharply…. but it is good advice if the ‘skeptical’ side do not want to be dismissed as cranks.

    I think it is no accident that WUWT has enlisted Pielke sr and others to make the scientific case for the ‘greenhouse’ effect, including the role of CO2, and asked that the posters tone down some of their more strident denials of certain scientific aspects of the issue.
    He clearly recognises the danger of looking like the kook fringe, the truther/9-11 conspiracy/faked moonlanding crowd if the anti-AGW crowd go much further down the road of rejecting basic science.

  15. suffolkboy says:

    I have just stopped at the bar here for a much-needed stiff drink after a brief run-in with bje over at Bookers across the way. You guys didn’t warn me she was there. I must go now: I am re-writing the science practical lessons for next year’s Year 7 and am wondering if I could put three model greenhouses on the sports field with (i) glass (ii) IR-admitting material (iii) both, so as to repeat Wood’s 1906 experiment which he did for a bet.

    Is there a more convenient material than sheet rock-salt? It must admit IR. Will have to check the suppliers.

    The next Year 7 who tells me that electric fires give off CO2 which causes the polar bears to drown is going to be toasted, which will seriously finalise their carbon footprint potential.

  16. memoryvault says:

    Hi Locusts,

    If not from you . .. . . . ?

    From the top:
    “The Dobson unit is a measure of ozone in a column, but it has nothing to do with imagining it to be compressed at sea level. Instead, it’s a measure of the total amount of ozone. Yes, the units are in dekamicrons (how’s that for a bastardized unit?), but 10 µm at IUPAC standard temperature and pressure is just a different way to express the number of molecules.”

    The “measure” (in dekamicrons if you must) is arrived at by assuming ALL of the ozone molecules are in one place – in one “layer” (the measure IS a measure of the theoretical “thickness” of that layer).
    See:
    http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobson_unit

    If that doesn’t mean we “imagine” all the ozone from sea level to the outer reaches of the atmosphere is “imagined: to be “compressed” into one layer (approximately 300 units thick, I don’t know what does.

    “UV doesn’t exactly create ozone. In fact, UV photons split ozone molecules into oxygen gas and free oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms react with oxygen gas to reform ozone, or with each other or with ozone to form one or two molecules of oxygen gas, respectively.”

    Errh, for a start, I never got so complicated as “UV photons”. I said “sunlight”, which encompasses it all – I write for the layman. Second, “ozone molecules” don’t come from “nowhere”, to then be “split into “oxygen gas and free radicals”. In fact, ozone is not a “natural” state of oxygen at all – good old boiler-plate O2 oxygen is.

    Certain wavelengths of UV light react with ordinary, everyday O2 to produce O3. This is a higher energy, unstable state of O which quickly loses energy and restabilises as O2. Yes, there is a certain band of UV light which has the above-described effect. However, the statement in its entirety gives the impression that the starting point is O3, and UV light causes it to become O2. It pretty-much all starts out as O2, not the other way around. Therefore, yes, sunlight DOES create ozone, and is in fact the biggest (by far) creator of it. Lightning, electric motors and a few other things also impart the extra energy, but by comparison these are minute.

    “Ozone is formed in areas with more sunlight, but those “slipstream currents” of moving air relocate parts of the atmosphere and can take a while to do so. generally, air moves from the equator to the poles, and does so slowly.”

    Yes, this is exactly what Professor Dobson was trying to demonstrate, amongst other things.

    “The biggest problem with the argument posted is that its structure posits that the hole in the ozone is false, argues that Dobson demonstrated atmospheric currents and showed that the Antarctic ozone is not most depleted in winter, and therefore concludes that the hole in the ozone is false. Winter isn’t when the Antarctic ozone hole appears, though; it’s in the spring, which is the fall for those of us north of the equator.”

    Yes, the “argument” posits that the “hole in the ozone layer is false” (since there is no “layer”, only a mathematical computation of how much ozone exists in a column of air from sea level to the outer reaches of the atmosphere. By virtue of the nature of its measurement, it is impossible to determine from a Dobson Unit reading WHERE (at what altitude) any particular concentration of ozone may exist. Yes, there are other ways to measure this. However, the oft-times shown “maps” published ad-nauseam each September purporting to show a “hole” over Antarctica are maps of Dobson Units and actually, by definition, show no such thing – only a general depletion of ozone exactly as predicated by Dobson on which to found his experiment.

    Yes, the claim is that Dobson demonstrated atmospheric currents. This is what he was awarded the “International Geophysical man of the Year” for. It is beyond my power to correct the crap that has subsequently been written about the man in order to fit the “politically correct” script of “holes in the ozone layer”.

    “showed that the Antarctic ozone is not most depleted in winter”

    ‘Scuse me? Dobson’s whole hypothesis was that there shouldn’t be much ozone at all in winter – the fact that there was more than there should have been was his basis for experiment. Yes, it is most depleted in winter – just as it should be – it just isn’t depleted as much as should be accounted for by the complete absence of sunlight.

    “Winter isn’t when the Antarctic ozone hole appears, though; it’s in the spring,”

    Anybody want to direct me to a study ANYWHERE that supports this contention.

    Let me state the sentence a slightly different way, much closer to the truth:
    “Winter isn’t when STORIES APPEAR IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA about the Antarctic ozone hole though, THE STORIES APPEAR IN THE SPRING.

    I think that’s far closer to the truth. The reality is the stories appear at the end of winter (which is the beginning of spring), when the measured ozone depletion is at its highest. Outside of Dobson’s original work, I’ve never seen any figures anywhere on the state of depletion at any other time other than when the “maps” are printed in the newspapers in September. Is it slightly higher in August or October? Or July or November? Anybody got figures? A peer-reviewed paper perhaps?

    “So yes, ozone circulates, and its behavior isn’t what we’d expect from the total absence of movement. But there is a hole, and the mechanisms by which some alkyl halides catalyze ozone depletion have been well documented in labs. You can either reject all the scientific work as the publications of corporate shills that nobody has bothered to verify or you can accept that the argument is both factually wrong and poorly constructed.”

    So, after all that, “there IS a hole” – where? In what?

    “And the mechanisms by which some alkyl halides catylyze ozone depletion have been well documented in labs”

    Yes, they were. After about (if memory serves correctly) six years and untold millions of dollars in “research funds” (mostly taxpayer’s money) a lab finally managed to “recreate” this entirely hypothetical chemical reaction in a lab, under strictly lab controlled conditions. The fact that it has never actually been observed or measured in the “REAL” world (ie in the atmosphere) before or since is, of course, totally besides the point to those for whom observable fact (empirical evidence), is merely an inconvenience.

    Note also that “alkyl halides” (confusing chemistry speak for, in this case, CFC’s), were not, even in a lab, shown to “cause” ozone depletion”. Rather, a “mechanism” of alkyl halides (CFC’s) – in a lab – were shown to “catylyize” ozone depletion.

    What this post normal science double-speak actually refers to, of course, is a reproducible experiment which showed that, if, under certain favourable lab conditions, you superheated CFC’s, they released super-reactive, hot chlorine ions, which “broke down” O3 to O2 (the natural fate of O3 molecules anyway).

    The offered “proof” that this was actually happening, was to record the incidence of hot, highly reactive chlorine ions in the upper atmosphere at the Antarctic, during the Ozone Minimum (September), and attribute the depletion to said hot, reactive chlorine molecules, which in turn were attributed to the breakdown of CFC’s.

    The fact that the readings were taken over an active volcano (Mount Erebus) which was spewing forth more hot, reactive chlorine in a year that the total amount available from the catalytic conversion of all the CFC’s ever produced by Mankind, ever, was entirely besides the point.

    Why on earth let a mere “fact” get in the way of a good greenie scare campaign?
    Locusts, I will be relocating back to site tomorrow morning early, and won’t be able to respond to any “reply” until probably Thursday at the earliest.

    I appreciate you are cutting and pasting from somewhere where my original article has been reproduced, and you’re looking for a response (which I hope I have given).

    But to be honest mate, I’m not really interested: the “holes” remain exactly where they were twenty five years ago – a quarter of a century – over the polar regions – neither bigger nor smaller – though they fluctuate on a three year cycle – as they did and were documented by Dobson in his own time – over half a century ago now.

    If there are people out there who STILL want to believe they were “caused” by CFC’s then I say good luck to them. Nothing you or I can say or do will ever change their minds, and to try doing so is a waste of time.

  17. manonthemoor says:

    orkneylad
    August 2, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    I have been to Shetland for a week with my wife, and visited again via SV for fun.

    Have never been to Orkney, but now can visit in digits and get a feel of the place in comparison. Orkney is small enough to treat as a single adventure project.

    Have contacts in Australia, NZ and Tasmania interest in visiting them and in particular their surroundings.

    Have not visited Walt yet ……………LOL

  18. Edward. says:

    suffolkboy says:
    August 2, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Wonder if magic mushrooms had a part to play in the inspirational imaginings of the Author?

    suffolkboy says:
    August 2, 2010 at 11:13 pm

    Now now, steady! No need for practical experimentation, just write some randomised algorithms for a computer model, surely that would suffice? It does in the real world.

    Ed.

  19. manonthemoor says:

    Opening para from the Kunstler blog today

    This economy has a destination for sure, but it’s not in the direction where all eyes are trained in moist hopefulness: that glimmering horizon of longed-for growth. You will not get that kind of growth — the kind that increases the overall wealth of the organism in question. A few people will make more money than they did before, but overall we are in an epic contraction. More people and organizations will go broke than will thrive. It will seem very unfair.

    http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/08/skidding-toward-fall.html#more

    Man on the Moor

  20. suffolkboy says:

    Edward. said: August 3, 2010 at 12:09 am

    Now now, steady! No need for practical experimentation, just write some randomised algorithms for a computer model, surely that would suffice? It does in the real world.

    Brilliant! In fact one can see Wood’s experiment (to show differentiate between competing explanations of warming in greenhouses) used at various levels in school and beyond. Off the top of my head:
    Year 7: they love making things out of cardboard, cottonwool and Sellotape like on the TV programmes (Blue Peter anyone?). They even use words like “fair comparison” although anything beyond a bar graph or hot/cold is about the limit. So they can make real miniature greenhouses and rush around between the classroom and the sports field. Are really worried about polar bears drowning.
    Year 9: should be able to plot graphs and measure temperature and sunlight, and will cover their greenhouses in graffiti but won’t go down to the sports field. Like drawing polar bears.
    Year 11: won’t budge from from the computer screen and do the whole job as coursework by cutting and pasting from Wikipedia. Like McDonalds.
    Year 13: frantically trying to get A-level projects done by ordering three full size greenhouses and instrumenting them up with vast quantities of data-logging equipment that nobody knows how to use, get bogged down in cutting-and pasting between spreadsheets. Whole project doesn’t give the AGW results they thought they should get from Wikipedia, so they fudge the data by adding in numbers from their Biology fieldwork project on tree-rings, because they have been reading “How Science Works” in their textbooks:. (Now they’re really growing up!) Like alcohol.
    Gap year: live in Greenland; shoot polar bears; eat squirrels.
    Undergraduate: (type a: geeks who got Maths A* at age 11 doing Physics) attempt to handle non-linear fourth-order equations and partial differential equations which model extremely simple cases of radiation and conduction, in order to pass exams. Like trains, planes and automobiles. (type b: maths drop-outs doing Environmental Studies) doing course assignments on critical thinking of climate theory which must use only IPCC peer-reviewed references. Like sex.
    Post-graduation (type a: tactile learners) Live in Antarctica in the dark sending up helium balloons to measure ozone that isn’t there. Eat penguins. (type b: geeks) Stay in the warm and write obscure mathematical papers involving insoluble equations that may or may not model some parts of reality and needs super-computers instead. (type c: fund-monkeys) write research proposals that involve considerable amounts of travel to exotic places for conferences on how to save the planet by pledging even more funds (variant, possible allied to b: get the government to fund megabucks to by teraflops of super-computers to make wrong predictions by use of chaotic non-deterministic algorithms using incorrect models with random or fudge starting data, homogenize the data to hide the discrepancies).
    Politicians. Like sex, power and money, or any activity that could provide this. Nothing else matters, so who cares about whether the science is settled or not?
    Lawyers: keep the debate going or we are out of work (nil bellum, nil salarium) (Louisiana variant: nil oleum, nil salarium)

  21. NoIdea says:

    Izen

    Yes I am suspicious of models and that is why I mentioned Kerry’s brilliant assessment of the obvious flaws with them.

    May I congratulate you on your realistic and skeptical viewpoint demonstrated with this sentence?

    “The other point is with his data source. It has been notoriously difficult to derive a consistent historical temperature record from the balloon data because of multiple methods and instrumentation over the years. His reliance on the balloon data for a consistent record of IR and water vapour levels seems…. optimistic.”

    I agree with your conclusion, it does contradict the long established role of GHG in having SOME effect on the energy balance.
    I am NOT denying the existence of ozone (O3) I AM asking if any one can tell me more.
    I am intrigued that a lack of it was going to kill us with the dreaded “hole”, now it is a GHG that will help turn our planet into some kind of inhospitable wasteland.
    Never fear I will still keep trying to learn the hows and whys of the science, as for denying the scientific aspects of the issue that, has always been the last thing on my mind. I have stated numerous times before, that the moment I see an explanation of the GHG theory that does not break the basic laws of thermodynamics, I will welcome it with an open mind.
    I have spent some time on the science of doom, imaginary second law of thermodynamics page, the comments are very interesting.
    I have thought of a perfect example for you to demonstrate how a cold thing warms a hot thing by the way. An air cooled engine will run hotter in warm air than cold. Even though the engine is hotter than the air, the rate of thermal transfer is decreased and so the temperature goes up. Is this due to engine wards infrared back radiation? Yes, some of it. The majority is due to the air not having the thermal capacity to absorb the heat. How do we demonstrate this? By moving the engine through the air, the rate of cooling will increase even though the infrared stays exactly the same.
    If air cannot absorb IR except through CO2, H2O or other GHG’s how does a hairdryer work?

    NoIdea

  22. Locusts says:

    testtesttest

  23. orkneylad says:

    motm – your welcome to drop by for a dram anytime you’re up here beuy.

    prepare to throw-up:

    Climate Change Art Contest: Submit Your Creative Vision To Help Fight Global Warming

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/29/climate-change-art-contes_n_663653.html

    “300 Scientists recently agreed, “Global warming is undeniable,” and 2010 is on track to become the hottest year on record, so why do 48% of Americans believe that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated?”

    “Submit your original artwork to CoolClimate, on DeviantArt, by August 23rd. 20 finalists will be chosen by an esteemed panel of diverse judges, a group of 10 notable individuals that includes the likes of Chevy Chase, Jackson Browne, Van Jones, and Philippe Cousteau. The 20 finalists will then be revealed right here on HuffPost Green, where the public can vote on their favorite!”

    Maybe an opportunity to throw-in some agit-prop for ‘artistic’ consideration? lol

  24. Locusts says:

    Memory Vault,

    Another reply, I’ll repost it if you can’t find it when you come back from your trip.

    Yes, the “argument” posits that the “hole in the ozone layer is false” (since there is no “layer”, only a mathematical computation of how much ozone exists in a column of air from sea level to the outer reaches of the atmosphere. By virtue of the nature of its measurement, it is impossible to determine from a Dobson Unit reading WHERE (at what altitude) any particular concentration of ozone may exist. Yes, there are other ways to measure this. However, the oft-times shown “maps” published ad-nauseam each September purporting to show a “hole” over Antarctica are maps of Dobson Units and actually, by definition, show no such thing – only a general depletion of ozone exactly as predicated by Dobson on which to found his experiment.

    As has already been stated, there is portion of the stratosphere, defined by height, which contains most of the atmosphere’s ozone. This is perfectly consistent with standard definitions and understandings of the idea of a ‘layer’: “A sheet, quantity, or thickness of material, typically one of several, covering a surface or body”.

    ‘Scuse me? Dobson’s whole hypothesis was that there shouldn’t be much ozone at all in winter – the fact that there was more than there should have been was his basis for experiment. Yes, it is most depleted in winter – just as it should be – it just isn’t depleted as much as should be accounted for by the complete absence of sunlight.

    I admit that I haven’t had the time to research this very carefully, but it isn’t clear to me why Dobson’s work would ‘disprove’ the existence of the ozone hole: Dobson’s major papers were published in 1968 and 1973, and he died in 1975. According to skimming the Wikipedia article, indirect evidence of ozone depletion was experimentally observed beginning around the mid 1970’s:

    In 1974 Frank Sherwood Rowland, Chemistry Professor at the University of California at Irvine, and his postdoctoral associate Mario J. Molina suggested that long-lived organic halogen compounds, such as CFCs, might behave in a similar fashion as Crutzen had proposed for nitrous oxide. . . . within three years most of the basic assumptions made by Rowland and Molina were confirmed by laboratory measurements and by direct observation in the stratosphere.

    and the actual ‘ozone hole’ was discovered in 1985:

    The discovery of the Antarctic “ozone hole” by British Antarctic Survey scientists Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin (announced in a paper in Nature in May 1985) came as a shock to the scientific community, because the observed decline in polar ozone was far larger than anyone had anticipated.

    If I understand correctly, the theory is that ozone depletion only became severe, creating the detectable hole, after a large amount of CFC compounds had been released, meaning that this only happened after Dobson had not only ceased his work, but was also dead. His work is important because he described the seasonal variations which were present before depletion became a major effect, allowing depletion to be inferred by the observation of ozone levels lower than those observed by Dobson, and others, in earlier decades.

    Anybody want to direct me to a study ANYWHERE that supports this contention.

    Let me state the sentence a slightly different way, much closer to the truth:
    “Winter isn’t when STORIES APPEAR IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA about the Antarctic ozone hole though, THE STORIES APPEAR IN THE SPRING.

    I think that’s far closer to the truth. The reality is the stories appear at the end of winter (which is the beginning of spring), when the measured ozone depletion is at its highest. Outside of Dobson’s original work, I’ve never seen any figures anywhere on the state of depletion at any other time other than when the “maps” are printed in the newspapers in September. Is it slightly higher in August or October? Or July or November? Anybody got figures? A peer-reviewed paper perhaps?

