No Girma, the net emissions (natural + human) have been positive. Human is positive, natural is negative.
Comment on Week in review 10/27/12 by Edim
↧
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Memphis
How many times do you (Myrrh) need to gave it explained : it is not necessary for visible light to warm the earth, for it to result in outgoing IR. Your “challenge” is just a calculated distraction, a product of your own science fiction.
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/27/12 by Beth Cooper
I do not consider that I am a vindictive person, but hafta say,
i hope that Michael Mann gits his come uppance 
↧
Comment on Playing God by Chief Hydrologist
Stefan you are a wack job – same as webby. You have not the slightest clue about anything at all but simply fulminate and denounce like some crazed, tin foil hat wearing maniac with not the slightest inclination to understand any science at all. Why don’t you go away and not try to imagine that you have anything useful to say at all.
↧
Comment on Playing God by Chief Hydrologist
Webby – you are such a moron. Seriously – why don’t you try to have somthing sensible to say instead of just opening your ignorant mouth and just sprouting the first idiocy that comes out. That is why there is a literature. So you can get educated on a topic and have an educated opinion. This doesn’t involve going with your stupid gut. You and Stefan have much in common – two of the biggest wack jobs on the interweb.
↧
↧
Comment on Playing God by Chief Hydrologist
The atmosphere is warmer but the emmission of IR at TOA stays the same – as a result of a warmer atmosphere. IR does indeed change as a result of cloud changes – but it is not to do with albedo. The latter is a measure of SW reflectance.
Observing outgoing IR through an aperture and comparing to earlier observations does indeed validate the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by SamNC
Memphis | October 28, 2012 at 2:53 am
Your reply was hollow and subjective – did not contribute to science discussions. You are unable to learn science. Don’t waste your time and make yourself productive somewhere else.
↧
Comment on Playing God by Montalbano
- IR from the earth encounters greenhouse gasses
- greenhouse gas (molecules ?) absorb the IR, warm up, re-emit it in all directions (scattering effect), and cool down again
- scattered IR encounters other greenhouse gas molecules
- ad infinitum ..
So by this (first approximation) account, the greenhouse effect is entirely a warming of the atmosphere, with no radiation of IR out to space ? (Which rules out using changing spacebound IR as a measure of the changing greenhouse effect).
And the next approximation would be that small amount of IR at TOA does actually head out to space, and another small amount at the earth’s surface encounters and warms the earth (land and oceans) – aka backradiation ?
↧
Comment on Playing God by Montalbano
<i>The atmosphere is warmer but the emission of IR at TOA stays the same – as a result of a warmer atmosphere.</i>
<i>Observing outgoing IR through an aperture and comparing to earlier observations does indeed validate the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere.</i>
Are these two statements not in conflict ? ie if the emission of IR at TOA remains constant, how can it validate a changing greenhouse effect ?
↧
↧
Comment on Playing God by Chief Hydrologist
ΔS = Energy in – energy out by the 1st law of thermodynamics
ΔS is the change in global warming
↧
Comment on A modest proposal for sequestration of CO2 in the Antarctic by power mosfet pinout
Hey there are using WordPress for your blog platform?
I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and
create my own. Do you require any html coding expertise to make your own blog?
Any help would be really appreciated!
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/27/12 by brent
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Memphis
SamNC
Your total lack of relevant comment duly noted.
↧
↧
Comment on What’s the best climate question to debate? by Myrrh
Memphis | October 28, 2012 at 2:53 am |
<i>How many times do you (Myrrh) need to gave it explained : it is not necessary for visible light to warm the earth, for it to result in outgoing IR. Your “challenge” is just a calculated distraction, a product of your own science fiction.</i>
Memphis | October 28, 2012 at 2:53 am |
How many times do you (Myrrh) need to gave it explained : it is not necessary for visible light to warm the earth, for it to result in outgoing IR. Your “challenge” is just a calculated distraction, a product of your own science fiction.
But that is the AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect claim. "That shortwave mainly visible light from the Sun is absorbed by the surface and converts to heat".
So how many times do I have to explain that it does matter?
Because unless you can show that visible light from the Sun directly heats land and water at the equator to the intensity it is actually heated in the real world which produces our huge wind system from the equator to the poles and all our real dramatic weather systems, then you have no wind or weather in your AGW Greenhouse Effect world.
And moreover, because you have taken out the real world's heat from the Sun which is the direct invisible thermal infrared, unless you can prove the AGWScienceFiction claim that shortwave directly heats the surface, you have no heating at all from the Sun unless you can prove visible light from the Sun does this heating.
