We are a shoe-string operation. Unfortunately no BigOil funding! Help expose the hoax.

Westpac BSB 035612, Account No. 239469

All Scientists are Sceptics ~Professor Bob Carter

“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” – Richard Feynman

Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Clear Real World evidence of the benefits of rising atmospheric CO2

Rising sea level, temperature, and precipitation impact plant and ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 on a Chesapeake Bay wetland: review of a 28-year study   Bert G. Drake* (link)Global Change Biology   Volume 20Issue 11pages 3329–3343, November 2014

Bert Drake in the Wetlands


An ongoing field study of the effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on a brackish wetland on Chesapeake Bay, started in 1987, is unique as the longest continually running investigation of the effects of elevated CO2 on an ecosystem. Since the beginning of the study, atmosphericCO2 increased 18%, sea level rose 20 cm, and growing season temperature varied with approximately the same range as predicted for global warming in the 21st century. This review looks back at this study for clues about how the effects of rising sea level, temperature, and precipitation interact with high atmospheric CO2 to alter the physiology of C3 and C4 photosynthetic species, carbon assimilation, evapotranspiration, plant and ecosystem nitrogen, and distribution of plant communities in this brackish wetland. Rising sea level caused a shift to higher elevations in the Scirpus olneyi C3 populations on the wetland, displacing the Spartina patens C4 populations. Elevated CO2stimulated carbon assimilation in the Scirpus C3 species measured by increased shoot and root density and biomass, net ecosystem production, dissolved organic and inorganic carbon, and methane production. But elevated CO2 also decreased biomass of the grass,S. patens C4. The elevated CO2 treatment reduced tissue nitrogen concentration in shoots, roots, and total canopy nitrogen, which was associated with reduced ecosystem respiration. Net ecosystem production was mediated by precipitation through soil salinity: high salinity reduced the CO2 effect on net ecosystem production, which was zero in years of severe drought. The elevated CO2 stimulation of shoot density in the Scirpus C3 species was sustained throughout the 28 years of the study. Results from this study suggest that rising CO2 can add substantial amounts of carbon to ecosystems through stimulation of carbon assimilation, increased root exudates to supply nitrogen fixation, reduced dark respiration, and improved water and nitrogen use efficiency. (bold added)

Patience Required: Studying the Impact of Rising CO2 on a Chesapeake Bay Wetland

In this video, Smithsonian plant physiologist Bert Drake has studied one wetland's response to climate change for more than two decades. He gives a tour of the field experiment and explains some of the findings.

CO2 Science:
Advising us that "the question of whether rising atmospheric CO2 will cause the land sink for anthropogenic carbon to expand or contract has been the basis for most ecosystem studies to date," Drake writes that we now have, from the Chesapeake Bay study, "strong evidence that shoot and root biomass and net ecosystem production increased significantly" under real-world conditions of growing fossil fuel usage. And he thus infers - from the fact that (1) methane emission (Dacey et al., 1994) and (2) nitrogen fixation were also stimulated by elevated CO2 (Dakora and Drake, 2000), and that (3) inputs of soil carbon also increased - that "ecosystems will accumulate additional carbon as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise, as suggested by Luo et al. (2006)."

In a closely related matter, Drake also writes that the long duration of the Chesapeake Bay wetland study allows for a test of "the idea that some process, such as progressive nitrogen limitation, may constrain ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 in native ecosystems." But his and his associates' findings, as well as those of Norby et al. (2005) and Norby and Zak (2011), imply, as he notes, that quite to the contrary, Earth's ecosystems will continue to accumulate carbon as the air's CO2 content continues its upward trajectory.

Thus we find clear evidence from data obtained in the real world of important benefits conferred by rising atmospheric CO2 upon nature, evidence that many unfortunately continue to deny.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Electricity prices soar: blame the Greens and renewable policies not Air-con.

Anthony Cox

Reported this weekend in the MSM, which collectively lacks the wit to allocate blame where it
Cartoons by Josh
belongs, is the fact that electricity prices are going to rise especially for high cost equipment like air-conditioners.

Also reported is the compulsion for solar panel owners to move their panels to the West of the property so afternoon peak demand from the air-cons can be met by the repositioned solar panels.