    I’m afraid that not being an atmospheric scientist, I don’t have such a citation handy, and I don’t have the time just now to take a serious look. If you are seriously interested in this, I suggest that you make such a search yourself. It is, in fact not clear to me that you have actually read Dobson’s papers; I just skimmed two of them, noting the discrepancy with dates, mentioned above. Also interesting is this statement, from the abstract of his 1973 paper:

    Originally Posted By: G. M. B. Dobson (1973)
    A region of minimum ozone is also sometimes found at heights of around 23 km but less frequently than at 15 km. These high level minima are only found in late summer or autumn and in very high latitudes.

    So, if significant depletion is observed in the winter or spring, it would suggest that new mechanisms are at work which were not present until after ~1970.

    So, after all that, “there IS a hole” – where? In what?

    We’ve been through this; it is perfectly sensible to talk about a ‘layer’ of ozone, and an area where that layer is thin or missing can be sensibly described as a ‘hole’.

    a lab finally managed to “recreate” this entirely hypothetical chemical reaction
    in a lab

    If it was reproduced, anywhere at all, then it is clearly not ‘hypothetical’, but factual. The more correct question, which you were, I think, getting at, is whether it also occurs in the upper atmosphere. The wikipedia article on this subject cites a number of studies which claim to have found string evidence for various reactions destroying ozone. Again, I haven’t had time to go read them yet, but I suggest that doing so would be a valuable step before dismissing their results.

    What this post normal science double-speak actually refers to. .

    This phrase appears much less meaningful than the one you were using it to attack.

    . . . which “broke down” O3 to O2 (the natural fate of O3 molecules anyway).

    Sure, this is what ends up happening to the ozone in general, but your dismissal glosses over the central point: If the ozone is broken down by CFCs, it can’t be broken down by UV radiation, thus absorbing some of that radiation.

    The offered “proof” that this was actually happening, was to record the incidence of hot, highly reactive chlorine ions in the upper atmosphere at the Antarctic, during the Ozone Minimum (September), and attribute the depletion to said hot, reactive chlorine molecules, which in turn were attributed to the breakdown of CFC’s.

    The fact that the readings were taken over an active volcano (Mount Erebus) which was spewing forth more hot, reactive chlorine in a year that the total amount available from the catalytic conversion of all the CFC’s ever produced by Mankind, ever, was entirely besides the point.

    If the experiment was conducted correctly, it may very well be entirely beside thet point: if the volcano is active pretty much all the time, and one observes an increase in chlorine at a particular time in the year, t is entirely plausible that the volcano isn’t responsible. This is called ‘distinguishing signal from background’, and while not all experimenters always do it correctly, they are trained, by and large, to try.

    Also, I’m guessing that measurements have been conducted at other locations besides McMurdo.

    I find it interesting to note that the ozone hole can show up in odd ways; the experiment I work on regularly sees fluctuations (on top of the usual winter-summer variation) in cosmic ray muon rates that match up neatly with the behavior of the ozone hole, like a point a couple of years ago when it temporarily split into two separate holes.

    End

  25. scud1 says:

    orkneylad
    August 3, 2010 at 2:21 am

    OL…We must get Fen’ onto it!

  26. Edward. says:

    suffolkboy says:
    August 3, 2010 at 1:32 am

    Sorted!

    Ed.

  27. Edward. says:

    Type C looking good Suffolk boy, monkeys are more intelligent than we think (in our arrogance), how our simian friends howl at us, “AGW they must be flippin’ mad, every monkey knows it’s gibbon farts, anyway you can’t model a thermo-dynamic chaotic system!” ……..or so I’ve heard.

    Ed.

  28. Edward. says:

    Ice caps are/will melt!! Was the great cry of Al Gore and his cohorts, well latest best guess and all that………………..err sorry Alberto….the rub is!…..Not happening old luv:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/07/29/recent-news-from-antarctica/

    But then we knew that.

  29. izen says:

    @- Locust –
    “If the experiment was conducted correctly, it may very well be entirely beside thet point: if the volcano is active pretty much all the time, and one observes an increase in chlorine at a particular time in the year, t is entirely plausible that the volcano isn’t responsible. This is called ‘distinguishing signal from background’, and while not all experimenters always do it correctly, they are trained, by and large, to try. ”

    There is another reason why the eruptions from Erubus are an irrelevance.
    They don’t make it into the stratosphere. In fact no significant amounts of chemically active chlorine from the surface or volcanoes (except from major explosive events like Pinatubo) does reach the stratosphere according to direct measurement.
    It combines with H2O and gets rained out of the troposphere. There is a ‘gap’ between the lower troposphere and the stratosphere where water vapour and chemically reactive chlorine compounds disappear. The only way for significant amounts of chlorine to reach the stratosphere is in a nonreactive form – CFCs.
    All of this was established with balloon measurements, and that refurbished U2 spy-plane that NASA used!

    You are also right about the requirement for sunlight to destroy the ozone. The CFC’s in the stratosphere are chemically unreactive, but are susceptible to UV. The chemically active chlorine compounds formed further react on stratospheric clouds and more UV provides the atomic chlorine that catalysis’s the increased O3 breakdown.
    More detail here, but simply explained….-

    http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/part3.html

    None of this has been at all controversial since the late seventies, and was certainly scientifically legitimate by the mid 1980s.
    This did not stop Du-Pont from continuing to claim that ozone depletion from CFC’s was ‘science-fiction or that “No ozone depletion has ever been detected…all ozone depletion figures to date are based on a series of uncertain projections.”
    Through the 70s and 80s they actively lobbied to block any regulation of CFCs engaging in the sort of anti-science spin that is once again eerily familiar….

    Even after the signing of the Montreal protocol Du Pont Chair Richard E. Heckert wrote to U.S. senators:…. At the moment, scientific evidence does not point to the need for dramatic CFC emission reductions. There is no available measure of the contribution of CFCs to any observed ozone change…”

    Note the ambiguity of this statement, it does not deny that CFCs destroy ozone – that was well established – but it implies that the lack of a quantitative measurement of how much is being destroyed makes it unnecessary to make dramatic reductions.
    This at a time when dramatic reductions in ozone levels over the Antarctic when sunlight returns and the known chemistry is operating where being detected.

    However I doubt any of this will alter memoryvault’s fixed conviction that the ozone hole is a fraud invented and perpetrated by the jewish financier Bronfman who was leading Du Pont from 1980 as a scam to sell its patented alternatives….

    Conspiracy theories are so much more satisfying for some…
    -grin-

  30. Edward. says:

    http://sd.defra.gov.uk/2010/07/measuring-progress-sustainable-development-indicators-2010/

    I am lost for words reading this, the beeb used to have a programme called Jackanory, a narration of childrens books on TV – this rot is probably kids reading now.

  31. Amerloque says:

    Hi Everyone !

    Ya gotta just loovvve it !

    /// Why no campus protest over Berkeley-BP connection?

    Given the events in the Gulf of Mexico, one would think the cozy relationship between the university and the oil giant in the form of the Energy Biosciences Institute would have set off an uproar by now.

    …/…

    Berkeley being Berkeley and BP being BP, one would have expected the very snug relationship between the university and the corporation to have produced a major campus uproar by now.

    After all, UC Berkeley still retains its reputation as a hotbed of radicalism. And BP’s image as a careless-at-best and criminal-at-worst despoiler of the environment grows with every accusation of corners cut and proper procedures not followed in the Gulf of Mexico.

    What links the two institutions is a $500-million, 10-year deal that created the Energy Biosciences Institute, which devotes itself to such projects as making the manufacture of ethanol and other biofuels more efficient and finding new ways to extract oil and coal reserves through biological agents.

    …/…

    Then came the blowout of BP’s rig in the gulf. “When all that began to unfold in April, I was waiting for the local hostiles to just go ape,” says Bill Drummond, a Berkeley journalism professor (and former foreign correspondent for The Times) who chaired the university’s academic senate at the time of the deal. “But it never happened.”

    Other faculty members also are perplexed by the silence, though they have varying explanations. Some say that perhaps the dispersal of students and faculty in summer makes it hard to assemble a critical mass of outrage, others that relentless budget cuts and the draining of other resources have made people wary of speaking out.

    One thing you don’t hear much from people who protested the arrangement in 2007 is that their original grounds for concern have disappeared. On the contrary, with corporate sponsorship playing an ever-increasing role in academic research, many argue that concern should be intensified.

    …/….

    Some on campus feared that the sheer scale of the BP contract would suppress energy research that didn’t fit the energy institute’s focus. “Every time you get money with strings attached, you get to do a certain kind of research which excludes others,” says Laura Nader, a Berkeley professor of anthropology. “If you do biofuels, you’re not going to do mass transportation and you’re not going to do efficiency.”

    BP does have the right to terminate the contract if it determines that the “open component research” — that is, the portion ostensibly under Berkeley’s control — “is no longer technically or commercially viable for BP.”

    That’s a frank statement of BP’s corporate interest in the institute, though campus officials assure me that no self-respecting Berkeley scientists would even think of tailoring a project to BP’s interests.

    …/… ///

    http://tinyurl.com/2fqp9ja

  32. bjedwards says:

    So Pointman declares his undying love for 9/11 Deniers, too.

    Quacks of a feather flock together.

  33. Perhaps the peak wind problem could be solved if I convinced by bear brothers bogged by bilious bargefuls of beer to ignite copious emissions of methane associated with lower gastrointestinal functions and said liquid.

    Incidentally, there is such a thing as playing the weather futures market. It’s rather than old venue. Please see http://www.evomarkets.com

  34. Pointman says:

    Hey, the Gimp is back. Googling ‘bjedwards’ certainly gives you a laugh. He seems to get pinged out of sites regularly. I still think we should adopt him at the Bar & Grill though. He’ll lighten things up.

    Pointman

  35. NoIdea says:

    The gimp is back, Wanking itself into a lather…
    I had best keep this short or it will freak the gimp into demanding strange things that it already has, whilst it makes strange accusations of unfounded declarations based on an inability to comprehend anything with more than five lines.

    Is it really THAT thick?

    NoIdea

  36. CriticalThinker says:

    Pointman,

    Re BJE, I hope they’ve improved its programming, it’s already failed the Turing Test on several occasions. Rubbish-in, Rubbish-out.

  37. Pointman says:

    CriticalThinker August 3, 2010 at 5:12 am

    Hi CriticalThinker. Personally I think the gimp reminds my of the old ‘eliza’ program. Never actually says anything …

    Pointman

  38. NoIdea says:

    CriticalThinker

    My old mid 90s Casio HL-809 pocket calculator has more personality and processing power than bjedwards.
    Is it better looking?

    NoIdea

  39. Locusts says:

    Izen,

    Not my viewpoint I’m afraid. Though interested, I really don’t know enough about the issue to say one way or the other. I am trying to find you some decent back up! Hopefully someone will take the bait and come over! BJe has turned out to be so disappointing.

  40. suffolkboy says:

    Edward. said: August 3, 2010 at 3:52 am

    I am lost for words: http://sd.defra.gov.uk/2010/07/measuring-progress-sustainable-development-indicators-2010/

    According to Doris Seagull somewhere at JD or Booker (could not find link), DEFRA have researched the adaptation of gooseberries during the MWP at the old potato research facility in Ormskirk, after it was burnt to a crisp by Eu directive in 1939. After that, the factory was refurbished as the Jackanory studio , where it produces reports like Ed’s linke above, along with:
    this.

    The children’s story branch was outsourced:
    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-School-Bus-Climate-Challenge/dp/0590108263/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

  41. suffolkboy says:

    Forget windmills! The UK is going to be driven by stream engines. See map for suitable sites near you.

    Sponsored by JCB?

  42. CriticalThinker says:

    suffolkboy,

    A colleague bought an old mill a few years back and converted it into a dwelling house. It came with a dam and a race. He had a water turbine made to suit the expected flow rate and head and now generates about 3 to 4 KW depending on the time of year. The generator is an adapted induction motor. He uses the electricity to provide domestic hot water and has plans to add a heat-pump using the tail-race water as a heat source.

    It’s a neat set-up but it would take an awful lot of these to replace a single coal-fired power station.

  43. Locusts says:

    Just quoting the bottom paragraph from suffolk boys link. To understand its full import, check the map on the link:

    Once all the qualifying standards for FIT have been put in place, interest in hydro is expected to grow significantly. The EA predicts that even if all of the potential capacity for microhydro in the UK was captured, it would only amount to one per cent of the UK’s projected electricity demand in 2020. But the sustained interest in hydro proves that it has more to offer than simply small-scale energy generation. Welsh believes that realistically microhydro is just going to be part of a jigsaw of solutions. ’It doesn’t provide scale, but what it does do is allow a community to have sustainable income stream in the long term…quite apart from carbon emission, it’s about community cohesion and community benefit.’

    Community cohesion subsidized by the state. Microscale steel production was implemented in China in the ’50s. It led to a famine that resulted in the deaths of 20 million people. My point is not that this would happen here, I don’t believe it would. But subsidies have to come from somewhere. I learnt something at school about the economies of scope and scale. Maybe my teacher was wrong.

  44. CriticalThinker says:

    You learn something every day:-

    The ELIZA effect, in computer science, is the tendency to unconsciously assume computer behaviors are analogous to human behaviors.

    In its specific form, the ELIZA effect refers only to “the susceptibility of people to read far more understanding than is warranted into strings of symbols — especially words — strung together by computers”. A trivial example of the specific form of the Eliza effect, given by Douglas Hofstadter, involves an automated teller machine which displays the words “THANK YOU” at the end of a transaction. A (very) casual observer might think that the machine is actually expressing gratitude; however, the machine is only printing a preprogrammed string of symbols.

    More generally, the ELIZA effect describes any situation where, based solely on a system’s output, users perceive computer systems as having “intrinsic qualities and abilities which the software controlling the (output) cannot possibly achieve” or “assume that outputs reflect a greater causality than they actually do.” In both its specific and general forms, the ELIZA effect is notable for occurring even when users of the system are aware of the determinate nature of output produced by the system. From a psychological standpoint, the ELIZA effect is the result of a subtle cognitive dissonance between the user’s awareness of programming limitations and their behavior towards the output of the program. The discovery of the ELIZA effect was an important development in artificial intelligence, demonstrating the principle of using social engineering rather than explicit programming to pass a Turing test.

  45. izen says:

    @ Criticalthinker –

    If I remember rightly the original ELIZA program was a simple language parser that first asked a user to make a statement about themselves, and them formulated replies that basically followed the “So, you think {X,Y,Z} why do you think that ?” form in an imitation of non-directive psychotherapy.
    While some people found it theraputic to talk about themselves to a machine, and found it possible to believe it had more insight than it did, it really wasn’t a very convincing entrant to the Turing test.

    It proved much easier to program a machine to imitate a paranoid schizophrenic…

  46. bjedwards says:

    What I find hilarious is the pretension that Oxboy barfs about Libertarianism as if climate sceince denial is a Libertarian position.

    That really shows how confused you all are.

    For those of us way ahead of you who were once real Libertarians, who read von Mises, Hayek, Murray Rothbard, Jerome Tucille, and Karl Hess, and helped start the Libertarian Party in the U.S, we abandoned the Party 25 years ago to the increasingly irrational nutters who proclaimed themselves “Libertarians” but who were anything BUT.

    While Oxboy tries to defend what Libertarianism should be, he tries to pretend that it is NOT the wacky wingnuttery that it has become. And proceeds to laud the buffoon, Monckton. And who’s Oxboy? Your attention to detail coincides with your apparent grasp of Libertarianism – Oz

    If any one of the above-named Libertarians were alive today to hear you climate science deniers you’d get a spanking from them you’d never forget. They were a strange crew that way…

    and if I’m not mistaken, Tuccille IS still alive – Oz

    You poseurs are even less educated than I thought.

  47. CriticalThinker says:

    Locusts,

    As regards economies of scale, there is a counter argument concerning nuclear power stations that suggest it might be better to build many small stations rather than the normal mega sized station. The mega stations take too long to design, build and commission and end up costing more in the long run. The smaller modular reactors can be up and running in say three years compared to twelve years or so for a mega station. And three years is much more attractive to utility companies and much more likely to attract private investment. I wouldn’t want to wait twelve years for a return on my investment. Freeman Dyson covers this in his book “Infinite in all Directions”.

  48. bjedwards says:

    We must restart the fight against global warming | Editorial

    The Observer Editorials Mon 2 Aug 2010 11:31 BST

    Climate change was once top of the agenda. We can’t afford to let it slip

    Scepticism is a healthy attitude to adopt to many, if not all, untested propositions. Sceptics throughout history, by applying their reasoned judgment and hard-headed critical faculties, have exposed lies, delusions and superstition.

    Which is why scepticism is entirely the wrong word to apply to those who deny that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to rises in average global temperatures, with potentially disastrous consequences. True sceptics respond to evidence.

    Last week more evidence was published to support the established case for man-made global warming. Research, led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, drew on data from 11 possible indicators of climate and found that each one suggested warming consistent with expected effects of rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. Snow cover in the northern hemisphere is shrinking, glaciers are retreating, sea levels are rising, oceans and the atmosphere are warming. As it was put by Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring at the Met Office, which participated in the study: “The fingerprints are clear”.

    The data in this study were not included in the 2007 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that has been the main target of attack by climate change deniers. The IPCC’s authority was badly damaged by “climategate” – the leak of emails between scientists at the University of East Anglia, purporting to show a conspiracy to suppress inconvenient data.

    In fact, as subsequent inquiries have shown, the emails proved at worst a cavalier and somewhat arrogant attitude on the part of scientists to critics of their work and a secretive, siege mentality in response to climate deniers. The actual scientific case for global warming was unscathed.

    And yet, somehow the whole affair had a disproportionate effect in stifling public urgency over climate change. It did not help that the Copenhagen summit, shortly afterwards, billed in advance as the vital last chance opportunity for global action, resulted in an opaque compromise cobbled together at the eleventh hour mainly so heavyweight politicians in attendance could claim to have done some kind of deal.

