Friday, 26 October 2012

Prepare yourselves for an energy-free future!

Prepare yourself for an energy free future.
  • Buy a generator and a 
  • Big supply of petrol. 
  • Get candles. 
  • Buy a metho stove. 
  • Buy  (hand) Fans for summer and 
  • Blankets for winter.

The Green Gillard Government is against humanity!

Their carbon tax is designed to reduced humanity's use of energy.

 Australia's cheap energy comes from coal.  

Australians are being hit with increased costs for power due to highly subsided renewables forced into the  total energy equation and a tax on vital-to-life carbon dioxide killing our cheap standar of living.

My near neighbour ZEG puts it this way:

Meanwhile, have you bought your generator yet?  Have you got in a supply of candles and a metho stove?

Due to lack of maintenance and the CARBON dioxide TAX, our power sources are faltering and failing.

Fire blazes at Lake Hume Power Station  (link)

More than 50 firefighters from the Country Fire Authority, Fire and Rescue NSW and the NSW Rural Fire Service were called to the blaze which broke out in a high voltage transformer about 3pm Sunday.

But they were unable to start fighting the fire until just after 5pm, when the transformer at the power plant was shut down.


Eraring Power Station shuts down for repairs (link)

Eraring Power Station will shut down on Sunday for almost three weeks while crews repair boilers damaged last month during a major failure.

On September 8 unit four of the power station tripped out of service because a major steam leak.

This caused an escape of pulverised coal fuel. The incident caused damage to the boiler.

‘‘The units will be out of service for approximately 20 days for inspection subject to the extent of the repairs.’’

Carbon tax factor in Munmorah power station closure (link)

THE carbon tax was a factor in the decision to permanently close Munmorah power station with the loss of up to 120 jobs, Delta Electricity said yesterday.

Delta chief executive Greg Everett said the station had not produced electricity since August 2010, when it was put on standby.

‘‘The station’s ageing infrastructure and high maintenance costs mean that it is not economically viable to operate,’’ Mr Everett said.

‘‘The carbon tax further erodes its viability.’’

  H/t WGP!



AGW: The Current Situation.

AGW: The Current Situation.
by Anthony Cox
Secretary of the NCTCS
The ‘science’ behind AGW has been rebutted. Jo Nova and I presented a number of articles reviewing recent research which shows AGW is fatally flawed.

That AGW science and its doomsday predictions are flawed is starting to be picked up by some of the MSM. The Mail Online’s expose of the MET’s admission that AGW had stopped for 16 years led to all sorts of qualifications and rejections by the pro-AGW forces; but for now this stands:

One of the denials of this fact was that at least 17 years were needed before a climatic trend could be isolated; this is confirmed by leading AGW scientist, Ben Santer. Which should mean that if there is no temperature trend consistent with AGW in 2013 then AGW should pack up its mouldy bags, ridiculous end of the world scenarios and most of all, huge financial demands and bugger off.

Of course it won’t because there are still too many MSM outlets who will not admit any defects in their pet theory; in Australia that would be the ABC, a taxpayer funded media outlet which arguably should be closed and the Fairfax organisation which probably will be closed because of dwindling readership.

Then there is the money; $10’s of billions wasted on this scam. You can’t turn around without tripping over some spiv with his hand out to the witless government demanding funding for a green energy scheme which no one has done due diligence about, or if they have, have ignored the consequences when the green entrepreneur falls in a heap such as the fiasco in Tasmania when Wood and Cameron bought Triabunna woodchip mill.
Fairfax and the ABC never present the avalanche of evidence to show AGW and Green energy are failed and very expensive ideas. Take the Gergis debacle. When this paper was first publicised by its senior author Karoly, the ABC and Fairfax were all over it like a rash. When the paper was revealed to be a statistical mess there was no retraction or reanalysis.

In this way the MSM has presented an uncritical picture of AGW from day one. The method is to publicise every new paper; and when later the paper is once again revealed to be phony or flawed, ignore it. The casual reader will have an accumulative picture of a constant and sustained build-up of vindicating AGW science because none of the contrary evidence is presented. This has been a massive lie by omission.

As I say, there are many who argue the ABC should be closed.

How extraordinary is that; the official measurement of a government policy cannot or will not be done!

The only people who will know about the impact of the carbon tax will be the citizens paying their electricity bills and dealing with the inflationary effect.

