Hot Topic not even warm
Richard Treadgold | November 11, 2012Some days it’s all too easy to find material for blogging. Here it is, 11:15 pm, I’ve spent all weekend installing software on my new PC (thanks for the early birthday present, Christopher), the All Blacks face Scotland at 6 o’clock in the morning and Andy sends me over to Hot Topic, where I find this among a series of election briefs:
Damian Carrington in the Guardian:
What does a second term for Barack Obama as US president mean for action on climate change? The short answer is that some action is now at least conceivable. It would not have been under Mitt Romney, whose statement that the president’s job was not to stop the sea rising was hideously exposed by the inundation of New York and New Jersey by the surge of superstorm Sandy.
The only thing exposed was the truth. Nature gave a demonstration of the truth of what Romney said.
It’s not the president’s job because it can’t be done.
If it was Obama’s job to stop Sandy from striking New Jersey, what should he have done?
Diverted it to Philadelphia? Reduced its force (energy) by changing its route through the Atlantic? Deferred it until late November when the ocean is much cooler? Instruct the EPA to regulate storms?
Trenberth and some other extreme scientists say the President could’ve reduced the damage by forcing a reduction of emissions throughout his term. If he had reaced the target of reducing US emissions by 5 per cent, global emissions would have been about 1 per cent less. If that somehow had an even effect worldwide, the North Atlantic would have been around 0.01 deg cooler in about 20-30 year’s time. How could that have changed Sandy in 2012? Or in 2040, for that matter?
that matter?
Sorry to be off topic , but does anyone know what this UN agreement Tim Groser says NZ is signing up in 2013 instead of any extention of Kyoto ( if the latter actually exists ) ?
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1349.php
Thanks Niff. But from the dates on this document do I take it that Groser is referring to signing an extention or modification of this ? This incredibly bureaucratic doc appears to have been around for sometime or am I reading it incorrectly.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The major feature of the Kyoto Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.
The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialised countries to stabilize GHG emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so.
This is the original Kyoto Protocol. There is no successor.
Richard and Niff
This was the article I was refering to in my original question
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-signs-new-climate-ca-132104
Skeptical Science not even warm either:-
Publication Of “Reply to “Comment On ‘Ocean Heat Content And Earth’s Radiation Imbalance. II. Relation To Climate Shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli Et Al. By Douglass and Knox 2012
by rpielke
David Douglass alerted me to his reply to
Dana Nuccitelli, Robert Way, Rob Painting, John Church, John Cook: 2012: Comment on “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts” . Physics Letters A
in
D.H. Douglass, R.S. Knox, 2012: Reply to “Comment on ‘Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts’ ” by Nuccitelli et al. Physics Letters A
The first and last paragraphs of his Reply summarize with
Nuccitelli, Way, Painting, Church and Cook [1] comment on our Letter “Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts” [2]. Their criticism is unwarranted on at least three essential grounds. (1) It is based on a misunderstanding of the climate shift concept, which is central to our Letter; (2) in making its claim of incompleteness because of neglect of the deeper ocean heat content, it ignores our statement of possible error and introduces incompatible data; (3) it over-interprets our comments about CO2 forcing. We expand on these points.
In sum, we show that the criticism of our results (change of slope in the implied FTOA at the climate shift of 2001–2002) by Nuccitelli et al. is unwarranted because they used different data of less temporal resolution. A more careful analysis of this data shows, in fact, consistency and not conflict with our results.
I recommend reading the Douglass and Knox original article, and both the Comment and Reply. The original article is
D.H. Douglass, R.S. Knox, 2012: Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts. Physics Letters A, Volume 376, Issue 14, 5 March 2012, Pages 1226-1229
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/publication-of-reply-to-comment-on-ocean-heat-content-and-earths-radiation-imbalance-ii-relation-to-climate-shifts-by-nuccitelli-et-al-by-douglass-an/
Hot Topic is starting to disappear up its own backside
I posted a link to Der Spiegel where an engineer discusses the shortcomings of Germany’s massive expansion of renewables, and this gets dismissed as “activist propaganda”
What is the point of discussing anything with these zealots?
http://hot-topic.co.nz/people-talkin-11/#comment-37097
Dear CTG,
This “little prick” here would be delighted to provide real word evidence of the health problems attributed to wind farm noise.
I could call upon the residents of Makara NZ, Waterloo SA, Fullabrooke Devon who suffer health problems thanks to your useless windmills.
I could give evidence of people in he USA who have abandoned their houses because wind farms make their properties uninhabitable.
You may strut around earnestly “debunking” arguments with your “approved sources”, but unfortunately as we get to the scrag end of the global warming scare, real people who don’t give a stuff about your “debunkings” are suffering real personal hardship.
“The study found that 63 per cent of Australia’s 49 wind farms had never been the subject of any health complaint from nearby residents”
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/wind-turbine-sickness-all-in-the-mind-study-20130315-2g4zd.html#ixzz2NerZrtC1
But – I think I can be sure of this – 100% of the nearby residents had never been approached directly by the authors sequestered in their Sydney University offices – no doubt soundproofed from that nasty background traffic hum (i.e. they have no representative sample of would-be complainants, what specific complaints they might have, and why or why not complaints were made or not).
Or that the doughty authors had never spent any length of time within sufferance of a wind farm – Sydney ‘burbs not being renowned for the proliferation of wind turbines ‘n all.
>”I think I can be sure of this”
Now I know I can:-
Methods Records of complaints about noise or health obtained from wind farm companies regarding residents living near 49 Australian wind farms, expressed as proportions of estimated populations residing within 5km of wind farms, and corroborated with complaints in submissions to 3 government public enquiries and news media records.
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/8977/4/Complaints%20FINAL.pdf
Pre-Print: submitted for publication
Acknowledgements: Mia Rose for research assistance; wind farm proprietors for data in Table 1.
Chapman and Waller criticize the exploratory questionnaire-type investigations that have been made – as if they have the credibility to do so.
Articles by Simon Chapman:-
Wind farms, the Waubra Foundation [see Chapman and Waller] and a post-office box
Latest wind farm research is a load of hot air
The web of vested interests behind the anti-wind farm lobby
Windfarms will make your children hate school, apparently
Can wind farms make people sick?
http://www.crikey.com.au/author/simonchapman/
People are leaving their homes without compensation because of wind farm noise, yet the local eco-fachists think it all one big hissy fit.
Maybe Bill and CTG should get a job in the Christchurch insurance industry. It provides a similar outlet for these thugs to bully people.
I had heard that you can elect to pay more for your electricity in South Australia so that it is “100% wind”. I am not sure if this is correct, and if it is, how they separate out the electrons. Maybe Bill can explain; I think he is on one of these plans. At least, Bill has claimed to be on 100% wind energy and in the same breath talks about his gas bill.
Here is your daily update from my personal hate mail at Hot Topic
http://hot-topic.co.nz/time-for-nz-to-do-the-maths-mckibbens-coming/#comment-37689
Charming, oh and I admire the patients (sic) too. Don’t let the
- RT]
straightjacketsstraitjackets pinch [sorry, couldn't resist!Always glad of the proofreading RT, although I blame the Apple autocorrect and anything that Aaron Gilmore can think of for my mistakes these days
Right, good idea. Blaming the night shift can be quite successful, too.