    That did little to advance the cause of public confidence or understanding. Since then, economic crisis and budget austerity have cleared pretty much all other considerations off political agendas in the developed world.

    Democrats in the US Senate have now abandoned President Obama’s climate bill, a modest affair to introduce some cap-and-trade mechanism to reduce emissions. Federal climate regulation now looks dead for the foreseeable future.

    It is both baffling and sadly predictable that it should be so hard to turn a matter of near certain scientific urgency into political action. It is also profoundly depressing that the chances of concerted global action to protect the environment seem to be receding.

    It is a marker of how far the environment has slipped down the public agenda in this country that neither David Cameron nor Nick Clegg has said anything of note on the subject since forming a government, while not long ago they did fierce battle for the title of greenest party leader. Or perhaps they too, have finally got around to reading the evidence? Just a thought – Oz

    Their claimed ambitions to take a lead on climate change really are a worthy object of scepticism.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/01/climate-change-editorial

    Let the denier whining begin.

  49. suffolkboy says:

    Bostonian Bear said on August 3, 2010 at 4:36 am […]lower gastrointestinal functions[…]
    You mean like
    this?

  50. NoIdea says:

    Izen, I robot?
    Bje, I Casio?

    NoIdea

  51. CriticalThinker says:

    Ooh Matron!!!
    Did someone mention spanking, you naughty thing BJE.
    Me first!

  52. Pointman says:

    Oh dearie me. Our casual excursions into more academic areas have got the gimp all defensive about his education. He shouldn’t worry. We don’t expect any thinking from him. He just here to amuse use. Have another peanut gimp …

    Pointman

  53. Edward. says:

    Bostonian Bear says:
    August 3, 2010 at 4:36 am

    Fartastic stuff, English beer just the ticket old sport, mix in some pie’n’ peas and Bobs your uncle old stick!

    Flatulent eructions disabused here by Jeff Id at TaV.
    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/ap-tx/

  54. CriticalThinker says:

    BJE says: “True sceptics respond to evidence.”

    I say:
    There is NO evidence to support the claim that the climate is currently warming.
    There is evidence and probable cause to support the claim that the climate is actually cooling.
    There is NO evidence to support the claim that the rise from pre-industrial levels of CO2 have caused any climate change, cooling or warming.
    There is evidence that supports the claim that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past and that the concentration of CO2 lags temperature rise by hundreds of years.

    Unless of course you believe in post-normal science, in which case don’t follow the evidence. Just make it up to suit your warming agenda and to frighten the children.

  55. izen says:

    @- Noidea –
    “I have spent some time on the science of doom, imaginary second law of thermodynamics page, the comments are very interesting.”

    Glad you like it, its a good source of the science, with a less than reverent attitude to the usual dogmas from either side. I wish I could find the link to one particular thread….
    I spent an hour LOL – literally – on one of the linked threads where someone in the comments mentioned an article by a ‘scientist’ who had calculated the emissivity of CO2 was far to low to be a significant GHG.
    This was dismissed as mistaken – look at the surface measurements of the spectra….
    Then the scientist in question turns up to defend his calculation – I think his name was something like Nahle….?
    Someone spots the likely error and politely suggests that as his figure is several thousand out he has calculated the emissivity for 1 metre of CO2 instead of for the full thickness of the atmosphere.
    He denies this and gives the book, author and formula he used.
    The original poster went to great lengths to find the source of the difference and possible error that Nahle(?) denied…(this is over several days…) buys the book, scans and posts links to the relevant pages, pointing out that it is an old book for calculating the emissivity of gases in a furnace and that the formula used DOES require a term for path length. The term that Nahle(?) had assumed to be the concentration was defined in the text as concentration per metre…

    Well having no sense of humour I have to make do with a deep sense of absurdity… and this exchange was VERY funny – at least to me…
    -grin-

    “I have thought of a perfect example for you to demonstrate how a cold thing warms a hot thing by the way. An air cooled engine will run hotter in warm air than cold. Even though the engine is hotter than the air, the rate of thermal transfer is decreased and so the temperature goes up. Is this due to engine wards infrared back radiation? Yes, some of it. The majority is due to the air not having the thermal capacity to absorb the heat. How do we demonstrate this? By moving the engine through the air, the rate of cooling will increase even though the infrared stays exactly the same.”

    Err… No.
    Its the temperature difference with the moving air.
    If the engine is stationary and the amount of air is limited then the air will warm and the engine could overheat.
    But if you have a system where the same volume of air was rapidly blown past the engine…. the same volume of air would heat up to the same temperature and the engine would still overheat. It is only if the air movement provides new cold air to absorb the heat that it can cool the engine.
    Doesn’t matter how fast you move the engine through hot air, it wont get any cooler.
    I am aware of how this might apply to motorbikes…-grin-

    Quote-“If air cannot absorb IR except through CO2, H2O or other GHG’s how does a hairdryer work?”

    Conduction.

  56. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    suffolkboy says:
    August 3, 2010 at 1:32 am

    Wow!! That has GOT to be the most brilliant synopsis of the life and times of spotty high school students and their progression through the halls of academia, that I’ve ever read.

    Faaaantastic! The pretty bow on the package was the description of Politicians. That’s it. Done and dusted.

    Keep it coming Suffolkboy, your posts always give us something else to ruminate over.

  57. CriticalThinker says:

    Goodnight All

    Hope they keep BJE running – I don’t think we’ve exhausted its script yet.

  58. NoIdea says:

    Izen, conduction and…..?

    NoIdea

  59. izen says:

    @- bjedwards
    “Which is why scepticism is entirely the wrong word to apply to those who deny that emissions of carbon dioxide from human activity are leading to rises in average global temperatures, with potentially disastrous consequences. True sceptics respond to evidence.”

    This is problem 1 with media reports/editorials, they conflate two aspects of the issue in exactly the same way the deniers do.
    Look at the main sentence, it mentions the established science, CO2 rise = global temperature rise, but then tacks on “with potentially disastrous consequences.”
    Give that most lay readers discount any caveats, the formula then is – CO2 rise = DISASTER!
    The evidence for that formulation is open to skepticism, but because it is linked to the first part, the science, those that dislike the policy implications of avoiding the POTENTIAL disaster also move on to attacking the solid science….

    Quote-“It is both baffling and sadly predictable that it should be so hard to turn a matter of near certain scientific urgency into political action. It is also profoundly depressing that the chances of concerted global action to protect the environment seem to be receding.”

    It may be sad, but it certainly isn’t baffling. The history of near certain scientific urgency to correct a problem is one long on resistance to action, wrong responses and too little too late….
    Cholera and contaminated water supplies in major cities, smog, asbestos, lead, CFCs…
    Its not difficult to make a list of scientific ‘scares’ that were entirely justified, but in which vested interests and the ideological preferences of the political systems involved blocked, dismissed and delayed effective action.
    Beliefs that central governance is the worst way to deal with a problem, and that capitalist systems or individual liberty/autonomy are paramount and must be defended whatever the harms that might be avoided by regulation are only one source of dissent. The belief that capitalism is incapable of any positive contribution to the problem and central enforcement of individual restraint is also an ideology which can dominate the actions taken in response to a problem.
    China’s response to its perceived population problem would be one example….not a template for a global response to AGW I hope you would agree – that level of constraint on individual liberty without changing the socio-economic factors that drive those choices is not an ethically optimal solution.

    Even more problematic when the scientific process may be clear, but the actions that are most effective are less well established – and the scale of the problem is uncertain.

    The lack of action at a global level is also inevitable. Human societies lack the global level of governance to carry out any remediation of a classic ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ scenario.
    Regulation of Lead, asbestos and CFCs were all local and piece-meal responses with loopholes and exceptions (especially in the 3rd world) and only happened when the vested money interests had profitable alternatives to market.

    What I think is a pity is that because the mainstream response has been in terms of central edict and financial ‘instruments’ of dubious effectiveness and even more dubious advantage to those running them, the libertarian ‘fringe’ has ended up calling the science a fraud because the proposed policy responses conflict with their beliefs.
    There has been little attempt as far as I can see to create alternative effective responses by those espousing libertarian or anti-regulation ideologies.

    I would welcome the absence of blank declarations that there is NO problem – its all a fraud, when as you say, the mainstream science is overwhelmingly supportive of the CO2 rise = rising global temperature. I would welcome the articulation of what response might be considered ideologically sound in the face of the potential problems instead of the dismissal of the science.
    I would welcome any engagement with what practical, effective response it would be ethical for governments to enact on individuals with the likely impacts of global warming from burning fossil fuels.

    Or even just an alternative to cap-n-trade and carbon tax that would have the same ostensible effect in reducing CO2 emissions rather than the reiteration of the obvious fact that these policies are flawed and probably ineffective.

    There are said to be five stages of AGW denail.
    1) There is no warming
    2) Its warming but CO2 has nothing to do with it
    3) Its CO2 causing some of the warming, but the warming may not be a problem.
    4) Co2 is a major cause and the warming is a problem, but reducing CO2 emissions would be a worse problem.
    5) Co2 is causing problematic warming but its too late to do anything now… adaption is the only option so we might as well continue burning coal, oil etc and adapt to the consequences…

    At the moment the rejectionista seem to fighting amongst themselves with the 2s and the 4s battling it out (Gerlich v Pielke?!) and the 3s (Lindzen) sulking in the middle.

  60. izen says:

    NoIdea says:
    August 3, 2010 at 8:18 am
    “Izen, conduction and…..?”

    And nothing.
    I doubt there is much role for absorption of IR photons.
    Look down the nozzole of a hair dryer, the element is arranged so that the airstream flows over it with only a few millimetres of any volume of air being seperated from the red hot metal surface.

    Air may not have a very high thermal capacity but it is a good conductor, any bit of air hitting the red-hot element will attain that temperature, and rapidly conduct it to the surrounding air so that the volume of the air passing through reaches an equilibrium between the volume that contacts the element (red-hot) and the close surrounding volume it conducts it into within the body of the hairdryer.

    Thats why the stream of air that comes out isn’t divided into small streams that are at 700degC (redhot) and room temperature.

  61. scud1 says:

    Bjedwards and Izen go on holiday.

    To: Bjedwards@clot.organ
    RE: Hols!
    12.55 23 /07/10

    Dear Bj

    I’m very excited concerning the aforementioned short break from the dreadful, general ignorance of the world and am looking forward immensely to engaging with a higher, accumulated group level of intelligence (not that that would be difficult –wide grin-) likewise feel that ‘FRAGIT’ will bring us together with those of similar quality of mind.
    As a matter of interest. How exactly did you hear of this fascinating sounding organisation? Internet searches return no information.

    Best regards Izen

    PS. Have you acquired our portable, lightweight accommodation yet? My diary informs me that we have only twelve days remaining till departure! –YIPPEE!!! (widest-grin-ever!)

    To: Izen@Izenarse.com
    RE: RE Hols!
    15.47 23/07/10

    Prat.

    How can you be so excited about such inane fripperies? Let me remind you once again that the only reason why I have invited ‘company’ i.e. YOU is because my mother insists (and small matter of court order).
    ‘FRAGIT’ are not listed on the internet simply because that is where conspiracy theorist fruitcakes and denialists congregate. ‘FRAGIT’ are a legitimate organisation who listen only to those in authority and thus require no ‘underground’ method of oxygen.
    In short answer to your question regarding our accommodation. No.

    Bje.

    To: Bjedwards@clot.organ
    RE: RE: RE; Hols!
    11.38 24/07/10

    Dear Bj

    Thank you for your reply. Gosh, the mystery deepens! How exciting!
    Regards accommodation: would you prefer that I undertake the task? I say this because I believe that my elder brother may already possess the necessary equipment. We haven’t spoken for a number of years (since he took a job as an electrician…yuk-slput-splurt -wide grin-) but I could always try!

    PS. I understand that ‘FRAGIT’ are not listed or recognised over the ‘super disinformation highway’ (-grin-) but would it be too much to ask as to how you became knowledgeable of this obviously esteemed organisation and what does ‘FRAGIT’ …(I presume an acronym -grin-) represent?

    11 days and counting!!!

    Very best Izen.

    To: Izen@Izenarse.com
    RE: RE: RE: RE: Hols!
    04.45 25/07/10

    Prat.

    Why in the name of all that is green did you not say that your obviously retarded brother has what we need?
    Would it have made you feel better about the world if I’d gone out and encouraged the manufacture of new, superfluous and ecologically damaging merchandise?

    I don’t know what ‘FRAGIT’ stands for. All I know is that they’re an active eco group who like to camp. ‘Friend’ of my mothers told me that we’d be like peas in a pod.

    Bj.

    To: Bjedwards@clot.organ
    RE: RE: RE: RE: RE Hols!
    10.31 25/07/10

    Dear Bj

    Thank you so much for your reply. After much trepidation, I hesitantly made contact with my brother and am proud to announce that I now have in my possession an almost brand new travelling abode that required zero input into the ruinous free market economy. I hope you are pleased (-mouth splitting grin-)

    Very best Izen.

    To: Izen@Izenarse.com
    RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE Hols!
    10.27 26/07/10

    Prat.

    How big is it?

    Bj.

    To: Bjedwards@clot.organ
    RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Hols!
    4.38 27/07/10

    A very good afternoon Bj!
    I have experimented with a test erection of our future protection from Earths natural and otherwise (-grin-) elements and am happy to announce that I found it to be perfectly satisfactory for two adult inhabitants. Though I must confess that it will be somewhat tight confines!
    I trust that this suits your exacting requirements!

    Just over a week to go!!!!

    Very best Izen.

    PS In all my excitement I have forgotten to enquire just where exactly ‘FRAGIT’ are convening!!!
    Will we need bus or rail tickets? With my limited experience of these matters I have deduced that booking in advance can save us money!!!!!!!

    To: Izen@Izenarse.com
    RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Hols!
    10.27 28/07/10

    Twit.

    FFS…I’ve already told you, right at the beginning in fact, that it’s over at my mothers garden.
    Jeesus wept. Sometimes I think you might be a truther or something.
    Mums friend ‘Brian’ is seeing to it, just mozy on over Tuesday with the tent yer moron brother lent you and we’ll pitch up early…I’m thinking right in the middle.

    Bj.

    To: Bjedwards@clot.organ
    RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Hols!
    2.21 28/07/10

    Bj…A holiday for two with virtually no carbon input to the atmosphere! Has to be a good thing!!
    I shall see you at your Mums about 3 in the afternoon…make sure that we are logistically, advantageously situated!

    PS. Should I bring my guitar?

    To: Izen@Izenarse.com
    RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Hols!
    11.34 28/07/10

    No.

    Three days later, Brian Aldrich (Bj’s mum’s ‘friend’ and leader of the local ‘FRAGIT’ (Frenziedly Rough, Astonishingly Gay ‘In Tents’) signals his 40 strong, moustachioed, leather clad gang of serial camper, hulking great queens to kick start their engines…

  62. Pointman says:

    izen August 3, 2010 at 9:37 am

    You’re being a bit short with NoIdea aren’t you? He may not respond if you keep up that sort of thing. He may move his attentions to the gimp and then where would you be …?

    Pointman

  63. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    G’day Ozboy,

    You’ve changed your banner pic top of the page. It’s not Spring yet, although I noticed daffodils popping up all over the garden the other day.

    I have a “soft spot” for your other picture. It truly reminded me of the old road down into Port Arthur nearly 30 years ago.

    In those days you could drive right down that hill and along that avenue of trees, throw a picnic rug on the grass, watch the “rug rats” rush about and the local “eleven” in their whites playing cricket on the pitch.

    1996 changed a lot about the world.

    NO IT HASN’T, Swanny. And it WON’T. Or that little creep wins. Picture reverted.

    And if anything, I’d say Port Arthur today is more picturesque than ever. You can still drive down from Port Arthur down Main Road to Nubeena past kilometres of pear and apple orchards, picnic on the shore among convict ruins, or if you’re into extreme sports, surf the Southern Hemisphere’s biggest break at Shipstern Bluff – next stop Antarctica. Truly a slice of paradise.

    The events of 28 April 1996 were tragic, and I know many of the survivors. But their determination to get past that day is an inspiration; they are survivors in more ways than one – Oz

  64. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    scud1 says:
    August 3, 2010 at 10:09 am

    “Bjedwards and Izen go on holiday.”

    Scud, I bow before a Master……………it’s just TOO good.

  65. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    Hey Oz,

    I didn’t mean you had to change it…..I just like that avenue.

    Me too Swanny. WordPress changed it (and Mack’s and MOTM’s blogs as well) – Oz

  66. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    Oz,
    I agree about the Peninsular, I just have an in-built aversion to “Visitors Centres”, highly over-priced and full of tat and junk, all “made in China”. Found that out in May when we went back to Sovereign Hill and the Eureka Stockade a few months back.

    I was looking for a Eureka flag to hang out the back of our house – I reckon it’s a great “middle finger” gesture to Govt dictates. So much expensive rubbish from China that I ended up settling for a lapel pin……LOL

  67. Locusts says:

    Memory Vault,

    Reply from the first respondent:

    There’s nothing wrong with treating the Dobson unit as a measure of the thickness of a hypothetical layer, per se, but the way it was written struck me as a disingenuous assertion that our measurements aren’t meaningful. At standard temperature and pressure, gas volume and number of molecules are interchangeable. There’s nothing shady about the layer at sea level, and it neither requires nor suggests that ozone is either actually at sea level or uniformly distributed.

    Likewise, “ozone is not a natural state of oxygen.” It’s quite natural—it happens in nature all the time in the ozone layer! Not at all stable at sea level, sure, and not even highly stable in the stratosphere, but it’s not unnatural! But okay, yes, I left out the fact that the large oxygen reservoir in the atmosphere is the diatomic gas.

    Dobson units only become a bad way of measuring ozone in the ozone layer if there’s a large amount of ozone that isn’t in the ozone layer. There isn’t. And it’s also irrelevant, because ozone can absorb UV no matter what its altitude is. If the column is depleted the column is receiving more UV radiation. There is an observed layer, but it’s irrelevant to the existence of a hole anyway.