This is beyond stupid. Coal and gas power can be delivered to doorstep in Australia for 1 - 2¢ per kilowatt hour. Check your bill and see the average kilowatt hour fee is about 30¢.

What happened?

A range of things. So called upgrades to the network which were neglected in NSW by a succession of ALP governments is one thing. But they are a one off.

The primary reason is the ongoing subsidisation of renewables and the enormous infrastructure expense to hook up the solar and wind farms to the grid. The costs of supplying electricity are illustrated in this government graph:

The wretched carbon price is gone but the far right columns still exist so that 71% of the capital and ongoing costs are specifically to do with renewables.

Renewables don’t work. They’re unreliable. Engineers Miskelly and Quirk show that the unreliability of specifically wind power, but the point can be extended to solar, is so great that in effect wind and solar do not produce any useful power at all. They show the probability of wind and solar producing their maximum power, the reliability point, is as low as 3% and no more than 10% at any one moment.

The practical consequences of that are two fold: firstly you cannot plan for definite electricity any time in the future; for instance if reliable power is required in 2 weeks for 3 hours -wind and solar cannot provide that.

Secondly the reliable sources of power, the fossils must be kept ‘spinning’ to back up the times when wind and solar fall out of production.

So, it doesn’t matter if the rooftop solar panels are moved to the West: on a hot, steamy overcast day they’re going to be just as useless as if they were under the house.

The other nonsense in this new policy is the idea that electricity has peak periods. This graph shows the daily demand fluctuation in Australia [from TonyfromOz]:

The base load never goes below a regular 18000 MW and peaks in the middle of the day. Renewables cannot ever supply this power because the power generated by renewable installations can vary from 0 to 100% in a day! How can you plan reliable regular grid demand with such variation? You can’t.

So to air-cons. TonyfromOz has looked at the myth of air-cons being responsible for peaks in electricity demand. It’s a lie and easily proved to be a lie. Tony looks at electricity demand on Xmas day and compares it with demand on a normal working day. If electricity demand were affected by air-cons in the way this new policy claims then when everyone is home on a hot Christmas day you would expect to see a greater spike and demand than a normal day:

No spike. The reason is simple. Much fewer people are at work, at shopping centres and other large non-residential locations which use air-con all the time.

The greens and the lie of AGW has caused the investment in renewables at great unnecessary expense to electricity users in Australia. Now the conservative governments have to fix up the green mess and they can’t even tell the truth about the ‘problem’ caused by the greens.

How hopeless is that.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

NASA:GISS; BoM; Send In the Clowns (OOPS - sorry - You already have.)

Although this blog is dedicated to exposing the "Man Made Global Warming Hoax;"  "the Greatest Deception in History": the falsified AGW hypothesis; we are open to any true data that show that man's emissions of Carbon Dioxide are causing runaway warming.

In fact we have re-published Melbourne Railway Engineer Driver and Unionist, Peter Faux' challenge here on this blog - but the original is on the blog of the adjudicator: (link)
Peter Laux, Locomotive Engineman from Australia, “will pay $10,000 (AUS) for a conclusive argument based on empirical facts that increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning drives global climate warming.”
 Warmists of the world: The ball is in your court. The $10K Climate Challenge has been open for three plus years without a single serious challenge.

Reproduced from Denis Rancourt's Activist Climate Guy blog with Peter Laux's permission 

THIS challenge has been available for the Alarmists for more than three years; so far there has not been one serious scientific challenge to Peter's Challenge.

Wouldn't you think that the World Governments, the bodies who wish to penalise ordinary citizens who use fossil fuel sources of energy, would be running to support their (non-scientific) policy position.  But, with the exception of a few fairly unscientific attempts, Peter's $10K is still sitting safely in his coffers.

So why do we keep hearing stories like:

2014 was the hottest year ever.

When we look at the TRUE story, we find that Gavin Schmidt has tweeked (CHEATED?) the data; that even with NASA:GISS' massaged data, 2014 was only 0.02ºC (YEP - two hundredth of a ºC) above the so-called previous warm year.

But wait! There's more!

The error bars!


Yep! Their "hottest year ever" even with their massaged data, could only be found to be  0.02±0.1ºC above their previous "Hottest Year." (ie from  -0.08ºC BELOW the previous hottest year to 0.12º above.)