So enough bs, prove the AGWSF Greenhouse Effect claim that "its visible light from the Sun which gets through to the surface of the Earth and heats land and water", prove your idiotic fictional meme "shortwave in longwave out". Prove it by giving me the detail I have challenged you to produce. You prove here that you are totally ignorant about how we get real winds and weather, you can know nothing about climate.
It takes intense <i>physical</i> cooking of land and water at the equator to give us the great wind and weather systems we have in the real world. If you can't prove your AGWSF Greenhouse Effect claim that visible light from the Sun does this, then you are bullsh*tt*ng, all of you, all of the teachers, in all the schools and universities teaching the plebs. Prove it. Or grow up and recognise that you can't prove it because it is a con, a fictional fisics created to support the Big Lie of AGW and its Greenhouse Effect.
Failure to produce proof that visible light from the Sun heats land and water intensely at the equator which is your AGWScienceFiction Greenhouse Effect claim proves you are utter ignoramouses about real world climate.
<i><b>In other words, prove it or shut the hell up with <i>all</i> your, generic, fictional claims about AGW/CAGW and Carbon Dioxide</b></i>.
↧
Comment on Week in review 10/27/12 by Bob
Well according to National geographic, Inuits are now experiencing much more illness due to G.W affects on their local drinking water supplies, also they are finding it a lot harder to catch game, because of diminishing numbers. Also there does appear to be some tie up with Asian smog and G.W such as carbon being deposited on Arctic snow and therefore not reflecting sunlight.
↧
Comment on Playing God by Tomcat
And again the emotive fake alarmist Web produces a baseless, content-free outburst.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Peter Lang
JC,
I like this readers digest. Its great.
Arguments are increasingly being made to abandon the scientific consensus seeking approach in favor of open debate of the arguments themselves and discussion of a broad range of policy options that stimulate local and regional solutions to the multifaceted and interrelated issues of climate change, land use, resource management, cost effective clean energy solutions, and developing technologies to expand energy access efficiently.
‘Yes’ to that.
Rather than choosing an optimal policy based on a scientific consensus, decision makers can design robust and flexible policy strategies that account for uncertainty, ignorance and dissent. Robust strategies formally consider uncertainty, whereby decision makers seek to reduce the range of possible scenarios over which the strategy performs poorly. Flexible strategies are adaptive, and can be quickly adjusted to advancing scientific insights.
And ‘Yes’ to that too.
Next steps:
IPCC AR4 be totally open and honest – admit to their BS and confess all their past sins! 
Royal Society, and all the various Academy of Sciences dump their policies advocating CAGW and confess their sins
Australian Government – dump the Carbon Tax and ETS and dump their wasteful and economy damaging policies of subsidising renewable energy and mandating it so consumers have to subsidise it (by tow to ten times the cost of conventional power.
Australian governments and local governments – dump their policies that have seriously damaged people’s wealth but virtually making their houses worthless in places where the local council has proclaimed projected sea level rises preclude development, and effectively preclude sale of their houses – in many cases they are their life’s savings.
↧
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Frank
tempterrain wrote: The NIPCC’s brief is to argue there isn’t. They are acting in the same way a lawyer would, having been engaged to make the best possible case for his client,
Unlike politics or law, science doesn’t rely on the adversarial system in its search for “truth”. Although there may be violent controversies, most scientists don’t have the time or desire to audit the work of others (as McIntyre does). As Schneider said, scientists are ethically bound “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts”. Feynman describes these obligations more fully in Cargo Cult Science. Auditing should be a relatively unproductive activity under these circumstances.
By failing to follow the ethical tenets of science to fully disclose doubt, uncertainty and counter-argument, both the IPCC and the NIPCC have written reports unworthy of being called “scientific reports”. If their reports don’t qualify as science, they could be termed “propaganda”. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on propaganda says: “Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position by presenting only one side of an argument.” Unfortunately, the dictionary definitions are substantially different.
When climate scientists testify in front of Congress and present only one side of the story, they are acting as policy advocates and harming the authority of all other scientists who appear before Congress. This is particularly true when scientists spend their time arguing rather than laying out areas of mutual agreement and disagreement.
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by tempterrain
The BASICs of denialism?