    And slipstream currents—can we drop them from the discussion? They exist, and nobody is denying them. Nobody denies that they move ozone around. The fact that Dobson discovered them has no bearing on the debate.

    Finally, chemical-speak and citations. I said alkyl halides because CFCs are only one ozone-depleting chemical. Bromofluorocarbons are another. Both are alkyl halides, so that’s the term I used. For you seasonal information, you’re claiming that newspapers print articles in the spring. Maybe they do; I haven’t seen any in years. But our spring (unless you’re in southern Africa, South America, or Australia) isn’t Antarctic spring, and newspapers are a terrible source of good scientific information.

    Want studies? Here’s an informal overview that explains things well. Here’s the abstract of a Nature paper on it. You can look up more yourself if you want them, but I’m more interested in seeing what studies you can cite that back up your position.

    I find the rejection of lab studies laughable. Of course the studies done in labs were under laboratory conditions. That’s how you try to get rid of confounding factors! And the atmosphere is full of random gases that can confound. The mechanism has been shown, the necessary material and conditions are found in the atmosphere, and there is observed ozone depletion. That’s a pretty good scientific argument in the absence of counterevidence

  68. Locusts says:

    CriticalThinker.

    I didn’t know about that? Have any of these micro-nuclear reactors ever been completed?

  69. Pointman says:

    scud1 August 3, 2010 at 10:09 am

    Scud,brilliant! BJ & Izen try out the FRAGIT bar …

    Pointman

  70. izen says:

    @- scud –
    VERY good
    Tho I haven’t been camping since 1976
    Summer in Cornwall with two fellow students, both female….
    Ahhh, lost opportunities!
    -Cheshire cat-type GRIN…-

    @- Pointman –
    Short with Noidea?
    perish the thought!
    I am incapable of being other than prolix, verbose longwinded and will always use an extended circumlocutory construction when a single word would otherwise suffice.
    Unless its lunchtime and time is short…

    …and that’s why we love you – Oz 😛

  71. Edward. says:

    Oz,

    Mornin’ all,

    I think this is worth a look at, one of the reasons I really became interested in AGW was that CO2 and linkage to warming = non sequitur, seems that some wanted the link to be made real before the ephemeral idea (AGW) was mooted, that’s it! – yer see, reach conclusion before hypothesis is born……. how post normal is that?

    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25864

  72. Amerloque says:

    “Even if you call a submarine an airplane, it still can’t fly.”

    – – – Aviators’ traditional maxim

  73. suffolkboy says:

    Edward. says:
    August 3, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    I looked at the link[1] cited by Ed a few days ago. It is heavy going. It is the peer-reviewers’ comments on an IPCC report. (I am extremely familiar with peer-reviewing engineering documents for project management but not scientific papers prior to publication.) If you have the stamina it would probably be well-worth detailed analysis; if not it would be worth standing back, skimming the comment and trying to work out what the agenda is; for example, is this a scientific review to see if the input data is accurate and the interpretations plausible, what alternative theories are consistent with the data, what further tests to disprove the competing theories are needed; or is it a review of a publicity glossy brochure put out to get the public to buy the IPCC product.

    At least the US have the right to read all these documents and the ability to enforce that right. Just try trying to get information like this out of similar UK organisations!

    [1] Judithgate: IPCC consensus was only one solar physicist – TH!NK ABOUT IThttp://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/7786003?n=6&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25

  74. Edward. says:

    Suffolkboy,

    Hello,

    Another thought through reply.

    “Just try trying to get information like this out of similar UK organisations!”

    Mr. S. McIntyre is familiar with those difficulties, therein lies the problem. Peer review is in its purest form, an open debate where all interested scientists can criticise (validity, with due diligence) any paper.
    (BTW how can a ‘consensus’ be one scientist?)

    Critique is vital in deriving the truth, if a scientist is open and honest he garners respect from his peers, if the debate is closed and findings on any paper are not open to peer review, how can a paper be valid?
    This does not seem to worry the IPCC, they only accept peer review if it conforms to the meme, if I write a paper and it is only reviewed by my mates who are a claque of like minded scientists this is not and never will be ‘peer review’ how can it be?

    I find when I try to read papers of science journals that I am percluded from reading such papers by paywalls, subscription sites, understandable but frustrating nevertheless – and then we have plain blocking of information that should be available to all (freedom of information Act -is not free!), as Mr McIntyre found out, this is anti science and leads one to the conclusion that there is something which needs to/or has been hidden.

    Detailed analysis is painstaking and for people with stamina (Steven McIntyre) but only worthwhile if all of the information, data sets, statistical process is available, if it is not, then the reseach is invalidated.
    Inevitably, when a conclusion has been reached before the research has even started you are putting the carriage before the horse.
    It does make one smile however when after years and years of BS and bad science and crying wolf, that a plausible (still less proven) answer to the MM CO2 e = GW has not been found, it can’t be, if it is not there (thus the goalposts are moved GW morphs into CC).

    This is why before La Nina kicks in, that NOAA + the Met Office are screeching about the warmest year ever blah blah, stubbornly the (slowing) ice melt in the Arctic and Growing sea ice in the Antarctic disprove the shrill cries of warmest ever!

    Now it is bye bye PDO warm phase, enter sandman, the ice man cometh…… of La Nina + Arctic Oscillation is in cold phase, according to Joe Bastardi – AccuWeather.com
    Another car crash in Cancun in the offing as temperatures dip towards the end of the year…ha ha ha.

    Will this stop the propaganda in schools in Britain or USA and Europe, I fear not.

    Ed.

  75. fenbeagle says:

    Amarloque
    When the wings come off over sea, it becomes a submarine. Whether you call it an aeroplane or not.
    ….Theory of Gravity

  76. scud1 says:

    izen
    August 3, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    You’re a trooper Izen!…1976 eh?…couldn’t have picked a better year for it.

    P…Wish I’d found that link.

  77. orkneylad says:

    suffolkboy – IPCC consensus was only one solar physicist

    I wonder if our resident ‘believers’ will dare to address this one. 😉

    Oldies but goodies:
    _________
    Dissidents Against Dogma
    By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
    http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn06092007.html

    Some Big Lies of Science
    by Dr. Denis G. Rancourt
    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19653

  78. manonthemoor says:

    Blackswan Tasmania
    August 3, 2010 at 11:00 am

    Swan and Oz following your comments about the picture, I immediately decided to look for the old road down to Port Arthur via SV and came up with this location, very similar to the picture.

    http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Port+Arthur,+Tasmania,+Australia&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.553203,27.114258&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Port+Arthur+Tasmania,+Australia&ll=-43.14457,147.847502&spn=0.007562,0.021415&z=16&layer=c&cbll=-43.142684,147.849612&panoid=BCl1KLGEpAMqfRWyghjgIA&cbp=12,60.4,,0,5

    Panning left about 120 decrees is a stone monument, bit like a giant egg in a cup would be interested to know what it is

    Ta. Still think SV is best

    Not sure mate. I’m down that way later this week and will get back to you – Oz

    Update 15 Aug 2010: your answer’s here

  79. scud1 says:

    orkneylad
    August 3, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    Great links OL…Thanks.

  80. NoIdea says:

    Izen

    The assumption you make with this statement shows a crack.

    “If the engine is stationary and the amount of air is limited then the air will warm and the engine could overheat.”

    What exactly would be limiting the air?
    Is it in a cupboard or tent?
    If warm air cannot cool hot engines how do air cooled motorbikes work in the warmer climates? (And they do!)

    Regarding your strange suggestion about hair dryers…
    “And nothing.”
    Wrong, I am surprised with your extended lexicon that you are not familiar with Advection.
    Advection “In the ocean and atmospheric sciences, advection is understood as horizontal movement resulting in transport “from place to place”, while convection is vertical “mixing””
    I doubt there is much role for absorption of IR photons.”
    Agreed, there never is, and that is the point…
    Funny how those who think that AGW is real, always miss an important part of the process, isn’t it?
    Is this due to a lack of real life experiences?
    Any lack of hirsuteness on your part may explain the difficulties you have with the concepts of hairdryers; I will not hold this against you.
    I find the heteroplasiac tendencies of those who lack life experiences become apparent, and should also not be held against you. You really should try getting out more though.
    I can of course see why you choose to ignore convection heat transfer, just skimming the surface we immediately run into lots of nasty squiggly looking equations and numbers. And what a bunch of odd numbers, Nusselt numbers, Reynolds numbers, Schmidt numbers, Prandtl numbers and Sherwood numbers and all kinds of laws!
    “Air may not have a very high thermal capacity but it is a good conductor”
    From wiki I found that…
    Conduction, “It always takes place from a region of higher temperature to a region of lower temperature, and acts to equalize the temperature differences. Conduction takes place in all forms of matter, viz. solids, liquids, gases and plasmas, but does not require any bulk motion of matter. In solids, it is due to the combination of vibrations of the molecules in a lattice and the energy transport by free electrons. In gases and liquids, conduction is due to the collisions and diffusion of the molecules during their random motion.”
    Unfortunately Wiki is less forthcoming about the thermal capacity or conduction properties of air.
    IF air is a good conductor, how does my thermal string vest work?

    NoIdea

  81. NoIdea says:

    Izen

    The assumption you make with this statement shows a crack.

    “If the engine is stationary and the amount of air is limited then the air will warm and the engine could overheat.”

    What exactly would be limiting the air?
    Is it in a cupboard or tent?
    If warm air cannot cool hot engines how do air cooled motorbikes work in the warmer climates? (And they do!)

    Regarding your strange suggestion about hair dryers…
    “And nothing.”
    Wrong, I am surprised with your extended lexicon that you are not familiar with Advection
    Advection “In the ocean and atmospheric sciences, advection is understood as horizontal movement resulting in transport “from place to place”, while convection is vertical “mixing””
    I doubt there is much role for absorption of IR photons.”
    Agreed, there never is, and that is the point…
    Funny how those who think that AGW is real, always miss an important part of the process, isn’t it?
    Is this due to a lack of real life experiences?
    Any lack of hirsuteness on your part may explain the difficulties you have with the concepts of hairdryers; I will not hold this against you.
    I find the heteroplasiac tendencies of those who lack life experiences become apparent, and should also not be held against you. You really should try getting out more though.
    I can of course see why you choose to ignore convection heat transfer, just skimming the surface we immediately run into lots of nasty squiggly looking equations and numbers. And what a bunch of odd numbers, Nusselt numbers, Reynolds numbers, Schmidt numbers, Prandtl numbers and Sherwood numbers and all kinds of laws!
    “Air may not have a very high thermal capacity but it is a good conductor”
    From wiki I found that…
    Conduction, “It always takes place from a region of higher temperature to a region of lower temperature, and acts to equalize the temperature differences. Conduction takes place in all forms of matter, viz. solids, liquids, gases and plasmas, but does not require any bulk motion of matter. In solids, it is due to the combination of vibrations of the molecules in a lattice and the energy transport by free electrons. In gases and liquids, conduction is due to the collisions and diffusion of the molecules during their random motion.”
    Unfortunately Wiki is less forthcoming about the thermal capacity or conduction properties of air.
    IF air is a good conductor, how does my thermal string vest work?

    NoIdea

  82. suffolkboy says:

    @bje on Booker 2/8/10: you seem to imply that “peer-review” is some sort of gold standard which implies that the document under review is pretty well the last word of factual accuracy and the pinnacle of current knowledge. It is not! Peer-review (ISO9001) is the basic *minimum* which is usually insisted on by many organisations before “activating” a document, be it publication of the result of experiments, authorisation to release funds in business, or the documentation of a design for anything from a tuppenny widget to a Large Hadron Collider. The key element in peer-review is to find errors as early as possible, not to create a fan-club of sycophants. Often it is little more than spotting obvious gaffes, spelling mistakes and formatting errors or grammatical blunders. Deeper analysis is not usually necessary. Crucially, whoever chairs the meeting cannot alter the text: that is done outside the review. A later stage is testing against reality. Ultimately there is *no* final test of a theory, merely carcasses of discarded theories (discarded because they made predictions at variance with reality) and the living bodies of promising ideas.

    The problem at the moment is that the IPCC procedure seems to have been not so much a peer-review but rather a script-writers’s conference for a comedy show, or meetings between an advertising agency and its clients on how to successfully market the latest soap powder or charity fund-raising programme, or a bid to host the next Olympics, or a begging bowl to the World Bank.

    Peer-review is first-certificate, not an Olympic gold medal, except possibly in Stockholm.

  83. suffolkboy says:

    I’m surprised that there isn’t more on the Judith Lean issue. If first impressions are anything to go by, she seems to have deliberately tweaked somebody else’s empirical data and then publishing it without explaining why the tweak was needed. Amazingly, the tweaked data then aligns with AGW theory. Wow, the woman who made the Sun go dark! Beam her down into the Bar and Grill immediately. We need her onside to fight with the Klingons next year (so long as Scottie has got the warp drive coupled to the Huhemill by then). If she hasn’t done what she has been accused off, she deserves a drink on the house.

  84. izen says:

    There seem to be some misconceptions about aspects of how science is done both in general and at the IPCC level.

    Its inevitable that as with any human institution there can be a degree of closed-shop, group-think and old-boys-network factors in play. But that is not confined to climate science, and I would suggest is much LESS of a factor or problem in science than in other areas of human endevour.

    First the claim that the IPCC rejection of any solar influence is down to one paper by the person who was also the sole author of the section on solar effects in the IPCC report.
    It is a misrepresentation based on a false understanding of what the IPCC report is doing.
    There may be one lead author, but that is because someone has to be the name at the top, they have to form a concensus out of the many submissions, comments and citations that are put into the section by all the other interested parties.
    The impression given in the Canada free press article that the section was written by one person with no other input except their own research is at best mistaken, at worst a deliberate smear.

    The rejection of any significant role for solar effects is not based on just the Lean paper, but the totality of the research that shows no significant trend in solar activity (beyond the 11yr cycle) for several decades. You cannot derive a global warming trend from a stable energy source.

    Peer review
    replication and audit.

    Peer review is not a failsafe system for eliminating rubbish from the scientific publishing process, neither is it a sinacure for a few mates…
    It is usually anonymous, this is so the reviewer can be as honest, (rude) as they like without repucussions.

    Replication of another scientists’ work does not require knowledge of all the data and everything they did. In fact it is considered better that different methods and data are used to either confirm the original work, or refute it.

    Audit is appropriate for financial institutions when full, complete and transparent disclosure is required to detect fraud or mistakes. It is not an appropriate approach in science because replication (preferably by alternative methodologies) is a more robust test of a hypothesis. The only time audit is applied to science research is usually when one researcher declares significant results which no other scientists can duplicate.
    Cold fusion and the Korean cloning work would be examples where audit did reveal major errors and/or fraud.

    But that isn’t the case in cliamte research. There is no significant results from one researcher or group that is in conflict with the mainstream science or other climate data.
    At least not to the degree that would prompt a call for audit in this or any other field of science.

  85. NoIdea says:

    Apologies for the double post, I hit a glitch…
    A standard melon bleat repeated…
    “remember back a few years and honestly ask yourself if the weather was more stable? yes yes it was!”
    1963 long cold winter in UK (NOT stable!)
    1976 long hot summer in UK (izen camps) (NOT stable!)
    1987 hurricane in UK (NOT stable!)
    2000 Tropical storms in Philippines (happens every year! COMPLETELY normal)
    2009 cold winter in UK (NOT that unstable! Nearly COMPLETELY normal)
    2010 standard damp mild summer in UK (COMPLETELY normal)
    So honestly, NO, No it was not!
    I did just use my memory for this list as requested, is my memory faulty?

    NoIdea

  86. NoIdea says:

    Izen I think it was you that mentioned Lord Bertrand Russell, I found this interesting quote assigned to him.
    ““Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” – The Impact of Science on Society, 1953”
    Well I guess that explains your and bje’s slavish devotion to authorities.
    Is it reversible?
    Or are you stuck with a psychologically impossible viewpoint of reality?

    NoIde

    LibertyGibbert’s 6000th comment! Many thanks to all who have contributed to its success – Oz

  87. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    Orkneylad @ 6.57pm

    Those were two great links. Thanks OL, my favourite bit is………

    “[T]he majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us, are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed.”– Harold Pinter, Nobel Lecture (Literature), 2005″

    That one quote distills modern society, and all the other observations from Medicine to the Economy are just as described.

    I think I’ll print that out and frame it and the next fool that piddles in my ear about the latest “wisdom” from “on high”, I’ll probably shove it down their throat, frame and all, sideways.

  88. scud1 says:

    “I have often wondered how the media are in such lock step on Global Warming. Well, I wonder no more. Recently, I came across a website for the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). This website is veritable tool box for any budding reporter assigned to the global warming beat.”…

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/the_left_and_its_talking_point.html

  89. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    Manonthemoor @ 7.05pm

    Your Port Arthur link was not on the main road and next time I’m down there, I’ll have to check out the egg cup – looked really weird. Ozboy’ll find it.

    Whereas the narrow road came down the hillside and onto the avenue of trees (just as in the banner pic), it was all rebuilt in the late ’90s, the entry road has disappeared and is replaced by a big modern Visitors’ Centre, a really good example of its kind (I just have a beef about these things and hate change), and is Tasmania’s Premier Tourist Attraction.

    The SV doesn’t go into the actual site and is replaced on your SV link with a series of still shots, none of which depict the view I had in mind. I tried to find some other links but I keep getting “server in error” so I’ll keep trying – leave it with me.

    Thanks for your interest.

  90. manonthemoor says:

    Looks like time to duck below the parapet!

    Nasa scientists braced for ‘solar tsunami’ to hit earth
    The earth could be hit by a wave of violent space weather as early as Tuesday after a massive explosion on the sun, scientists have warned.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7923069/Nasa-scientists-braced-for-solar-tsunami-to-hit-earth.html

    As soon as Tuesday no less, they seem to come round quicker these days. Not one but two together like a bendy bus perhaps!

