I’m off this weekend – talk quietly and politely amongst yourselves. Don’t make me come back here.
If you have something worth posting on the front page, flag a moderator. In the meantime I have a couple of stories that will post using the WordPress scheduler. – Anthony
Here is a news flash…….
There is no such thing as “the greenhouse effect”.
The atmosphere has a cooling effect as well as a warming effect. The deceptive term “greenhouse effect” implies only a warming effect, yet gasses behave as a liquid to temperature and while they may warm, they also cool. If they did not then every thing living at equator would be cooked alive at noon on a daily basis. The surface of the moon (which of course has no atmosphere) reaches 123º C in the Sun.
CO2 absorbs heat but it cannot trap heat. When it has absorbed heat it expands as do the all the other gasses it is mixed with such as nitrogen, oxygen and water vapour. Do not be fooled by the false claims that CO2 is special or unique in the way it is effected by heat. All gasses absorb and re-emit heat. It does not matter that they do this at various frequencies, all that maters is that they all do it. If they did not they would not be gasses, they would be solid ice. Therefore all gasses absorb and re-emit heat and so must all be greenhouse gasses, if not then none at all.
These mixed gasses when warmed, then rise up through the atmosphere and exchange the heat with colder gasses higher up. The higher they rise the colder it gets. As space is 0º K or – 278º C there is only one possible outcome. All the heat energy received from the sun is re-emitted back into space. You do not need to be a scientist to understand this concept. It is more than attested to by 4, 500,000,000 years of relative temperature stability. If CO2 could trap heat and cause global warming it would have done so already. Perhaps when CO2 was @ur momisugly 1000 ppm or 2000 ppm or even when it was @ur momisugly 3000 ppm. Maybe runaway global warming should have occurred when CO2 was 4000, 5000, 6000, or 7000 ppm as it has been in the past. But it has never occurred at these levels so why should we be concerned about 100 ppm increase?
The answer of course, is that we shouldn’t.
Gasses in a greenhouse cannot convect but gasses in the atmosphere can convect. So in a greenhouse there is a “greenhouse effect” but in the atmosphere there is not.
A “greenhouse gas” is a gas inside a greenhouse.
The key is convection which is why you will never hear the topic of convection being properly discussed by proponents of AGW.
Like I said earlier, you do not need to be a scientist to work this out. The truth is hanging there like an over ripe apple waiting to be plucked. All you need to do is reason it through with logic and common sense and the AGW scam as it is will evaporate.
Remember, there is no substance known to man that can trap heat! Think about that for a moment.
For a more detailed look at the AGW deception download this free .pdf.
[snip – self promotion ]
That BBC story Lucy pointed to is a cover up for the UK Met Office. They claim they know it all and it is all in their models. They claim the warm is coming back!
I wish it would because I will not be able to afford any heating next year given current forecasts of energy price rises in the UK.
“…chose the term ‘Ingsoc’ to represent the philosophy of totalitarian control over every aspect of people’s lives…”
‘Totalitarians like to use good causes as justifications for the coercive controlling measures they want to bring in’
Mwa ha ha hahahaha!
It has not been a good 2 weeks for the warmies.
“Well let me ask the question in reverse to Anthony’s readers.
“What (if anything) would convince you that Manmade emissions of Carbon Dioxide Poses a catastrophic threat to the world?”
For me, it is clear that the global temperature is driven to a large extent by the oceans. I need to see a proven mechanism by which additional CO2 in the atmosphere is heating the oceans. And I don’t mean a computer model either….
gtrip (03:53:25) :
Not to be to US centrist…but ….
How are things playing out there in th UK? You all dismissed the temps from the central part of your island. You couldn’t take the reality just as you couldn’t take the reality of a bunch of uneducated colonist having a belief in something better. Just like India and Indonesia and parts of Africa. Still grasping at straws and trying to imperialise the world eh? You should all just stick to Page three tits and be happy already. Or you all could get together for three hours and watch people kick a ball around and if you are lucky, maybe someone will put it into a hole.
I sense…. issues.
And I note: that according to polls there is a slightly higher proportion of scepticism in the UK than there is in the U.S.