And then, when questioned about their certainty, this quavering body said they were only 38% sure; or 62% sure that their alarmist prediction was wrong, the prediction that they based on massaged figures.
The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.
And when you look at the science, it was nowhere near the warmest, even of the last 18 years: (See below)
SO: How many news media reported the correction, when it was revealed that

2014 was NOT the hottest year ever 

And Down-under, the Prime Body for Temperature Date, The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) have updated their systems: (Has the Fairfax Press  updated their Editorial Staff for misspelling the name of our country?)

Hi-tech satellites to improve Australain weather forecasts (SMH)

Vastly more detailed images from two new international meteorology satellites could bring a much sharper focus to Australian weather forecasting.
This August body, the Bureau of Meteorology, announced  that the town of Alice Springs had had its hottest day ever this week: (link)
The ABC was told on Tuesday night the temperature at Alice Springs airport reached 46 degrees Celsius at 3:21pm
However, it turned out that the BoM misread a thermometer and the reading was 5ºC less than the announced record temperature.
"The details are still under investigation," (BoM) climatologist Joel Lisonbee told the ABC. It looks like we had an instrument fault with our automatic weather station at the Alice Springs Airport. We do have other thermometers on site."
"We have some mercury and glass thermometers that did not show that spike to 46C."They showed the maximum temperature yesterday to be only 41.5C."
This blog asks:

Did you hear 2014 was the hottest year ever?
Did you hear THEN that 2014 WAS not the hottest year ever?
Did you heat that 46ºC was the hottest hottest day ever for the Alice?
Did you THEN hear that Alice's Hottest day was a BoM error?

The Alarmist media announces the hottest year ever but doesn't announce the retraction.

The Alarmist media announce the Alice Spring Record Temperature but doesn't announce the retraction.

When will the mainstream media again become sceptical and question the fodder that they are fed?


Saturday, January 24, 2015

The Bureau of Meteorology, BOM, is wrong.

By Anthony Cox

The BOM is the source, along with the CSIRO, of the science which supports government policy about the lie of AGW. The BOM makes regular forecasts. These forecasts are also regularly wrong.

People like Warwick Hughes have been documenting the failure of the BOM since 2002. Again in 2011, and 2012.

Perhaps the most abysmal failure of the BOM was their failure to predict the severity of the 2010/11 QLD floods which were greatly acerbated by the Wivenhoe dam operator’s failure to have the dam prepared for floods instead of drought which had been forecast by the BOM. Many people died as a result of the failure of BOM’s forecasts. What a disgrace!

More recently the BOM made an absolute fool of itself telling the press which broadcast it far and wide that the QLD drought was the worst in 80 years. As Jo Nova and Ken Stewart note the BOM was only wrong by 71 years! Naturally the ABC, which ran with the original story, will not print a retraction.

And then there was the hottest ever temperature in Alice Springs which again made headlines and the latter admission by the BOM that they could not read a thermometer correctly. This time the ABC did report on the mistake, if over reading a thermometer by 4.5C can be called a mistake. But even then the ABC could not help itself and headlined its article with a big red graph.

Finally, the BOM made this prediction about the summer of 2014/15:

The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) long range outlook predicts the north-east of NSW is looking down the barrel of a long hot summer. 
The latest Climate Outlook released today, Thursday November 27, 2014 suggests the region can expect a hotter and drier Summer than average. 
Senior climatologist Catherine Ganter said the two months to the end of January are expected to be affected by El Niño like conditions. 
"Our outlook for Summer shows a drier than normal season is more likely," he said.
"Temperature wise we also have warmer than normal daytime and night time temperatures. 
"We have El Niño like conditions persisting. 
"We're sort of somewhere between neutral conditions and El Niño. 
"But regardless it's biasing us towards a warmer and drier period." 
Ms Ganter said there is little joy for people on the land or dependant on rainwater tanks.She said temperatures are expected in the region to be higher than average in the next two months and rainfall below average. 
"Unfortunately it's not the best outlook," she said.

Here’s what happened:

Cool and wet.

How much longer are we going to accept the BOM being an advocate for AGW and failed science?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

See Also:

A Bomb up the BoM's Bum is needed.