  91. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    MOTM @ 10.26pm

    Report from 42deg South. Night as black as pitch, high cloud, a few misty stars and no Aurora Australis……..yet…lol

    http://www.discovertasmania.com/about_tasmania/climate/aurora_australis

  92. suffolkboy says:
    August 3, 2010 at 7:24 am

    I am totally traumatized by all the comments concerning shooting polar bears, drawing defamatory pictures on walls of polar bears, and flaming bear farts (thanks for the link, SB; it was suitably and apprpriately horrible and in bad odour). I therefore feel compelled to go eat some baby seals to heal my mental wounds.

    While we are on the subject of copious farts, why don’t the soybean milk-farting though really hard-working and affable McCartney’s kick the baloney out of polar bears for eating meat, or go tell the lions to eat , preferably in person (s). Love the fashion, like the music, please STFU about my dietary habits, thanks. It’s like, Al-Queda uses IED’s but we evil Westerners use land mines, right? IED’s good, land mines bad, apparently. Blow me, MSM.

    Guess what. Land mines effing work. Land mines are our friends, if we are on the defensive, just like razor wire. I would not be here but for land mines.

    I am almost as traumatized by all this dead polar bear stuff as I am by Detroit stomping the Red Sox into the ground at Fenway. Not quite. Time for another Hebrew Union Hot Dog with lots of mustard, onions, relish, and ketchup.

    Youse guys will hear from my attorney in the morning.

  93. I’d authorize flamethrowers in Afghanistan if I were CGS. Ones that run off pigfart methane. I think that would send everyone home in about 24 hours, and I mean everyone.

  94. manonthemoor says:

    Blackswan Tasmania
    August 3, 2010 at 10:44 pm

    Just read your interesting link.

    If oxygen and nitrogen give off coloured lights, can Izen or bje tell us what coloured lights CO2 produces!

    No colours? Perhaps not much CO2 then!

  95. Edward. says:

    The rejection of any significant role for solar effects is not based on just the Lean paper, but the totality of the research that shows no significant trend in solar activity (beyond the 11yr cycle) for several decades. You cannot derive a global warming trend from a stable energy source.

    WTF? Do you read this hogwash guff, back to yourself?………Just read that last sentence back and weep.

    Replication of another scientists’ work does not require knowledge of all the data and everything they did. In fact it is considered better that different methods and data are used to either confirm the original work, or refute it.

    NO the idea is to replicate results in order to test the method and how the conclusion was arrived at, thus all information is required.

    But that isn’t the case in cliamte research. There is no significant results from one researcher or group that is in conflict with the mainstream science or other climate data.
    At least not to the degree that would prompt a call for audit in this or any other field of science.

    Well there is no conflict. because if you receive government funding, the song remains the damn same. The adolescents at the centre of the witches coven are in cahoots, communication and ‘on message’ – why the hell would they rock the ****ing boat?

    Field science is it?
    Well some of these twats have been in the computer suite so long they have become blenched white, like cave dwellers -albino ids, some go looking in the field and can’t see the wood for the trees and in certain cases only some trees will count anyway ask Keith and Mickey.
    Top of ‘the tree’ (In Yamal no doubt) at the IPCC is one of the most obviously corrupt men in the world (part time porn writer and sometime Thomas the tank engineer), he knows that we know and laughs at us cos he works for the UN and they are synonymous = corruption (so that’s alright then- no probs). So peer review means nought to him as long as they are singing from the same sheet and Tata get first sniff at lucre.

    So worry not Izal all is right in the world and lo! Is that?…………Lord yes…..faeries at the bottom of the garden, pass me the green moon cheese Elvis.

    NoIdea, your pet is short of some ‘chairs under the table’, too much sun in 76 was it?

  96. bjedwards says:

    You guys are in the wrong place. You need to be here, New Zealand’s number one publication:

    http://uncensored.co.nz/

  97. orkneylad says:

    izen – wtf?

    Caligula’s dance……

  98. NoIdea says:

    I am not going to visit that site “BJ” not all of us are comfortable with visiting places that perhaps should be censored. I can only hazard a guess that it is the worst kind of pron…
    Is it a surprise?
    That Is what I had been tempted to post, I have however been reliably informed that your link was merely rubbish.
    Can you stop wasting our time?

    NoIdea

  99. Pointman says:

    NoIdea August 4, 2010 at 12:07 am

    Don’t go there NoIdea. It’s probably full of gimps worrying sh**p while being stung by squirrels …

    Pointman

  100. Bostonian Bear landmines and flamethrowers are for wimps nukes are our friends except in Afghanistan if you used them no one would be able to tell the difference except the background radiation may be a little higher.

  101. suffolkboy says:

    @Bostonian Bear said at August 3, 2010 at 10:53 pm: “Youse guys will hear from my attorney in the morning.”
    Hi BB. Pull up a bar stool and have a peanut. For something more substantial you can choose between squirellburgers in the grill ($5 extra for reds), galah, and woodchuck. Beware of the troll sh!t on the floor behind you. There was a bit of bust-up but earlier but these things happen. She’ll be back to collect her cut’n’paste kit later. Sorry about the ice-berg photoshoots; that wasn’t us. There is an interesting series of seminars going on at another table about the Laws of Thermodynamics (as violated in air-cooled internal combustion engines, string vests, and the IPCC) the dynamic equilibrium of ozone concentrations in the upper atmosphere, and the relative impact of soda water versus bear flatulence on solar flares. We haven’t seen the Indian Duck for some time, and were worrying if it had migrated to Louisiana. We have a video juke-box playing some classic oldies if anybody can find out how to work it. We could do with some work on diminishing the light intensity from the Sun as we may not have the services of our visiting data massager, Judith. Sorry I have to go now: a year seven child is in trouble.

  102. Locusts says:

    I had some inner Party cigarettes today. The first time I’d heard of them, seen them or smoked them. A quote from 1984 best describes them:

    They were very good cigarettes, very thick and well-packed, with an unfamiliar silkiness in the paper.

  103. manonthemoor says:

    Excellent suffolkboy a chat awaits you at http://www.founding-sons.co.uk/

    Ni Locusts and I usually in attendance also pointman, oz and others pop in

    Any login problems shout

    Others also welcome

  104. Pointman says:

    suffolkboy August 4, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Suffolk, after a hard days curing the ignoranti, freshen you drink, feet on the table, relax. You know you deserve it.

    P’s dime http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-wJNpWgss8

    Pointman

  105. Pointman says:

    On the other hand, I you just resisted killing one of the little darlings, this is the number you probably need to unwind.

    Pointman

  106. suffolkboy says:
    August 4, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Sounds like more of the same at the Ozboy and DT Bar & Grill to me, which is not a bad thing whatsoever. Sounds like BJ is off for therapy at the moment LOL! Y’all be nice to the handicapped and stop tossing a chain from their wheelchairs to hook on the axles of passing lorries.

    Crownie, I still don’t get why Afghanastani bananabrains can use landmines and we can’t, in the eyes of the press or anyone else. Lady Di is Lady Dead now so, ya know, She doesn’t care, or can’t say anything about it, so WTF? You can’t tell me half the British and US dead in combat wouldn’t be here is proper perimeter security could have been imposed.

    People opposed to the use of landmines in Bananastan should be drafted to wear steel supersized clown shoes and be compelled at bayonet point to clear Al Qooty landmines, EXCUSE ME improvised explosive devices.

    Better yet, use Al Qooty prisoners, wearing porkgrease covered supersized steel clown shoes. And what the hell, Michael Mann can go out beyond the wire for a tapdance or so too, just for grins.

  107. is proper is if proper. GAAAH! Digitarditis strikes again.

    Maybe if I formed a charity, it would at least provide the wherewithal for ye aulde curative herbes and merciful beverages. Won’t you please help? Give generously. BJ knows what he can give lol

  108. bjedwards says:

    Meanwhile, back in the real world:

    “NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
    Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years”

    July 28, 2010

    State of the Climate in 2009: Report Cover.

    “The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

    “Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

    “For the first time, and in a single compelling comparison, the analysis brings together multiple observational records from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean,” said Jane Lubchenco, Ph.D., under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming.”

    continued at:
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html

  109. Edward. says:

    I believe I am warming to my theme, hottest year ever, why don’t I believe this crap?

    Maybe because the T record has been completely ****ed up beyond all recognition that is why and here is the stark evidence, don’t take my word for it read it here:
    http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/surfacetempreview.pdf

    Abridged findings here at WUWT:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/03/a-new-must-read-paper-mckitrick-on-ghcn-and-the-quality-of-climate-data/#more-22937

    I challenge any objective observer /objective thinker who is not swayed by AGW propaganda to read the above and not arrive at the conclusion that the temperature record has been skewed, so much as to be – outrageously biased, like I said, think of the answer and then find the method, in AGW the dodgier the fudging all the better ask Prof (what a joke) Jones of CRU/IPCC – Peer review – my arse!

    Indignant of the North.

  110. bjedwards says:

    Pointman, paranoid, disparaging his fellow climate deniers, wrote:

    “Don’t go there NoIdea. It’s probably full of gimps worrying sh**p while being stung by squirrels …”

    And here they are supporting your every denial:

    “Climategate: The Wheels Come Off for the IPCC”
    http://uncensored.co.nz/2010/01/26/climategate-the-wheels-come-off-for-the-ipcc/

  111. Bostonian Bear it’s 102F here that’s 2,000C in new money with the heat index because of the humidity it feels like 123F that’s 3,000C in new money.
    The solution to the landmine problem is simply one of semantics rebrand them as unauthorized intruder detectors UID’s. I hate bloody stupid woolly thinking from liberal types who just love to send our troops into insane wars and then don’t allow them the tools to do the job. The only real way to win that war is to kill every male over the age of 7 but that might be a tad drastic. Like Vietnam the war is winnable just fund it right and let the generals deal with it no press allowed. Or bring the press and use them as IED clearers.

  112. Guys when the solar flare hits and civilization is destroyed remember to eat the liberal veggie types first but I’m afraid they may taste like bottom.

  113. izen says:

    @- Noidea –
    “Regarding your strange suggestion about hair dryers…
    “And nothing.”
    Wrong, I am surprised with your extended lexicon that you are not familiar with Advection. … I can of course see why you choose to ignore convection heat transfer, just skimming the surface we immediately run into lots of nasty squiggly looking equations and numbers.”

    Advection and convection have nothing to do with the way the red-hot electrical element in a hairdryer warms the airstream coning out the front.
    Looks a bit like desperation your part to bring it up….

    Quote-“What exactly would be limiting the air?
    Is it in a cupboard or tent?If warm air cannot cool hot engines how do air cooled motorbikes work in the warmer climates? (And they do!)”

    For the limit on the air I was thinking a small and very well insulated shed….
    They are designed to still get enough cooling even when the ambient temperature is higher. But they run hotter. Used to drive a VW beetle a long time ago, has an air-cooled engine, would lose power in hot weather for just that reason….

    Quote-“IF air is a good conductor, how does my thermal string vest work?”

    Prevents convection and reduces the thermal capacity of the layer next to the skin by ensuring a greater proportion is still air.
    Note that they are considerably less effective if worn without a layer of clothing over the top. Except for a brief period in the early 80s they are generally considered unfashionable when worn without any overgarment too….

    Quote-“A standard melon bleat repeated…
    “remember back a few years and honestly ask yourself if the weather was more stable? yes yes it was!”
    1963 long cold winter in UK (NOT stable!)
    1976 long hot summer in UK (izen camps) (NOT stable!)….”

    2003 and 2005 both had hotter temps than 1976….

    Quote-“…..Lord Bertrand Russell, I found this interesting quote assigned to him.
    ““Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” – ”

    Russell may have been an impressive mathematician.
    But he was no biologist.
    Although it turns out he did pursue the biological imperative with rather more enthusiasm than is generally considered socially acceptable….

  114. NoIdea says:

    Iron Man-Where’s Your Head At?

    From the wonderful and unbiased link provided by bje the old repeater (He was being taught the state’s official message since he was in diapers.) we can find.
    “The report emphasizes that human society has developed for thousands of years under one climatic state,”
    Where and when was this mythical “one climatic state”?
    “more extreme events like severe drought, torrential rain and violent storms.”
    You just gotta hate that droughty rain…
    Shome mishtake shorley, Shirley Knut?

    NoIdea

  115. Pointman says:

    Gimp, still have hangups about your education?

    Pointman

  116. bjedwards says:

    “Climate Crock takes on Lord Monckton aka TVMOB”
    April 12, 2010

    Part 1: http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/12/debunking-lord-monckton-aka-tvmob/

    “Peter Sinclair, our favorite climate de-crocker, has taken on The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (TVMOB). I’d be interested in CP readers’ comments on the video, especially its framing, and will pass those on to Sinclair.”

    Part 2: http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/16/climate-crock-takes-on-lord-monckton-part-2/

    Nice smack-down of the wanker.

  117. Pointman says:

    Hey gimp, NoIdea tells me you’ve never denied being a 9/11 truther. Is that true?

    Pointman.

  118. Pointman says:

    I’ll take your silence as an admission. What a sad gimp …

    Pointman

  119. Pointman says:

    Izen,

    Have a word with the gimp. Apart from your one monomanical quirk you appear normal, in subdued lighting. Your backup, the gimp is a ‘Truther’. Do you really want him on your side. I’d lead him back to the offical Bagpuss site or something.

    Well, that’s got rid of BJ but I think he rather likes his role as the gimp in the Bar & Grill. Maybe he can’t stay away. Likes the leather, leash, occasional sh**p etc etc …

    Pointman

  120. izen says:

    @- Edward. says:
    August 3, 2010 at 11:21 pm
    “(izen)You cannot derive a global warming trend from a stable energy source.

    WTF? Do you read this hogwash guff, back to yourself?………Just read that last sentence back and weep.”

    Not sure what your objection is.
    A stable energy source will give a stable temperature… IF the rate of energy loss is unchanged.

    Quote-“NO the idea is to replicate results in order to test the method and how the conclusion was arrived at, thus all information is required.”

    Wrong.
    In science the idea of replication is to replicate the underlying science, NOT the precise method used by another researcher. It is considered BETTER to use a different methodology because if the same conclusion about the science is supported by two independent methods the conclusion can be considered more robust.
    This is why finding a global temperature rise in the instrumental surface record AND the satellite data is a better indication that there really IS an underlying global warming than two researchers using the same data and methods to reach the same conclusion.

    Your version reminds me of the E L Wisty quote-
    ” I have made many mistakes in my life and I have learnt from all of them. If I had to live my life over again I could make the same mistakes exactly…”

    Quote-“Well there is no conflict. because if you receive government funding, the song remains the damn same. The adolescents at the centre of the witches coven are in cahoots, communication and ‘on message’ – why the hell would they rock the ****ing boat?”

    Except in scientific research the big kudos comes from finding something new and different from what everyone else is saying. No one really wants to duplicate the work of others, they want at least to support it by using another methodology and at best to refute it with their own, better and more significant work.
    That way lies more citations tenure and job security!

  121. izen says:

    @- Pointman says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:37 am
    “Izen,
    Have a word with the gimp. Apart from your one monomanical quirk you appear normal, in subdued lighting. ”

    I HAVE had a word. see my post at -izen says: August 3, 2010 at 9:27 am
    https://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/hottest-ever/#comment-5972

    The lighting in here must be VERY subdued if I only appear to have ONE monomanical quirk.
    I try for ten before breakfast….

  122. izen says:

    @- manonthemoor –
    “If oxygen and nitrogen give off coloured lights, can Izen or bje tell us what coloured lights CO2 produces!”

    Its all in the infra red. Wavelengths greater than 7um.
    CO2 lasers are invisible, but good for cutting skin and flesh because it is efficiently absorbed by the water content…

  123. manonthemoor says:

    izen
    August 4, 2010 at 5:18 am

    Sorry I thought modern digital cameras,webcams and video cameras detect infra red!

    Hint try it with a tv remote!

    Hopefully someone will take some pictures then ………..

  124. CriticalThinker says:

    Do you think Oz would allow us to have a dart board in his fine establishment?

    We could do with something to pin the trolls onto.

    There’s one on the back wall now; be my guest – Oz

  125. NoIdea says:

    izen

    “Advection and convection have nothing to do with the way the red-hot electrical element in a hairdryer warms the airstream coning out the front.”

    I am finding this hard to wrap my head around, would you care to elucidate?
    As you are well aware, my education is often wiki based until provided links from you. From wiki I found “Occasionally, the term advection is used as synonymous with convection However, many engineers prefer to use the term convection to describe transport by combined molecular and eddy diffusion, and reserve the usage of the term advection to describe transport with a general (net) flow of the fluid (like in river or pipeline)” (or hairdryer?)

    Running any engine indoors is a very silly idea and MUST NOT be tried at home. DO NOT listen to izen on this one folks, the Carbon Monoxide will get you before the heat build up from all the CO2…

    “Used to drive a VW beetle a long time ago, has an air-cooled engine, would lose power in hot weather for just that reason….”
    Come now, not just that reason, surely you are aware that cold dense air has more oxygen than warm?
    Can you think of any more?

    “Prevents convection and reduces the thermal capacity of the layer next to the skin by ensuring a greater proportion is still air.” I agree with all this. However I would still like to see some data or a link as to the effectiveness or not of air as a conductor, if you have one.

    IF 2003 and 2005 both had hotter temps than 1976 then why did the rivers dry up in 76 and not in 2003 and 2005?
    Was it a wetter heat?

    The little I have seen of Russell does not fill me with happy thoughts. So far I am not a fan.
    Do you have any links to his math?

    “Except in scientific research the big kudos comes from finding something new and different from what everyone else is saying.”

    I think if you look a little deeper you will find that it depends on who you are funded by. Remember Clare Patterson? he devoted the rest of his life to removing as much introduced lead from the environment as possible. Author Bill Bryson notes that following his criticism of the lead industry he was refused contracts with many research organizations, including the supposedly neutral United States Public Health Service. In 1971 he was excluded from a National Research Council panel on atmospheric lead contamination, which was odd considering he was the foremost expert on the subject at that time.
    Did Clare Patterson get the big kudos for his new and different findings?