And I suggest: That driving a wedge between sceptical Brit’s and sceptical Yanks, or sckeptical ‘marxists’ and sceptical ‘rednecks’ is probably not the best way forward.
We’re in this together, brother. 😉
tallbloke (05:05:26) : I notice you tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about, then repeat my thesis. 😉
I just gave you my non peer reviewed observation. It was no more than that. And last I read, Leif doesn’t give much credence to solar influence on the Earth’s climate. He seems to be more into making observations only and publishing non committal results. Which is good, it allows others to use his observations in their search of whatever they are looking for. But you would think an observer would come to a few conclusions after a certain amount of time….you know, Red sky at morning etc….but in all honesty, I do have respect for observers….if they just don’t get too smug without any commitments…..
geoffchambers (02:03:48) :“An irritating trait among sceptical (sorry, skeptical) commenters here is the tendency of many to see the AGW debate in political terms of rightwing defenders of liberty against leftwing global government fans (the watermelon theory).”
Any time that a governing body wishes to impose it’s will on those they govern by monetary policy it’s political. This is especially true in the climate debate because the government’s imposition is based on computer models and scare tactics. Add in a heathly dose of “convince the children first” policy and the only conclusion one can come to is that the real motivation is more control. I have, from day one, been convinced that President Obama is just the front man for a far left group whose only agenda is to set up a world government that they control. It is this group that handed the Nobel Peace Prize to Mr Obama in order to boost his prestige as that has been taking huge hits of late. Mr Obama, being the narcissist that he is, doesn’t even realize this is. The first step in this world takeover is to continually indoctrinate children, done. The second step is to find an “impending global catastrophe” to distract the world, done. The next step is to wreck the U.S. economy and turn it towards socialism, that is underway. Finally they will get the world off the U.S. dollar and create a unified world currency. Slowly, one by one, nations have to will have to commit to joining this new world order to survive. Yes, it is all political, it always is.
“gtrip (05:02:48) :
Jimbo (04:45:35) :
geoffchambers (02:03:48) :
I couldn’t agree with you more.
“The theory of manmade global warming began to be politicized when Margaret Thatcher (then Prime Minister) set out to break the political power of the coal miners. She saw an opportunity in the global warming debate to promote nuclear power because it doesn’t emit CO2.”
Keep dreaming Jimbo and geoff. Are you members of the club of Rome?”
It’s rather easy to google, and as I was there when the “Iron Lady” drove the country to war (Nice little earner for desparate polliticians), I can verify it to be true.
“gtrip (04:53:49) :
Patrick Davis (03:53:09) :
“tallbloke (03:32:40) :
gtrip (03:14:47) :
Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?
How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?
😉
(note smiley)”
LMAO, good come back!
Come on Patrick Davis…..Your only post is a dig????”
No, my *first* post in thread. Keep up!
Eaaasy guys. This is open thread, not open season.
“tallbloke (03:32:40) :
How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?”
There is an old adage among lawyers:
When you have the law, argue the law;
when you have the facts, argue the facts;
when you have neither, shout.
M. Simon (04:14:23) :
Why can the English make such good music but not have a clue?
It is my understanding they got their start stealing American music – from Blacks. Racist? Not really. Just good business. Just ask some students from the London School of Economics.
I was thinking more along the lines of “Supper’s Ready” and “Cinema Show”, which are definitely not not black influenced.
gtrip (05:02:48) :
Keep dreaming Jimbo and geoff. Are you members of the club of Rome?
No, but several members of the UK govt are, along with Tony B-liar. And they have a chunk of shares in the nuclear industry too.
Judging from the diagram Anthony has posted above, I surmise that he has embarked on a power squadron course. There can only be one reason for making hempen rope: (Though I am told hemp rope is ideal for hangin’ someone!)
Fair seas Mr. Watts, and keep her close to the wind! Mind you don’t mix the halyards and the sheets! And fer gawds sake, watch out for the boom!
Arrrr me maties!
“If you have something worth posting on the front page, flag a moderator.”
How do I flag a moderator? I’ve done an analysis of all monthly maximum temperatures at all (29) Australian weather stations with a 100+ year record. (Like the one Anthony(?) did a while ago on the US ones.)