Every aspect of the carbon tax has been wrapped in deceit and lies. When it was first introduced the usual culprits, Wong, Combet and the misogyny magnet herself, Gillard, all claimed the carbon tax would have no effect on either consumers or coalmines. This was and still is duplicity itself because the purpose of the tax is to first make coal based electricity too dear and then to stop it all together.

That simple contradiction has never been picked up by the MSM.

Both sides of politics in Australia are pro the Renewable Energy Target [RET] where effective, efficient and affordable fossil energy is replaced by green energy which does not work. The Coalition and Abbott are still advocating the RET. This is destructive because the RET is likely to more expensive than the carbon tax.

So while ever the Coalition supports the RET Australia cannot be said to be free from the curse and lie of AGW even though the AGW science has failed. The only political party which will scrap both the RET and the carbon tax is the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics [NCTCS]. If people want to be free of AGW they should seriously consider voting NCTCS at the next election.

Has Man-made global warming been disproved? (Part: 1)

Has Man-made global warming been disproved? A Review of Recent Papers.
Anthony Cox and Jo Nova
Climate Change was described in 2007 by the soon to be, briefly, Australian prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, as the “greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation.” By Climate Change Rudd meant anthropogenic global warming, or global warming as it was originally described by Al Gore.
Government attempts to ‘solve’ global warming are framed by hyperbole and urgent policies. These policies involve the expenditure of vast amounts of money1,2 and are justified because we are told “The science is settled”3.
Science is never settled. Richard Feynman said [The Meaning of it All, 1999]:
The exception proves that the rule is wrong. That is the principle of science. If there is an exception to any rule, and if it can be proved by observation, that rule is wrong.
The dominant argument for global warming contradicts Feynman’s “principle of science”. This dominant argument is that a majority of scientists, a consensus, support it4. But as Feynman notes consensus is a false proof of a scientific theory because only one contradictory bit of empirical evidence is sufficient to refute that theory.
In fact not one but seven recent peer-reviewed papers have revealed what would seem to be fatal flaws in global warming. Global warming says there has been an increase in the global average temperature since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” [AR4, Working Group 1, page 10].
For purposes of this essay then global warming is the increase in global average temperature primarily caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide [CO2].
The seven papers discussed use different methods to critique global warming but are all based on empirical data and are in rough agreement that any increase in global average temperature due to a doubling of CO2 is more likely to be about half a degree than the 3.26 degrees determined by the IPCC [AR4, Box 10.2]. The extent of the change in global average temperature to a doubling in CO2 is known as the climate sensitivity [see Figure 8].
A forcing is a factor external to or introduced to the climate system which affects, for a period, the radiative balance at the Tropopause, the boundary between the Troposphere and the Stratosphere. The IPCC recognises 2 main types of forcings; greenhouse gases, the most dominant one being CO2, and solar radiation. A feedback is a change in another quantity in the climate system as a response to a change in a forcing. The IPCC assumes that an increase in forcing from an increase in anthropogenic CO2 causes a feedback by an increase in water vapour [AR4, FAQ 1.3]. This process is measured by the change in global average temperature. However, as some scientists note, the distinction between a forcing and a feedback is not clear:
However, disadvantageously, including non-instantaneous processes clearly blurs the distinction between forcing and feedback as there is no longer a clear timescale to separate the two; further including these processes in the forcing incorporates more uncertain aspects of a climate models response [Forster et al., 2007].5
The following papers clarify this uncertainty between forcings and feedbacks and show that the global warming science is not clear about the distinction or effects. The papers show the IPCC assumptions about the role of CO2 and water vapor, particularly in the form of clouds, are incorrect and that the IPCC conclusions about climate sensitivity are both exaggerated and wrong. In doing so, these papers also vindicate Feynman’s maxim.