    NoIdea

  126. CriticalThinker says:

    manonthemoor,

    Some ccd cameras, including security cameras, can ‘see’ in the near infrared part of the spectrum. TV remotes also emit in this band and can be viewed using image intensifiers. Mil spec. thermal imagers work in the far infrared part of the spectrum and use mechanical scanning with cooled sensors. They have a small compressor built into the imager and need a few minutes from switch-on to cool down before use.

  127. izen says:

    orkneylad says:
    August 4, 2010 at 12:03 am
    “izen – wtf?


    Well the graph shows sunspot numbers and Sea Surface temps up to about 1980.
    An interesting cutoff as beyond that date the sunspot numbers drop back to 1940s levels and the SSTs continue to rise…

    There is a useful resource called woodfortrees.org that enables you to plot many variables like these against each other, here is sunspot number plotted against global temps –
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:120/scale:0.01/normalise/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:120/normalise

    A less convincing correlation then izen’tit!
    Obviously SOME connection, but clearly other factors in play. Note the temp rises in the 1920s BEFORE the rise in sunspot number, and they go in opposite directions after 1985.
    The ‘science side’ acknowledges that the small solar variations over the last ~150 years have played some part, maybe as much as 50% or as little as 7%. Depends how you analyse the data, not eyeball graphs.
    Those are the credible limits on solar influence to account for the rest of the variation, and especially the trend post 1980.

    Two further points.
    Have a look at the graph of sunspot number and temp where it DOES ‘match up’. That implies a high climate sensitivity. With the small change in energy from the sun that the sunspot number represents the climate must be very responsive. The sunspot variation represents an energy change about 20% the size of the energy change caused by rising CO2.
    Second, Have a look at the sunspot number plotted against the Pacific Decadel Oscillation, there is a nice match since 1980, both apparently driving a cooling, but compare with the SST!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:120/scale:0.01/normalise/from:1900/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:120/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/mean:120/normalise/from:1900

  128. izen says:

    @-NoIdea says:
    August 4, 2010 at 5:47 am
    “I am finding this hard to wrap my head around, would you care to elucidate?…..many engineers prefer to use the term convection to describe transport by combined molecular and eddy diffusion, and reserve the usage of the term advection to describe transport with a general (net) flow of the fluid (like in river or pipeline)” (or hairdryer?)”

    Okay, the fan in the hairdryer moves the air. The electrical filement heats the air, by conduction. The fan can then be described as advecting the hot air, but it certainly izent the mechanism that transfers the thermal energy to that air.

    Quote-“….surely you are aware that cold dense air has more oxygen than warm?
    Can you think of any more?”

    Shirely the temp differential between the hottest and coldest parts of any heat engine determine its efficiency…

    quote-“However I would still like to see some data or a link as to the effectiveness or not of air as a conductor, if you have one.”

    You can download data and little DOS programs here which give you lots of info.
    Gas thermal conduction is proportional to the molecular weight of the molecule in general, so hydrogen/helium conduct heat very well, heavier molecules increasingly badly. Nitrogen and oxygen about in the middle…

    http://www.tak2000.com/data2.htm

    quote-“I think if you look a little deeper you will find that it depends on who you are funded by. Remember Clare Patterson? he devoted the rest of his life to removing as much introduced lead from the environment as possible. …..
    Did Clare Patterson get the big kudos for his new and different findings?”

    What an interesting example!
    Like Hanson he was producing results that threatened very powerful financial interests… and I think eventually he DOES have the credit for his findings as well as his campaigning stance.

    Memoryvault will not be pleased, apart from claiming Midgely’s CFCs are harmless he also indicated he regards the lead in petrol scare as a scam too. Probably regards Patterson as a genocidal commie fraud….
    -v small grin-

  129. bjedwards says:

    Pointman wrote, admitting his stupidity,

    <i."Hey gimp, NoIdea tells me you’ve never denied being a 9/11 truther. Is that true?"

    See http://911booger.blogspot.com for your education, bubbles.

  130. Pointman says:

    So gimp, you’ve been waiting there patiently for me to return? Te he.

    Pointman

  131. Pointman says:

    Well, now that you’ve not denied you’re a truther, you might as well admit you’re a creationist or are you going to be a denier again?

    Pointman

  132. Pointman says:

    That one requires a bit of thinking about, doesn’t it gimpy ….

    Pointman

  133. Pointman says:

    You can phone a friend if you like.

    Pointman

  134. Pointman says:

    Of course, that suggestion is predicated on you having any friends …

    Pointman

  135. Dave,Edinburgh says:

    Hi All,

    Link to SPPI PDF “RESPONSE TO NOAA / MET OFFICE State of the Climate Report 2009”

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/collection_re_noaa.pdf

    D.

  136. Amanda says:

    Izen @3:26:

    Like your sense of humour (re your comments about being prolix).

    As for camping, reminds me of when my boyfriend and I went on a canoe trip with backpacks in the Canadian wilderness. All the wonders of nature and not a human in sight. Nothing but moose, birds, and the occasional beaver. (Oh, and bears, but we always hung our food pack.) Anyway, his father was an observant Presbyterian. When told that we were planning the trip, he said ‘Separate tents?’ I had a good laugh at that one — not in front of him, of course.

  137. amanda this is all I know about Canada….

  138. For Boston Bear we need these guys in Afghanistan…

  139. Amanda says:

    Crown, good one. I’m a lumberjack, or in my boyfriend’s case, a goofball student cum civil servant cum squirt-boat designer cum firefighter. And I don’t know what he’s doing now. Bet he remembers me, though ;^)

  140. amanda well since it’s quiet and everyone is sleepy night crew time.

  141. Ever wondered what a flapper was…

  142. For the aussies coz they love wabbits and funny bunny wunny’s…

  143. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    Crown,

    We sure do love those bunnies – Yummm, wrapped in bacon and sloooow roasted, or into the oven for a great red wine casserole. Mmm, mmmm.

  144. Blackswan I hate fluffy animals as people stuff, I’m a country boy and all them critters is good eats as they say around here but then again people marry their cousins around here so it explains the bad English.

  145. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    A few years back, the Cygnet thought it very funny that we installed a rain gauge in the garden and came home with……..

    “Australia’s Most Accurate Weather Forecaster” – a piece of board with a piece of string attached, to be nailed up beside the gauge. The legend went like this……

    String is Curling – It’s Hot.
    String is Wet – It’s Raining
    Hard to see – It’s Foggy
    String turns White – It’s Frosty or Snowing
    String Smoking – You’ve had a Lightning Strike
    String Moving – Windy
    Not Moving – Not Windy
    String Missing – A Cyclone’s Been Through or It’s Been Stolen

    I wonder how much Federal Taxpayer Funding it cost for some “climate scientist” to come up with that earth-shatteringly brilliant device.

    About as relevant as their recent efforts…..LOL

  146. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    Hi Crown,
    Any Australian you ask, will tell you Tasmanians have two heads. This stems from an apparent inclination to “inter-marry” among some families. It seems in the old days of remote wilderness living, lack of transport, hard times etc, folks didn’t get around too much and got real friendly with their rellies.

    I’ve had mainlanders check my neck for scars where the second head was removed, ask me if I left it at home and on and on. Sometimes they are merciless but we always have the last laugh. We are lucky enough to live here and they don’t. Enough said.

  147. Amanda says:

    I had a lop-eared rabbit as a pet. Canadian Lumberjack boyfriend gave him to me as a young ‘un as a Valentine’s present. Ill-advised, since I did not have adequate space for him. But mind how you speak of rabbits… I still have a picture of Bobby, who used to stand up on his hind legs when I left the room, one ear dangling, as if to ask ‘where are you going?’

    Love you, Bobby, R. I. P.

  148. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    Hi Amanda,
    Was he yummy?

  149. suffolkboy says:

    Forget hockeysticks: chimney brushes are in

    @Edward. says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:01 am

    […]
    Maybe because the T record has been completely ****ed up beyond all recognition that is why and here is the stark evidence, don’t take my word for it read it here:
    http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/surfacetempreview.pdf
    […]

    For me the most vivid illustration of the T record being completely ****ed up beyond all recognition is the “chimney brush”.

    The derivation of this curve is so easy even gimps can understand it. In essence you take all the original raw numerical temperature readings you can lay your hands on and subtract them from the homogenized data spread around by CRU et al. This gives you the amount of fudge correction added by the CRU. The key features are the abrupt increase in the furriness of the data over the last fifteen years ago, and the general increase in correction over the whole period. The upward drift is not news; it was the furriness that was news to me: as the authors say, the graph is like a horizontal chimney brush with the brush in the last decade and the rod in the preceding centuries. As the authors say:

    The second, and more obvious feature is the chimney-brush appearance of the graph, indicating a
    massive increase in the volatility of the adjustments after 1990. The instability in the record dwarfs the
    size of the century-scale global warming signal, with fluctuations routinely going to ±0.5 degrees C from
    one year to the next. The southern hemisphere (bottom panel) is particularly noisy.
    On substantive grounds I therefore conclude that after 1990 the GHCN archive became very problematic
    as a basis for computing precise global average temperatures over land and comparing them to earlier
    decades.

    The paper authors mention the equatorial and downhill drift of the weather stations, and how the resulting corrections that have to be applied have considerable uncertainty attached to them. (Not mentioned is that easy way of generating great uncertainty is to apply a trick of mixing in tree-ring proxies in the later decades. Forgest the issue of the careful selection of Yaral trees; the uncertainty in converting from ring spacing to temperature is far greater than the uncertainty in converting from mercury length to temperature.)

    For me, what is more important than the particular way the brush uncertainty was introduced is that, having done so, you can then construct any sort of hockey stick you like by either selecting points from this, or, more ingeniously, by hiding the data behind obscure statistical methods that smooth the data yet also always generate hockey-sticks and then select the particular method to give you one of the upward sticks (or, if the prevailing panic reverses, one of the downward ones). If you don’t like hockey sticks you can put a succession of increasingly steep straight lines through the data and claim that the rate of warming is increasing.

    I think we ought to make a blow-up picture of Figure 1-10 and stick it behind the Bar and keep looking at it while the Lord Oxburgh of Persil saga unfolds over the next year.

    Thanks, Edward, that’s made my day!

  150. Dave,Edinburgh says:

    Hi (again) All,

    In my in-box this morning, e-mail fron CFACT with link to “A Liberal Environmentalist challenges Global Warming Theory”

    One more of us, One LESS of them?

  151. Edward. says:

    suffolkboy says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    Yes I blundered in flailing a broadsword once again, whereas, your good self by using a surgical scalpel have much more expertly dissected the report.

    The absolute homogenisation/fudging/amending-fixing of the T data sets is something to behold.
    NOAA and the Hadley centre trumpet; “hottest ever”, the GISS mouthpiece Hansen was trumpeting the same (earlier in the year – they cannot all do it at the same time – people would think they’re one and the same…..oh! …….they are!!), we now know this to be indeed all hot air, they all are in urgent need of the
    chimney brush treatment themselves.
    Expert comment (once more) Suffolkboy.

    Ed.

  152. Edward. says:

    Dave,Edinburgh says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Fantastic news, thank you Dave.

    What an erudite gentleman Denis Rancourt is and it puts in mind a story because of a comment he made at the end of the piece concerning, Habitat destruction.
    To me this is where eejits like WWF should be fighting for the world, not at dopenhagen against realists but against the real despoilers and desecraters of the planet.
    Hilary Benn, long standing eco nut (then environmental secretary for HMG UK), vacuous twerp and general swotty nerd type, jetted over to Bali on one of these save the planet UN IPCC shindigs.
    He travelled over to Bali with a considerable entourage/hangers on, to discuss……well something he is least able to pontificate on cos he’s no effin scientist – AGW (when did that ever stop a brain dead politician?).

    Now I must admit, this is a bit personal because this is one of my interests……..the preserving of the habitat of Indonesian fauna and flora, which is being savagely exploited by palm oil companies – cynically initiating and causing wanton deforestation of virgin equatorial land.

    Benn the fuckwit stayed in a luxury hotel (£315/night) at taxpayers expense (with about 40 others) to hold forth on a subject, that my pet stuffed monkey knows more about (- can’t they sense the irony in all of this or do they think they are doing something so important that……….how stupid of me to even consider that, it would be even more stupid!).
    Anyway in amongst all the cant, sanctimony, hubris and general bollocks talked about, Benn came out and praised the Indonesian government for their great environmental achievements in combating CC, which took the biscuit in inane and incredulous comments.
    It was like praising Pol Pot for his record on human rights, the problem in the first place is the government turning a blind eye to native loggers, laying waste to the forest.
    Then they burn it!! Which releases millions of tons of soot, CO2 and shite into the atmosphere, then Lo and behold! as if by a miracle!! – the palm oil boys are there. Saying; “we must reclaim this land cos it’s no use to anybody now”, so local government boys get their backhanders, the palm oil boys move in and bobs your uncle, and another thousand square miles is lost to plantation monoculture, anathema to the local fauna and vegetation.
    No!! – but Hilary Benn praised ’em, God help me! for I fucking despise stupidity -especially when it is allied to openly hypocritical mewling by a politician who doesn’t know the difference between a hole in the ground and his arsehole.
    He is paid by HMG for that, nice work if you can sleep at night.

    Ah that’s better.

    Ed.

  153. NoIdea says:

    Izen,

    “Okay, the fan in the hairdryer moves the air.”
    Without the fan the hairdryer is no longer a hair dryer, without the heater element it will still dry your hair, it will take longer though.

    “Shirely the temp differential between the hottest and coldest parts of any heat engine determine its efficiency…”
    I am lost as to the point you are making here, if you have hot fuel/air and a cold engine you will have a temperature differential, there will be no gain in efficiency.

    Thank you for the excellent link, so many things to choose from, I must have Gas Heat Capacity as a function of temperature, Gas Thermal Conductivity as a function of temperature, Gas Heat of Formation as a function of temperature, Database of 468 different gases and liquids, Total solar irradiance emitted by the sun over all wavelengths outside the earth’s atmosphere, Data from six sets of satellite observations and Solar radiation above and below the earth’s atmosphere. That is at first glance…

    Another interesting example

    “Jack Hyde, a geology professor at a community college in Tacoma. He pointed out that St. Helens didn’t have an open vent, as Hawaiian volcanoes have, so any pressure building up inside was bound to be released dramatically and probably catastrophically. However, Hyde was not part of the official team and his observations attracted little notice.
    We all know what happened next. At 8:32 A.M. on a Sunday morning, May 18, the north side of the volcano collapsed, sending an enormous avalanche of dirt and rock rushing down the mountain slope at 150 miles an hour. It was the biggest landslide in human history and carried enough material to bury the whole of Manhattan to a depth of four hundred feet. A minute later, its flank severely weakened, St. Helens exploded with the force of five hundred Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs, shooting out a murderous hot cloud at up to 650 miles an hour—much too fast, clearly, for anyone nearby to outrace. Many people who were thought to be in safe areas, often far out of sight of the volcano, were overtaken. Fifty-seven people were killed. Twenty-three of the bodies were never found. The toll would have been much higher except that it was a Sunday. Had it been a weekday many lumber workers would have been working within the death zone. As it was, people were killed eighteen miles away.”

    A brief look on Wiki shines no spotlight on Jack Hyde’s kudos…

    While I mention volcanoes, from Bill Brysons book, A Short History of Nearly Everything

    “Since 1850, it has been estimated, we have lofted about a hundred billion tons of extra carbon into the air, a total that increases by about seven billion tons each year. Overall, that’s not actually all that much. Nature—mostly through the belchings of volcanoes and the decay of plants—sends about 200 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, nearly thirty times as much as we do with our cars and factories. But you have only to look at the haze that hangs over our cities to see what a difference our contribution makes.”

    A couple of things leap out at me, the “belchings of volcanoes”, now, what would the isotopic fingerprint be on volcanic CO2 emissions?
    Seems a shame that he mentions the haze that hangs over our cities as if it is a haze of CO2 though, or do you also think he is seeing CO2?

    NoIdea

  154. suffolkboy says:

    Formula for creating “….est ever ….day since records began”

    Edward. says: August 4, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    […]The absolute homogenisation/fudging/amending-fixing of the T data sets is something to behold.[…]

    I have been fascinated by all the soundbites over the last year in the papers saying “the Met Office said this is the /warmest/coldest/wettest/driest/ /January/June/ in /the world/England/Kirkwall/Bognor Regis/ since /records began/this decade/last Tuesday/.

    Well it would be wouldn’t it, if you rely on chimney brush data, FFS! Given data that is relatively unfurry (regardless of any long term trend) until the last decade you can generate any of these statements and they would all be consistent with the chimney brush data. You simply select any of the earlier data (1700 is a good one) on the smooth handle and compare it with whichever hair at the furry end supports the proposition you want. The lengths of the hairs at the furry end easily swamp the knobbly bits along the handle.

    Once you have got the hang of this, you can move on to the more advance concepts, like showing that “we are experiencing more extremes of weather than in the past, rather than an overall warming or cooling”. Easy-peasy: select almost any two points from the fuzzy end and they will almost certainly be further apart vertically than two points selected from the handle. Simples.

    My incorrect mindset was that the the *ancient* data had the higher uncertainty because it relied on cat entrails instead of mercury. The brilliant coup of CRU is to re-introduce cat entrails into the *modern* data and then compare the resulting fuzzy data with the non-fuzzy mercury.

    Monckton has been banging on about this sort of thing for months. He could have a field-day with this; I am sure he will.

    (NB: I wrote all that without a single mathematical symbol. So here is one: σ.

    Must dash. I have a meeting of the Campaign for Real Data to attend.

  155. suffolkboy says:

    Izen/Noidea

    Yes, you’re orbitting around the second law of thermodynmics: maximum possible efficiency of cyclic heat processing plant = ((Thot-Tcold)/Thot)*100 where Thot is the *absolute* temperature of the hot end and Tcold is the *absolute* temperature of the cold end. (Efficiency = Work out/heat in).
    Real internal combustion engines aren’t strictly speaking modelled properly by CHPPs but that’s another story.

  156. Edward. says:

    Suffolkboy,

    Pertaining to your most recent post sir, how about this?
    NOAA or GHCN or whatever.