Prompted by what I found, the following letter is going in the mail tomorrow, to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (“BOM”). (The contact details on their website appear not to include email addresses)
To :
Bureau of Meteorology
GPO Box 1289
Melbourne VIC 3001
Dear Sir/Madam
re : Your Climate Media Releases
I note that in recent months you have issued a number of media releases emphasising record high temperatures :
September 01 Record-breaking hot August
September 01 Climate records broken
August 25 Summer days in winter continue to break more records in NSW
August 24 Summer days in winter break records in NSW
I would suggest that the impression given by these media releases is that the Australian climate is now much warmer than in the past, and that temperature records are being broken across the country.
But this is not the case. I suggest that it would be reasonable to issue media releases that also give the other side of the story, or at least more of the full picture.
In the period since Australia’s temperature records began (1855), the Maximum Temperature records on your website for the longest-running stations show that :
• Australia’s all-time high temperature records occur mainly before 1940, with a surprisingly high number before 1900. There are remarkably few in the last decade.
• The average maximum temperatures of the last few years only slightly exceed those of the 1870s to 1890s. [sic]
• While Australia’s maximum winter temperatures have got warmer over time (hence your recent media releases), the summer temperatures have actually been getting cooler.
In more detail :-
[…continues with the details behind the above comments…]
Petem130 (02:27:04) :
Don’t worry about the DMI temperature variations. Ice melts at 0.01C and that graph shows well below freezing.
Take a look at the thermometers at http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/
North Pole Environmental Observatory. Temperatures there can change 10 – 15 degrees in hours.
“How come Americans talk so loud while they’re saying nothing?”
In the late 50s- 60s my father would always say that Americans had obnoxious kids who grew into wonderful adults.
I suppose most of you are those kids. 🙂
rbateman (03:58:46) :
tallbloke (03:28:02) :
Excellent thought process. Cold water sinks, warm water rises. The troubling questions are:
1.) How long before the warm water is exhausted and
2.) How far will climate then plummet when the warmth is spent?
http://www.whoi.edu/cms/images/oceanus/2005/12/halocline_18008.jpg
rbateman (03:58:46) :
Question for tallbloke, or anyone else that can answer.
My house has a west facing concrete wall. It absorbs heat when the sun beats down on it. When I walk by the wall after the sun has gone down, I feel the heat radiating from the wall. My question is: does the heat only radiate after the sun stops heating it? Or is it radiating heat back as it is also absorbing it? And when does absorption stop and radiation begin? Can they happen at the same time?
I believe that is what Nasef(?) in Monterey has been trying to get across in his discussions with Leif regarding heat transfers. Please correct my thinking as you may.
October 9, 2011
(Associated Press)
OSLO — President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for the third consecutive time on Friday for his “continuous efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples and in recognition of his two acceptance speeches at previous awards ceremonies.”
“After much analysis, those of us on the committee realized that we were unwilling to listen to anyone else give an acceptance speech,” said Nobel awards director Paar Svinborg. “After his first speech, during which every committee member wept, we didn’t see how he could out-do himself. And then there was last year.”
In 2010, of course, Obama received a record 62 standing ovations during his speech. At the time, it was wrongly assumed that a three-peat was impossible.
“I grant that I am humbled this year even more than last,” Obama said in the 2010 speech.
Expectations are that he will be even more humbled by the third award.
Although various nay-sayers continued to complain that a sitting U.S. president probably shouldn’t be recognized for whatever efforts he has undertaken a single time, let alone three times in a row, supporters were clearly pleased.
“None of us are saying that he is the new Messiah,” said Josh Turnbull, Obama’s second press secretary. “That kind of talk always comes from the radical right. What we are saying is ‘Hey, who else has even two Nobel peace prizes?’ We think it’s meaningful.”
According to anonymous sources who took part in the deliberations this year, serious discussion took place regarding making Obama the permanent recipient of the Nobel peace prize.
“Well, it just gets tiresome,” one source said. “People make other nominations and act as though they’re sincere about it, when everyone knows perfectly well that no one can compete with the man.”
Representatives of former President Bill Clinton denied rumors that the 42nd president was “incensed” to have fallen behind the sitting president by “one more freaking award.”