1      Lindzen and Choi –The Earth has a safety release valve

Figure 1 6
From Wielicki, B.A., T. Wong, et al, 2002: Evidence for large decadal variability in the tropical mean radiative energy budget. Science, 295, 841-844.
If global warming is going to happen it will be due to feedbacks. If the feedbacks are positive it means that as the world warms, atmospheric conditions would have to change to keep even more of the sun’s energy inside our system. But Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi show that as the world warms Earth’s dynamic system changes to let more of the infra red or long-wave energy out to space [LW from Figure 1]. It’s like a safety release valve. This means that the system has negative feedbacks (like almost all known natural systems). The changes dampen the effects of extra CO2. If there is no net amplifying positive feedback there is no catastrophe. Because Lindzen & Choi are looking at long-wave radiation leaving the planet [outgoing long-wave radiation], this is a way of assessing all forms of feedbacks at once. We can’t tell which part of the system is responsible: clouds, humidity, ice-cover or vegetation, but we know the net effect of all of them together is that when the world warms, more energy escapes from the planet.
Their research was first posted in 20097 and updated in 20108 as a response to earlier criticisms. In the 2009 paper Lindzen & Choi measured changes in the outgoing long-wave radiation leaving from the top of the atmosphere during periods that the world warmed. Their findings were a direct contradiction to global warming because they showed that increased CO2 did not block outgoing long-wave radiation. With no blockage the level of available energy in the climate system also did not increase. With no increase of available energy there was no energy to cause positive feedbacks and increase temperature.
Kevin Trenberth, a leading climate modeler, criticized the first paper. Those criticisms concerned the extent of satellite data used by Lindzen & Choi, their concentration on the tropics and various statistical methodologies. All of these complaints were addressed by the subsequent paper. They still found that outgoing long-wave radiation increased as the world warmed, which was different to what all the models predicted.

2      Spencer and Braswell – Cloud feedback is net negative

In a 2007 paper Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell undertook empirical measurements of cloud radiative forcings which are a net result of blockage by clouds of solar radiation coming in to the atmosphere [cooling] and blockage by clouds of long-wave radiation leaving the atmosphere [warming]; they concluded that
“the net radiative effect of clouds…is to cool the ocean atmosphere system during its tropospheric warm phase and warm it during its cool phase.” 9
That is, clouds moderate or dampen temperature movement in either direction.
Spencer & Braswell’s papers in 200810 and 201011 took a different approach to Lindzen & Choi. Spencer & Braswell looked more closely at the nature of feedbacks and forcings and the difficulty of putting a value on feedbacks. The IPCC models assume that clouds change in response to temperature, so they are a “feedback” [AR4, WG1,]. But as Spencer & Braswell show in their 2008 and 2010 papers clouds can be a forcing factor as well. This means that if something other than temperature affects cloud cover (like changes in ocean currents or air circulation) the change in clouds would then force the temperature to change.
The latest IPCC report acknowledges that the models don’t simulate clouds well and that’s where the main uncertainties lie. If clouds are not just a forcing in their own right, and provide negative feedback [by shading the earth] that would seriously undermine the premise of global warming. This point is illustrated by two other recent papers.
The first is a report by The Climate Process Team on Low Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity [CPT] 12. CPT found “strongly negative net cloud feedback” in a warming world. Utilizing the climate models from NCAR, GFDL and NASA, CPT found this negative feedback concentrated in the Tropics.
Similarly Allan 201113 based his study on cloud “radiative effect” in the Tropics and concluded a “net cooling of the climate system” from clouds because solar blocking, cooling, was greater than long-wave blocking, warming. However unlike CPT, Allan did not regard this cooling as a feedback since the cloud cooling was not a response to temperature.
Spencer & Braswell provide proof that it’s very difficult to find definitive feedback signals in a dynamic system that is never at equilibrium. The only feedback they can calculate in their 2008 and 2010 papers is negative and means a climate sensitivity of about 0.6 °C for a doubling of CO2, though it’s only applicable over short time-frames. They show the near impossibility of establishing climate sensitivity over long time frames. But if climate sensitivity to CO2 is as low as they find, and dwarfed by potential cloud forcing, it would mean no postponed effect from CO2. We have had all the effect there is and there will be no stored heat lying dormant to cause future climate change. This would explain Trenberth’s concern, expressed in the CRU e-mails that the pro-global warming scientists “can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.
Spencer & Braswell’s 201114 paper confirms the difficulty in distinguishing cloud feedback and forcing. They also find the global warming models have substantially overestimated the climate sensitivity due to their lack of understanding of this distinction. One of the reasons that the models have failed to distinguish the effect of clouds on temperature is the difference in time it takes for the radiative effects of temperature and clouds to occur in the system; temperature effects are immediate while those of clouds take some months as Figure 2 [Figure 3 from Spencer & Braswell 2011] shows.
Figure 2
Spencer & Braswell 2011 has received considerable vitriol from the global warming science. This is unwarranted because this science concedes it has a lack of understanding of clouds. Spencer & Braswell have offered an explanation of clouds strongly correlated with and consistent with observations. The criticism of them would seem, therefore, to be based on preserving the global warming theory rather than answering Trenberth’s concern.

Continued in Part 2 HERE