    “Christopher Monckton lists the assertions required to make the NOAA report make sense, and demolishes them. He sums up the report:

    * The authors perpetrated the elementary (and, in climate science now near-universal) logical fallacy of assuming that, merely because they had failed to consider any other explanation for recent “global warming”, the only possible explanation was mankind’s emission of CO2 though burning fossil fuels;
    * The authors carefully selected only those temperature indicators that suited their desired conclusion, carefully excluding those pointing the other way;
    * The authors carefully chose data periods that suited their desired conclusion;
    * The authors carefully ignored natural explanations for recent global warming.”

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/noaas-state-of-the-climate-report/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+JoNova+%28JoNova%29

    Chimes with your thoughts Suffolkboy quite nicely.

    Ed.

  157. NoIdea says:

    Suffolkboy,

    Thank you for clearly explaining the point I have been lumbering towards.
    I do hope the appearance of the demi-God Thot does not scare any children watching.
    As for the introduction of the Californian Highway Police Patrol, that may just confuse matters further I fear.
    Do you think you could tell us the other story please; I am always interested in the hows and whys, especially of real stuff.
    If the CHPP story must involve jumping Harley Davidson’s, can they please not turn into motor crossers mid jump?

    NoIdea

  158. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    Suffolkboy/Edward,

    I like my version of a chimney brush best. Years ago we bought a 100 year old farmhouse with a high-pitched roof and a couple of tall chimneys and four fireplaces. The owners assured us the chimneys and wood-heater flue had recently been cleaned. Like all house-vendors they were liars.

    Shortly after moving in we had a cold snap and tried to light the heater. The house filled with smoke. I went outside and found zero smoke escaping the S/steel flue which extended about a foot out of the old chimney and was topped by a “coolie-hat” cover. Needing a there-and-then remedy I got our many-years-old air rifle and shot the flue, sending buckets of creosote tumbling down into the heater. Problem solved.

    We soon sorted the chimney brush problem but I often wondered what the subsequent owners of that house thought about their thoroughly-dimpled flue…lol

    As you say, “they all are in urgent need of the chimney brush treatment themselves”.

    I like my version of a chimney brush treatment, just change the calibre and method of delivery, problem solved.

  159. fenbeagle says:

    Dave,Edinburgh says:
    August 4, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    Good video. Thank you for your post

  160. suffolkboy says:

    CREOSOTE!! You should have collected it. It’s worth a fortune. DON’T YOU KNOW!!! The EU and ECM banned creosote years ago on the grounds that it not been shown not to cause a 10% reduction in the thickness of Louisianan ring-tailed gannet eggshells. You can’t get it in the UK at any price other than on the black market. Instead of painting your fence with dirt-cheap unpatented waste products of gas-works and oil refineries, nowadays you have to buy *patent* special creosote substitute from the company that sponsored the research into gannet breeding and lobbied the EU commissioners into passing the directive.

    All right, I made that all up, well mostly.
    Am looking into Harley Davidsons and Monckton and getting a life away from this computer.

  161. Pointman says:

    suffolkboy August 4, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    They’re all just spoil sports. People enjoying themselves getting high on the fumes while they creosoted, had to be stopped.

    Pointman

  162. Edward. says:

    Suffolkboy,

    How about three pronged energy efficient light bulbs (MPs nice little earner), fly spray that doesn’t kill flies because all it does is make ’em smell better, there is nothing in the spray anymore which can kill flies, like the DDT bollocks, virtually eradicated malaria, then…………Zut alors!!! – OH dear birds eggs are affected and lo and behold! – a ban, lets see …………………hmmmm er what about CFCs?????

    UN/EU all the ferkin same, paper clip counters who want to rule the world cos they know better.

    Ed.

  163. Edward. says:

    “The business was built out with expectation that cap-and-trade in the U.S. was imminent,” said Scott Hill, ICE’s chief financial officer.

    Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

    IntercontinentalExchange Inc. (ICE) is examining the future of its new U.S. emissions-trading business after the collapse of climate change legislation.

    The energy and commodity trading specialist acquired the Chicago Climate Exchange as part of its $597 million purchase of London-based Climate Exchange PLC, which also runs profitable emissions units in Europe.

    http://www.automatedtrader.net/real-time-dow-jones/9955/-ice-scrutinizes-us-climate-unit-as-2q-rises-41

    Blimey I am gutted.

  164. Pointman says:

    Edward. August 5, 2010 at 1:34 am

    That business is being run by some very slow people. Most of the ‘smart’ money repositioned themselves out of the carbon trading bubble after Christmas. They could see the pop, even then.

    Pointman

  165. Pointman says:

    I suspect the BBC pension fund is still invested heavily in the green sector. O bliss.

    Pointman

  166. Edward. says:

    Indeed Pointy, Indeed!!

  167. scud1 says:

    Liked this post from Nigel Rogers
    Today 03:44 PM
    @ JD’s

    “The thought process of your average left winger seems to be as follows:

    a) start with a conclusion that suits your emotional beliefs e.g. capitalism is evil because some people do better than others

    b) find a source of suffering that can be linked however tenuously to capitalism e.g. BP oil spill

    c) if there isn’t any suffering then make up and exagerate the potential of suffering e.g. AGW and BP oil spill

    d) offer up unworkable solutions to the non problems which will always involve government force e.g. windfarm subsidies and heavy regulation

    e) attack anyone who criticises the madness of your plan by pointing to the imagined suffering e.g. “don’t you care about the children who will suffer from our greed?”

  168. NoIdea says:

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/recently-single-al-gore-finally-able-to-listen-to,17824/

    “Why would I need Tipper when I’ve got all this?” said Gore, gesturing toward stacks of compact discs, vinyl albums, VHS cassettes, DVDs, and Nintendo games. “I’ll tell you one thing: If she thinks I miss her, then she’s out of her mind, because I don’t. I’m living the dream here, my friend. I’m not lonely at all.”

    Added Gore, “Not lonely at all.”

    In related news, family sources reported that Tipper Gore has been enjoying her newfound freedom by taking 20-minute showers and leaving the lights on all day

  169. pointman if the BBC pension fund goes belly up the UK taxpayer will end up covering the bill.

  170. Pointman says:

    Say it ain’t so, Crown. We’re already paying the feckers 3 billion sterling a year, every fecking year.

    Pointman

  171. If it was me I would let the old luvvies lose it all but no doubt some lame BS excuse would be used to justify it. 3 billion that’s a lot to pay for mostly crap except for Dr Who and Top Gear.

  172. Edward. says:

    Oz,

    JournoList and the Leftist Mentality
    By J.R. Dunn
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/journolist_and_the_leftist_men.html

    There are many parallels that we can draw to this journo mind**** in Britain.

    The Socialists will truck no dissent, there is only one way and that is their way, if you don’t like it, why then you must be;

    Mentally subnormal, Fascist/Nazi, a children hater or worse, someone who is not concerned about the future good, evil capitalist scum, environmental polluter and seal clubber par excellence.
    Read some of the comments about Sarah Palin above.

    I do not necessarily agree with all of Palin’s simplistic outlook but she is surely preferable to the incompetent incumbent there at the minute.

    I hope fervently, with all of my heart that Socialism is dying, however the main bastion of Socialism remains in power and its poison is spread like a viral pathogen amongst the peoples of Europe.
    AGW is one of the EU’s main tools of propaganda, if you do not believe – then you are a; heretic, an apostate and only worthy of exile, vilification and victimisation,
    how democratically inclusive is that?

    So take up the fight against AGW and thus, Socialism and in the end the EU.

    I do not believe that the battle against ‘so called AGW’, is a logically thought out campaign (it is a mishmash of, off the cuff, think of a number ideas and cant).

    If it were (properly thought out and logical) and the politicians truly thought that, we were all about to fry then the most obvious alleviation of CO2 levels (if the conjecture were correct and as the politicians believe) would be to immediately switch /build nuclear power generation and asap.
    Tilting at windmills, messing around with wind turbines is a complete waste of time, even the most dullard of MP, surely cannot think that wind turbines can be the long term answer………(except Chris Huhne of course), so they should be gung ho! – for nuclear……..errr shouldn’t they?
    NO! there is another agenda, only I don’t think the politicians have been let in on the secret yet either, must be a big whopper or more likely there isn’t a plan B or even a plan, just more Socialist dogmatic s***.

    Where’s your mate pointy?

    Ed.

  173. Locusts says:

    Crown

    Looks like we all like different crap though.

  174. Edward. says:

    “In just the first three years (2007–09) of the current Framework Programme, the European Commission has already funded 28 projects on climate change for a total EU contribution, according to provisional data, of some €116,271,772.”

    Britain is broke, we cannot go on throwing good money after bad, spending it on this though, is taking the piss.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/08/water-on-stone.html

  175. NoIdea says:

    Bjedwards: Ah. I’d like to have an argument, please. Idiot denier…
    Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
    Bjedwards: No, I haven’t, this is my first time. You uppity cow…
    Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
    Bjedwards: Well, what is the cost? Confused poseur…
    Receptionist: Well, It’s one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
    Bjedwards: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes. You dimwitted irrational nutter!
    Receptionist: Fine. Well, I’ll see who’s free at the moment.
    (Pause)
    Receptionist: Mr. Manonthemoor is free, but he’s a little bit conciliatory. Ah yes, Try Mr Pointman; room 12.
    Bjedwards: Think you wacky wingnut!
    (Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
    Mr Pointman: WHAT DO YOU WANT GIMP?
    Bjedwards: Well, I was told outside that…
    Mr Pointman: Don’t give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
    Bjedwards: What?
    Mr Pointman: Shut your festering gob, you izen tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
    Bjedwards: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I’m not going to just stand…!!
    Mr Pointman: OH, oh I’m sorry, but this is abuse.
    Bjedwards: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
    Mr Pointman: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
    Bjedwards: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
    Mr Pointman: Not at all.
    Bjedwards: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!
    (Walk down the corridor)
    Bjedwards: (Knock)
    Mr NoIdea: Come in.
    Bjedwards: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
    Mr NoIdea: I told you once.
    Bjedwards: No you haven’t.
    Mr NoIdea: Yes I have.
    Bjedwards: When?
    Mr NoIdea: Just now.
    Bjedwards: No you didn’t.
    Mr NoIdea: Yes I did.
    Bjedwards: You didn’t
    Mr NoIdea: I did!
    Bjedwards: You didn’t!
    Mr NoIdea: I’m telling you I did!
    Bjedwards: You did not!!
    Mr NoIdea: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
    Bjedwards: Oh, just the five minutes.
    Mr NoIdea: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
    Bjedwards: You most certainly did not.
    Mr NoIdea: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
    Bjedwards: No you did not.
    Mr NoIdea: Yes I did.
    Bjedwards: No you didn’t.
    Mr NoIdea: Yes I did.
    Bjedwards: No you didn’t.
    Mr NoIdea: Yes I did.
    Bjedwards: No you didn’t.
    Mr NoIdea: Yes I did.
    Bjedwards: You didn’t.
    Mr NoIdea: Did.
    Bjedwards: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
    Mr NoIdea: Yes it is.
    Bjedwards: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
    Mr NoIdea: No it isn’t.
    Bjedwards: It is!
    Mr NoIdea: It is not.
    Bjedwards: Look, you just contradicted me.
    Mr NoIdea: I did not.
    Bjedwards: Oh you did!!
    Mr NoIdea: No, no, no.
    Bjedwards: You did just then.
    Mr NoIdea: Nonsense!
    Bjedwards: Oh, this is futile!
    Mr NoIdea: No it isn’t.
    Bjedwards: I came here for a good argument.
    Mr NoIdea: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
    Bjedwards: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
    Mr NoIdea: It can be.
    Bjedwards: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
    Mr NoIdea: No it isn’t.
    Bjedwards: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
    Mr NoIdea: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
    Bjedwards: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
    Mr NoIdea: Yes it is!
    Bjedwards: No it isn’t!
    Bjedwards: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
    (short pause)
    Mr NoIdea: No it isn’t.
    Bjedwards: It is.
    Mr NoIdea: Not at all.
    Bjedwards: Now look.
    Mr NoIdea: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
    Bjedwards: What?
    Mr NoIdea: That’s it. Good morning.
    Bjedwards: I was just getting interested.
    Mr NoIdea: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
    Bjedwards: That was never five minutes!
    Mr NoIdea: I’m afraid it was.
    Bjedwards: It wasn’t.
    (Pause)
    Mr NoIdea: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue anymore.
    Bjedwards: What?!
    Mr NoIdea: If you want me to go on arguing, you’ll have to pay for another five minutes.
    Bjedwards: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
    Mr NoIdea: (Hums)
    Bjedwards: Look, this is ridiculous.
    Mr NoIdea: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
    Bjedwards: Oh, all right.
    (pays money)
    Mr NoIdea: Thank you. (short pause)
    Bjedwards: Well?
    Mr NoIdea: Well what?
    Bjedwards: That wasn’t really five minutes, just now.
    Mr NoIdea: I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.
    Bjedwards: I just paid!
    Mr NoIdea: No you didn’t.
    Bjedwards: I DID!
    Mr NoIdea: No you didn’t.
    Bjedwards: Look, I don’t want to argue about that.
    Mr NoIdea: Well, you didn’t pay.
    Bjedwards: Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
    Mr NoIdea: No you haven’t.
    Bjedwards: Yes I have. If you’re arguing, I must have paid.
    Mr NoIdea: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
    Bjedwards: Oh I’ve had enough of this.
    Mr NoIdea: No you haven’t.
    Bjedwards: Oh Shut up.
    (Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)
    Bjedwards: I want to complain.
    Ozboy: You want to complain! Look at these shoes. I’ve only had them three weeks and the heels are worn right through.
    Bjedwards: No, I want to complain about…
    Ozboy: If you complain nothing happens, you might as well not bother.
    Bjedwards: Oh!
    Ozboy: Oh my back hurts, it’s not a very fine day and I’m sick and tired of this office.
    (Slams door. walks down corridor, opens next door.)
    Bjedwards: Hello, I want to… Ooooh!
    Locusts: No, no, no. Hold your head like this, then go Waaah. Try it again.
    Bjedwards: uuuwwhh!!
    Locusts: Better, Better, but Waah, Waah! Put your hand there.
    Bjedwards: No.
    Locusts: Now..
    Bjedwards: Waaaaah!!!
    Locusts: Good, Good! That’s it.
    Bjedwards: Stop hitting me!!
    Locusts: What?
    Bjedwards: Stop hitting me!!
    Locusts: Stop hitting you?
    Bjedwards: Yes!
    Locusts: Why did you come in here then?
    Bjedwards: I wanted to complain.
    Locusts : Oh no, that’s next door. It’s being-hit-on-the-head lessons in here.
    Bjedwards: What a stupid concept.

  176. Pointman says:

    Edward. August 5, 2010 at 3:44 am

    He’s still puzzling over a reply to my last post>

    Pointman

  177. Scud1 says:

    Ni…bloody marvellous!

  178. The good thing about living in the USA is we only get the best programming from the UK on BBC America which is paid for by advertising revenue.

  179. 40c or 104F here right now, heat index 119f 48c, already had one guy die a few days ago mowing his yard in this heat. Must be global warming.

  180. manonthemoor says:

    NoIdea
    August 5, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Mr NoIdea

    Too conciliatory am I. — Just think I could have bored bje to death for over 5 mins on the definition of an argument, the reasons for an argument, the arbitration procedure for an argument, and the best way to make up!

    On second thoughts just much easier to just say AGW is crap.

    Well done NoIdea

  181. NoIdea says:

    Manonthemoor, no offence implied sir, you where the politest person that sprang to mind.
    I blame that receptionist myself. Should we find another perhaps?

    NoIdea

  182. manonthemoor says:

    Amanda a bit ago on JD

    There’s getting to be a lot of doggies on this blog. Any more and it’ll look like Crufts. People will say to Delingpole: ‘you’re in the doghouse’, and mean it.

    Amanda could be the receptionist and put bje in the dog house as well!

    But the dogs would bark at him and make him cry, no argument then.

    And AGW would still be crap

  183. suffolkboy says:

    Pointman says:
    August 5, 2010 at 3:54 am

    He’s still puzzling over a reply to my last post

    No he’s not.

  184. orkneylad says:

    OT…….Exploding star my arse……that’s a classic example of Z-pinch in an EM plasma field.

    Exploding star ‘viewed in 3D’
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-10867687

  185. suffolkboy says:

    Back in my day we didn’t have a dislike button. We had to actually express our opinion in a comment.

  186. suffolkboy says:

    orkneylad said on August 5, 2010 at 5:05 am:

    OT…….Exploding star my arse……that’s a classic example of Z-pinch in an EM plasma field.

    Are sure it isn’t just Photoshop or GifAnimatorExpress?

  187. orkneylad says:

    suffolkboy…….or maybe done on Linux with Gimp……

    Plasma Physics’ Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott 1 of 7

  188. Amanda says:

    Manonthemoor:
    Hi, and thanks for giving me an honourable mention.

    Also, the latest posted to the JD blog:

    Scientific Anomaly, Bufo & Bess, and whoever else is shirking his responsibilities: Rod Liddle has a fun thread right now on his Spectator blog, asking readers to list (with ranking if you like) the politicians they find most annoying. As you can immediately appreciate, we have all been spoilt for choice.

    Rod hopes to whittle the suggestions down to a 10-member Balls of Shame — sorry, Hall of Shame (though Balls does make some lists). Personally I think this is over-ambitious. The way the thread is going, he’ll be lucky if he can get it down to 100!

    Amanda
    7 minutes ago
    Also, as Crownarmourer will be first to recognize, it couldn’t be called Balls of Shame because there are several ladies nominated for it!

  189. Dave,Edinburgh says:

    Hi All,

    Another e-mail in my inbox, Ann McElhinny, Director “Not Evil, Just Wrong” destroys leftist tropes in a speech to Americans for Prosperity. Las Vegas.

    Brilliant.

  190. manonthemoor says:

    Amanda ,
    August 5, 2010 at 5:59 am

    Hi Amanda if you go to http://www.founding-sons.co.uk/

    And log in, you can chat to no idea, crown, scud, locusts, pointman and myself in live chat — Great fun — ALL WELCOME

    So different to boring JD

    Problems logging in just shout.