Declare Variables (something is happening) .etc……
10 (Nothing is happening) IS TRUE
20 IF (Something is happening) IS TRUE, THEN (but it’s natural) IS TRUE
30 IF (Something unnatural is happenening) is TRUE, THEN (but it’s good) IS TRUE
40 IF (Something bad was happening) IS TRUE, AND T > 1998 THEN (Something Bad is no longer happening) IS TRUE
45 IF (something bad is happening) IS TRUE, THEN (Who cares about polar bears anyway) IS TRUE
50 IF (Something bad is happening) IS TRUE, THEN Remedial Cost >> Affordable Cost
60 On ERROR ((Something bad) could be happening or not happening) [REM SYNTAX uncertainty] GOTO 10
↧
Comment on Climate change: no consensus on consensus by Peter Lang
Faustino,
I reckon I may be able to help you with that choice. Here is a short article on the 320-Page White Paper on “Australia in the Asian Century.” http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/in-depth/meaningless-promises-replete-with-pure-spin/story-fng5k1ek-1226504883718 . Once you’ve read it I reckon you will focus on Judith’s paper instead.
It is behind a paywall so I hope it is acceptable to post it in full. The connection to this thread is that it shows how spin is being used to win elections instead of focusing on good policy –climate change politics is also being spun and used for political advantage.
Meaningless promises, replete with pure spin
THE Gillard government white paper on Asia is a fraud. On every level, it is a con job. The government is having a lend of us. Its only admirable quality is its chutzpah.
No Australian government since that of Billy McMahon has done less to increase the level of Asian engagement it inherited when coming to office than the Gillard government.
Some of the white paper is conceptually confused and silly. Is there another nation in the world that so frequently tries to make out lists of the nations most important to it?
This pathetic and obsessive list making is a sign of a deep intellectual insecurity. It’s also a sign of government failure.
Much of the paper itself, and many of Julia Gillard’s statements regarding it, are banal recitations of the obvious. By golly, Asia will have a big middle class by 2025 and that middle class will have a lot of money to spend. We hope they spend it in Australia.
But beyond these windy cliches and vague generalisations, we are entitled to ask of this government: where’s the beef, Jack? The answer is, there is no beef.
Much more important than what it says, is what the government does.
The white paper, and the Prime Minister herself, make much of the need for Asian education, and specifically for Asian languages.
Yet the Gillard government has overseen a catastrophic decline in Indonesian language study at school and university, to take one example. There are in absolute numbers fewer Year 12 students studying Indonesian today than there were in the last years of the White Australia policy.
Altogether a truly dismal 6 per cent of Year 12 students study an Asian language in Australia, and a vast number of these are ethnic Asian students studying their homeland tongue.
The Rudd and Gillard governments have progressively cut funding for Asian languages. And what is the white paper solution? The magic fool’s gold of the National Broadband Network, for God’s sake.
When Gillard was asked at her press conference why there was no funding for Asian language studies in the paper, she replied that there wouldn’t need to be actual teachers at actual schools. Australian kids will get access to Asian languages through the NBN. If that is the case, why should we bother to have English, history or maths teachers at schools either?
The white paper is full of such meaningless promises and measureless metrics. One-third of corporate board members and senior public service leaders will have deep experience of Asia by 2025, it tells us. This will presumably mean introductory Chinese in infants’ school, NBN chats with a high school in Tokyo and a holiday in Bali. It’s as good a measure as any offered in the white paper.
The paper airily talks of new embassies in Mongolia and diplomatic missions in Thailand and eastern Indonesia. Any funding for that? Nope.
And what is the actual record? The last budget cut between 100 and 150 positions from the Foreign Affairs Department. We have the smallest diplomatic service of any G20 nation and one of the smallest, per capita, in the developed world.
Gillard and most of her ministers have a very poor pattern of travel throughout Southeast Asia. Our diplomatic resources are in shocking decline. Our consular workload has ballooned. We will now have to provide two dozen odd new positions to staff our meaningless presence on the UN Security Council, but with no serious new resources for DFAT. Our aid budget has exploded beyond $5 billion while our diplomatic network is strained beyond reason.
Why? Because every aid announcement gives the government a positive effect in the 24-hour news cycle. The hard slog of diplomacy gets no such dividend. So the hard slog is ignored. The fairy floss is everything.
The lame, bowdlerised section on regional security misses one vital reality. In 2009, the government, in a solemn commitment in a much more serious white paper, pledged to resource the Australian Defence Force, based on a deep understanding of the regional security outlook. It pledged a hard funding commitment to match that. What happened? This year’s budget cut defence by 10 per cent, producing the lowest defence spend as a proportion of national wealth since 1938. You think the region didn’t notice that?
This white paper is pure spin. It is an emperor whose nakedness is epic.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