“I am deeply pleased that my friend and colleague Barack Obama has continued to walk in the shoes of Democratic Nobel-prize winning presidents who came before him,” Mr. Clinton said in a prepared statement. Mr. Clinton declined to respond to e-mail requests for comment regarding the fact that he remains tied with former President Jimmy Carter. In the past he has referred to this circumstance as “humiliating.”
President Obama appeared to discourage making the Nobel Peace Prize a yearly affair for himself. “Believe me, I’m flattered,” he said. “But as fun as the girls and Michelle and I find Oslo, and we love it, once a year is a lot. Maybe every two years?”
A recent AP poll, taken in August, found that only 7 percent of respondents had any idea why the president had been awarded the Nobel prize twice already. Of those who said they did not know why the award had been given to Obama twice, 56 percent said that they were “perplexed” by the second award, 32 percent said that they were “basically a little freaked out” by it, and 12 percent said they were “extremely weirded out.”
The United States’ continued involvement in Afghanistan proved to be no obstacle to the third award.
“I think you can make a good argument that any number of Soviet presidents should have received this award while their country was occupying Afghanistan,” Obama said in an interview with Agence France Presse. “Look, it’s easy to armchair quarterback on this one, believe me I know it is. But once you’re looking at this part of the world from the vantage point of the generals, you understand that sometimes a broader peace requires difficult decisions on the regional level.”
The Nobel committee declined to release the names of the other formal nominees, citing the “shame factor.”
“Well, in a normal year, everyone gets at least a few votes,” said Svinborg. “That makes it easy for the nominees who don’t win. But, so far, no one else has earned any votes when Obama has been on the ballot.”
Asked how he assessed the chances of the award being made permanent, over the president’s objections, Svinborg shrugged his shoulders knowingly and appeared to smirk.
“Does that mean ‘yes,’ Mr. Chairman?” a reporter asked.
“It doesn’t mean no,” Svinborg said.
I just posted a short report over at U.S. News and World Report titled ‘How Climate is Weather’. Any feedback or comments is greatly appreciated.
You can find it under ‘Letters to the Editor’ or just click the link below.
Thank you in advance.
-David Alan- http://www.usnews.com/blogs/letters-to-the-editor/2009/10/09/conflicting-views-on-climate-change.html
The reality of the Copenhagen Climate Meetings, or is that the Copenhagen Socialist Money Sucking Ponzi Scheme.
http://tinyurl.com/yjec3q5
Libin nails it.
The El Nino is still around because we haven’t seen any East to West equatorial winds strong enough to blow off the normally warm skin of water (we are in the doldrums, an old sailor term for no wind). The next step is to figure out why the Easterlies are quiet. Too be sure, they are not abnormally quiet. They just get quiet and then El Nino shows up. When they pick up again, La Nina will arrive.
The Sun just keeps doing what it does, with its tiny changes not strong enough to bring about Nino’s or Nina’s. As for cooler spots showing up now and then off the Western Central American and South American coast, Kelvin ocean waves occur during El Ninos which always have a cooler trailing edge as they propagate across the Pacific from East to West.
It’s a small point, but of course CND was funded by “Moscow Gold”. CND was funded partly by the Communist Party of Great Britain – it never denied that – and the CPGB was funded almost entirely by Moscow (though it denied that for decades). And that’s that.
It is possible to be too naive about Communist or other outside influence of politically minded individuals.
In UK in the 1970s there was much industrial unrest and many said it was a Soviet backed plot to destabilise the UK.
I and most others felt that that was going too far and that the employee union leaders were just misguided and rather ignorant.
Now we have just found out that apparently Jack Jones, the most influential union leader of them all for many years and someone I well remember as having been in the national news most days was directly paid by Soviet agents for most of his life.
There should have been a lot more said about that but the media here is keeping quiet about the issue.
It makes me realise how much potential there must still be even today for subversive activities to try to destabilise our relatively free and democratic societies.
It might be more comfortable to trust to the honesty and goodwill of others but history shows it not to be wise.
“Pedro X (04:21:52) :
… It’s a real pity that Steve McIntyre’s discoveries of the weak Briffa Yamal cores data has thus far only been covered in main stream media by the National Post in Canada. …”
It is. And unfortunately because of the Post’s readership, it’s largely “preaching to the choir”.