  191. crownarmourer says:
    August 5, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Kinda toasty here, too, but the waterfront is just right. Aaaaah.

    BTW, I have to compete with the great white sharks for my seal meat, as about a dozen Jaws standins have succeeded in closing a couple of beaches here. The seal population is returning as the fish are returning en masse (there was a P and a C cod ban on for awhile, still is, but hopefully to be lifted soon).

    I am hoping the four Canadian Navy submarines bought from the UK will have the licence to torpedo the EU-domiciled (Spain and Portugal) factory ships who ransacked our cod reserves back in the 1980’s and 1990’s.

  192. orkneylad says:
    August 5, 2010 at 5:05 am

    It’s bears igniting beer farts.

  193. Amanda says:

    Crown: The bad thing about living in the U. S. A. is that we keep getting endless repeats of <As Time Goes By, <Keeping Up Appearances, and <Are You Being Served — it’s like Groundhog Day. At the same time, we miss Black Books, Saxondale and Time Team, not to mention all the other programs I’ve imported from England to watch on my multi-region player. I’d rather have their TV than ours, even if I do like the Fox News All-Star panel.

  194. amanda yes I wish they would show more time team they stopped showing it just before the series got around to my home village and the roman period settlement there.
    Currently 41C 105f heat index (feels like) 122F 49C. I am of course responsible for this weather due to the nature of cause and effect, my air conditioning in my car no longer works therefore nature to spite me throws the hottest summer we have had in a long time. As soon as I get it fixed we will experience a cold spell.
    Balls of Shame depends whom the ladies are and how dykey.

  195. bjedwards says:

    NoIdea is really upset that he was so easily refuted by the overwhelming science demonstrating that AGW is real. He’s now reduced to muttering incoherently.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world…

    Columbia Journalism Review
    “Wanted: Climate Front-Pager”
    July 7, 2010

    “Reviews vindicating scientists get strong blog coverage, but more high-profile stories are needed.”

    […]

    “A report from British parliament’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee at the end of March and an independent investigation by Lord Ronald Oxburgh in April also cleared the climate scientists at the University of East Anglia of any misconduct on malpractice. Likewise, in two separate reports released in February and July, investigative panels at Pennsylvania State University absolved scientist Michael Mann, who was also caught up in the “Climategate” affair, of wrongdoing. Another more comprehensive review of the IPCC’s research assessment process is expected from the InterAcademy Council, an association of science academies from around the world, toward the end of the summer.

    “Each of these reviews has, in turn, drawn significant coverage in mainstream media and independent blogs of all varieties and points of view (see round-ups here, here, and here for instance). But only a few brief articles have appeared in newspapers and magazines, and they were usually buried deep inside. It is not surprising that editors have been reluctant to highlight each and every report as it came along (lamentably, documents and letters of this sort are commonly dismissed as having little news value). However, journalists love a good trend, and, as the BBC’s Richard Black noted on this blog, these reports are “beginning to look like a pattern.” As such, the press (especially the American press) needs to give this story more comprehensive, high profile treatment.

    “The story is primarily about the mounting rebuttal of this winter’s assaults on climate scientists and their work, but also about how the scientific process and assessment of research can be improved. Again, all of the inquiries so far have recommended that individual scientists and the IPCC boost transparency and refine some their methodologies, especially where quality control of data and information is concerned. With the panel gearing up for its fifth assessment report, reporters must explore how they are going to do that.

    “Likewise, American journalists have plenty of opportunities to place this story in domestic context. The National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academies of Science has released three installments of its five-part report, “America’s Climate Choices,” which look at the science of climate change as well limiting it and adapting to it. The two remaining installments—one about response options and one a summary—are expected later this year. There has also been some interesting research on public opinion about global warming in the U.S.A. poll from Stanford, and one from Yale and George Mason Universities, which recently found high levels of concern, conflicted with others from Gallup and the Pew Research Center, which found much lower levels of worry.

    “Indeed, with so much material to work with, it is safe to say some front-page coverage—from The New York Times on down to local papers—is warranted, if not long overdue. It has been a bewildering year where climate science is concerned, and readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever.”

    Full text at:
    http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/wanted_climate_frontpager.php

  196. manonthemoor says:

    Bj you had your argument with NoIdea

    5 mins is up

  197. Pointman says:

    Gimp, a long post but it’s all quotes by someone else. Can’t you come up with an argument yourself? How sad …

    Pointman

  198. NoIdea says:

    Bje…
    You think that was muttering incoherently?

    Nirksone neth sletherpheld did the nurst of skallob wibblate srezonsensuosly muglbund.
    Flammulousy gergonbosily then did the nurst of skallob screetify thrits ethrealwabes
    Blowardily gobrelating mafeanceiacle extyanunsolosity
    Now that was muttering incoherently…
    See the difference?
    I am not sure you will ROFL
    Meanwhile BJ does his same old yawningly dull and tedious trick of dropping a smelly one then leaving…
    Can we teach an old Gimp new tricks?

    NoIdea

  199. orkneylad says:

    Bostonian Bear – solved!
    Too much Coors…… 😉

  200. Dave,Edinburgh says:

    BJe August 5th @ 7.23 am.

    Of course Oxburgh’s whitewash cleared the CRU as did the Penn State whitewash clear Mann,

    If only the rest of us had the luxury of being Judge an Jury at our own trial, enough said.

  201. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    NoIdea says:
    August 5, 2010 at 3:51 am

    Words fail me. My sides are aching, my eyes are still swimming in tears of hilarity and I can barely see the keyboard.

    Are you a stand-up comedian? Anyone with your line of thought could make squillions on the comedy circuit.

    What a great way to start my day. Thanks. I love it.

  202. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    NoIdea says:
    August 5, 2010 at 8:13 am

    Then you do an incoherent encore and set me off again……………

  203. Blackswan Tasmania says:

    NoIdea says:
    August 5, 2010 at 2:52 am

    [According to Gore, being deprived of artists like W.A.S.P., Mötley Crüe, and Ice Cube for so many years only made him more curious. The former presidential candidate claimed that finally hearing them all for the first time was “like having [his] brains shot into outer space.”]

    Did he have a functioning brain in the first place? After spending his entire married life de-knackered by his wife’s dictates, that would explain his propensity for demanding how everyone else live their lives with a few billion bucks on the side to sweeten the deal. Strutting the world stage, feted and awarded on all sides, was just pumping up his deflated ego.

    Crude, stupid, pathetic excuse for a man.
    Let’s hope he finds some other means to have his “brains shot into outer space”. Maybe he could go hunting with Dick Cheney.

  204. bjedwards says:

    Drug addiction certainly fueled the latest orgy of stupid by our fab science deniers here.

    Meanwhile, back in the real world…

    The Intrade prediction market continues to kick our bevy of whiny climate science deniers’ butts:

    “Average Global Temperature for 2010 to be among five warmest years on record”:

    96% think more likely.

    Ouch.

    http://www.intrade.net/market/listing/showEvent.faces?e=31298

    Too bad you don’t get to invest real money, isn’t it?

  205. Locusts says:

    BJe

    I was going to answer your post sweetie, but then I realized that you never answer mine.

  206. NoIdea says:

    ATTENTION!!

    Following a suggestion that we may all being drugged (Hat-tip Bjedwards) I started looking into its claims, what I found was alarming.

    “Fluoridation is the tip of the enhancement iceberg. Science is progressing fast to develop safe and effective cognitive enhancers, drugs which will improve our mental abilities. For years, people have used crude enhancers, usually to promote wakefulness, like nicotine, caffeine and amphetamines. A new generation of more effective enhancers is emerging modafenil, ritalin, Adderral and ampakines and the piracetam family of memory improvers.”

    “But once highly safe and effective cognitive enhancers are developed – as they almost surely will be – the question will arise whether they should be added to the water, like fluoride, or our cereals, like folate. It seems likely that widespread population level cognitive enhancement will be irresistible.”

    “Fluoridation was introduced into the UK in the 1960s when areas in and around Birmingham and Newcastle were fluoridated, along with the Republic of Ireland, making up 11% of the UK population. The Government has now decided to introduce fluoride into public water supplies throughout Britain, with target areas of Inner London, North-West England and Northern Ireland, with the aim of reducing tooth decay among children in “deprived” areas.

    Under the Water Act 2003, water providers will be obliged to add fluoride to their supplies. According to a letter from health minister Hazel Blears and environment minister Elliott Morley to the deputy PM John Prescott, “those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water”

    “Campaigners opposed to fluoride include the National Pure Water Association (NPWA), The Green Network and The Green Party. Green Party spokesperson Martyn Shrewsbury says, “The general trend in the world is against fluoridation.” He pointed out that the risk of tooth decay in fluoridated Gateshead and non-fluoridated Liverpool is the same.”

    “The American Journal of Diseases of Children states: “With few exceptions the biochemistry of fluorine (fluoride) emphasizes its toxic features. The production of endemic dental fluorosis in human beings by drinking water is an outstanding example of the toxic effect of the excessive intake of the element.” Dental fluorosis is fluoride poisoning that causes hypomineralization (irregular calcification) and a disorder of ameloblasts (enamel forming cells) that mottle, weaken and discolour childrens’ teeth. In 2000 , the Newcastle NHS Trust reported dental fluorosis in 54% of children aged 8-9 years compared to 24% of 8-9 year olds in non-fluoridated Northumberland.”

    So, it seems that if you do not drink filtered water, you are on drugs!

    “Environmental estrogens are a real problem these days and if you’re not familiar with them, you should be. Environmental estrogens are synthetic substances that when absorbed into the body, function similarly to estrogen. They’re found just about everywhere and actually, they are difficult to avoid. They’re in plastics and easily leach into plastic-wrapped foods. They’re in pesticides, detergents, preservatives, carpets, and even in the air. As hormone disruptors, they cause some serious problems. Environmental estrogens are connected to everything from PMS to cancer and reproductive problems in animals – even generations after exposure. In fact, environmental estrogens have been found to change our genes and give our bodies the instructions to produce cancer.”

    Thank you for the timely warning BJE!

    I note with interest your willingness to invest some real money in to a “sure thing” I have a marvelous proposal for you.
    I will draw up a draft proposal for you; will you be able to resist such a “sure thing”?

    NoIdea

  207. NoIdea says:

    Looking at the link provided by BJ I found some standard anomalies.

    From a survey of 1, that is one person, they managed to get 61% this dropped to 50% with one more prediction.

    From a survey of one, that is 1 person they got a percentage of 62% this dropped to 36% with one more prediction.

    The startling figure of 96% is however based on the predictions of 44 people, wow, that is a lot!
    Now it is down to 93% with 45 predictions from random folk who feel like clicking buttons on a webpage that has some odd math. (Update: clicking again raises the predictions but does not change the percentage this time!)

    I predicted in the middle of the cold winter that it would be reported as the hottest.
    Do I win a prize?

    NoIdea

  208. bjedwards says:

    I love how you denial kiddies keep evading having to answer the question with your puerile behavior. You don’t even have a clue about prediction markets.

    Meanwhile…

    “Things to come: adapting to climate change in NZ”

    by Bryan Walker on August 5, 2010

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/things-to-come-adapting-to-climate-change-in-nz/

  209. NoIdea says:

    Dear Bjedwards,
    This is probably one of the best videos I have done on visualization. I highly recommend that you go watch it right now. In Six Minutes six point six seconds to Success you will find the secrets to the law of attraction.
    Just this morning I have managed to attract £220,300,000!! Yes that is right $220,300,000!! This is why I can let you have some of my overstock for just 779 dollars reduced to you Friend to only 79 dollars!
    Pleas to be seeing the list of the attractions!

    in the noble transfer of US 7,500,000.00.
    YOUR CONTRACT/INHERITANCE PAYMENT OF $10.5M
    The funds total US$7.5M and you were made the beneficiary of these funds
    the sum of 3.5 million pounds
    You were selected among the lucky recipients to receive the award sum of USD $100,000,000.00 (Hundred Million United States Dollars) as charity donations/aid from the France Foundation, ECOWAS and the UNO in accordance with t he enabling act of Parliament. Qualification numbers (P-333-7858,B-011-67)
    your inheritance of $5,200,000.00(Five Million Two Hundred Thousand United States Dollars Only) for personal reasons.
    Republic of Nigeria to pay you, your outstanding Inheritance Sum. $40.4M
    You have therefore been approved to claim a total sum of $5,000,000.00
    (Five Million USD) in cash.
    You have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay of $1.000, 000.00. (ONE MILLION UNITED STATE DOLLARS ONLY), in cash credited to file with REF: N.EGS/3662367114/13.
    Your email address with verification number MSFT010 have been awarded the sum of #500,000.00 USD
    Your email has won!!!
    He left the sum of Six Million One
    Hundred Thousand Dollars (USD$6,100,000.00 ) to you in the codicil
    and last testament to his WILL.
    Je vous contacte suite а une aide financiиre de 256.000,00 Ђ Deux cent cinquante six mille Euros que je souhaite vous apporter afin que vous puissiez
    In this regards we are going to send your contract part payment of
    10Million USD.
    valued at Ten Million Six Hundred Thousand United State Dollars.
    USD$2.5milion
    you have won a prize money of Seven Hundred Thousand United States Dollars,($700,000.00)
    This is to inform you that you have won a prize money of Seven Hundred Thousand United States Dollars,($700,000.00
    will receive the sum of five hundred Thousand Dollars (US$500,000).
    The Remaining Us$12.5 Million U.S Dollars

    So you can clearly see the opportunity is for you!
    I want you to assist in distributing the money left behind by my client before it is confiscated or declared unserviceable by the bank.

    I shall provide you with more detailed explanation on the situation of
    things after I have received your positive response to assist through this
    and honestly too.
    I do not want anyone to infilterate into my intentions. you know how people
    behave because of money. i have decided to let this out to you and you alone
    so please just follow my leading!
    This will be executed under a legitimate arrangement that will protect you from any breach of the law,contact me immediately if you are interested
    If this business proposition offends your moral and ethical values, feel free to back out. Please contact me through this private thread at once if you are interested.
    Therefore, you are advised as a matter of urgency, to reconfirm the
    following details:

    YOUR FULL NAMES: ……………….
    CORRESPONDING ADDRESS: …………..
    TELEPHONE / FAX NUMBERS:…………
    MOBILE PHONE:……………..
    OCCUPATION/POSITION:……………..
    AGE/MARITAL STATUS…………….
    INTERNATIONAL PASSPORT/DRIVERS LICENSE.(DR LICENSE)……….

    Remember offer closes midnight tonight!
    Opportunity only knocks twice! Knock, knock
    Will you answer?

    NoIdea

  210. bjedwards says:

    I rarely encounter people as sick as you, NoIdea.

    No wonder you cannot articulate why you should be against the overwhelming science demonstrating AGW is real.

  211. NoIdea says:

    Bjedwards,

    I HAVE explained several times in several ways why I am against the silly theory that you can not even describe, and yet there you are accusing me of a lack of articulation.
    Every one can clearly see what you are BJ, you are a small weed grasping at your betters, trying to pull everyone down to your level.
    I have a feeling I recognize your tone boyo, you have the same whining nasal twang as that ridiculous maggot Abraham.
    Your pathetic little posts or your even more pathetic copy paste plagiarism attempts are making you look ever smaller and sillier, I have offered to teach you the science I have learnt, you continue to throw sick insults at sick people, congratulations, you really are a hero for the melons ain’t ya.

    Just for you, I shall attempt to reiterate using only small words.
    We live on a big (to us) blob of molten rock, we call it Earth. Lucky for us the planet is cooling (very slowly) we know this to be true because we live on the cooled crust. Our planet is prevented from cooling much quicker by the majority of the mass in the solar system being a huge hot thing that we call the Sun.
    There are of course other factors keeping our molten blob from cooling down quickly. The wispy atmospheric coating distributes heat all over the planet, the hot bits are cooler, and the cool bits are hotter.
    There are a lot of different processes involved in the how and why. Much bigger, better, faster more powerful brains than ours are convinced of the futility of the mythical CO2 hypothesis.
    A cloud goes over the sun and it gets cooler, if there is no sun (night-time), it keeps us warmer… that is it really, that shows how the atmosphere works, it cools us from the sun and warms us from the cold of the dark.
    As I get the chance to read a lot, mostly I read from the melon friendly science sites such as…(Hat-tip Izen)

    http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/03/lunar-madness-and-physics-basics/

    Unfortu… sadly they do use big words, and you will find the math and science overwhelming.
    For those with eyes to see it is fascinating.
    I think you will merely be overwhelmed… some more.
    Will you even read this far?

    NoIdea

  212. bjedwards says:

    It’s fine for you to illustrate my points for me, NoIdea. You’ve quite clearly established that you haven’t a clue about what you are talking about and you’re just upset that i called you on it and shown the foolish denier that you have chosen to be.

    The fact remains: the overwhelming peer-reviewed science clearly demonstrates that AGW is real and the risks associated with ignoring it. You have no ability to articulate why you or anyone should be against the science. You whine and flail widely trying to pretend that you haven’t been caught in the lie you perpetuate.

    That is why you and your fellow science deniers have earned the derision you get.

  213. NoIdea says:

    BJ

    You think that I deny we have a climate… this sums up your lack of comprehension.
    You are dull and boring, the typo’s are showing, did you do this one all by your self?

    NoIdea

  214. bjedwards says:

    Continue to mutter incoherently, NoIdea.

    You cannot address the facts so there isn’t much else for you to do.

  215. NoIdea says:

    BJ
    We have had this conversation before; do you not remember the last thread?

    Bjedwards,
    you demonstrate that you are completely unable to move on to the next thread. Why you are against the concept that we have moved on?
    Pathetic cut and paster, pastes for none to see…MOVE ALONG NOW, NEXT THREAD IS CURRENT!
    You can keep pasting your government reports and believe all that the Politian’s tell you, I understand that you are a victim.
    A quote from Lord Bertrand Russell
    ““Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.” – The Impact of Science on Society, 1953”
    Are you stuck with a psychologically impossible viewpoint of reality?
    NoIdea

Comments are closed.