About
Contact
Advertise

Facebook
Twitter

August 14, 2014 12:00pm by David Farrar

Reducing climate emissions

Unfortunate placement!

Like this:

Like Loading...

Email
Facebook
Twitter
Comment35

Humour
NZ Politics
Climate Change
Greens

Comments (35)

Login to comment or vote

Manolo

That piece of cardboard should be stoking the fire.
13 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:03pm
Boris Piscina

Mother of God, what a complete load of absolute bollocks.

I cannot comprehend how, in this day and age, there are still people who profess to believe that man’s activities are somehow affecting the climate of planet earth.
19 5
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:07pm
mikenmild

All of the world’s scientific organisations hold a different opinion to you, Boris.
5 23
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:12pm
Rick Rowling

Burning timber is carbon neutral 😉
12 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:22pm
fredinthegrass

Nice photo opportunity!!
But the smoke doesn’t look particularly evil.
Not so sure about the sign?
5 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:22pm
alloytoo

I notice that the Green seem to have done an about turn.

Their posters embossed with “For a smarter Economy” have back drops for mining, and vehicles.

Now I totally support the mining, but I really don’t think we should bother manufacturing vehicles.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:27pm
Tarquin North

Probaly fair trade pot burning there Fred – even the Greens get smoko.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:31pm
kowtow

What’s the sign made of? Most likely carbon based.

Ban the carbon based economy…….oh wait!
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:36pm
freethinker

Best laugh for weeks
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:39pm
stephieboy

Boris Piscinia ,

Really.! You refuse to believe that 7.046 billion + people have absolutely no effect whatsoever. ?, ,

http://www.google.co.nz/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=wprlds+poulation&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=3gXsU7PDHsuN8QfitYC4DQ
1 8
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:45pm
gravedodger

@ fredinthegrass 12 22, Mustard gas was colorless, odourless and had a half life in a trench of several days, and somewhat more than evil, in fact nearly as toxic as the sign promotor, just sayin.
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:46pm
RightNow

“All of the world’s scientific organisations hold a different opinion to you, Boris.”

Will we have some sort of recourse against those organisations if they’re catastrophically wrong? Sounds like they’re talking from a position of impunity.

Russian scientists at the Pulkovo Observatory are convinced the world is in for a cooling period that will last for 200-250 years. Respected Norwegian solar physicist Pal Brekke warns temperatures may actually fall for the next 50 years. Leading British climate scientist Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830), which included “the year without summer”, is “more likely than not”. In their book The Neglected Sun , Sebastian Luning and Fritz Varenholt think that temperatures could be two-tenths of a degree Celsius cooler by 2030 because of a predicted anaemic sun. They say it would mean “warming getting postponed far into the future”.

If the world does indeed move into a cooling period, its citizens are ill-prepared… Cheap electricity in a colder climate will be critical, yet distorted price signals caused by renewable energy policies are driving out reliable baseload generators… It is interesting to contemplate how the West would handle the geopolitical and humanitarian challenges brought on by a colder climate’s shorter growing seasons and likely food shortages. Abundance is conducive to peace….

Yet the global warming pause is now nearly 18 years old and, as climate scientist Judith Curry says, “attention is moving away from the pause to the cooling since 2002”.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/were-illprepared-if-the-iceman-cometh/story-e6frg6zo-1227023489894
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:50pm
jackinabox

“Best laugh for weeks”

Pitiful, jerst pitiful!
0 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 12:55pm
fredinthegrass

Hopefully, Gd, that wee colour in the smoke means its not of the mustard variety.
I notice the smoke is heading “south” too!!
Is that an omen for the sign promoter?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:06pm
Boris Piscina

I’ll happily believe anything which is provably credible, stephieboy.

But the contention that man-made “greehouse gases” are causing the climate to warm is not credible, because it is disprovable. The fact is that CO2 only absorbs IRR from two small sections of the nanometre band, and all direct and reflected incoming solar IRR in those bands is absorbed at an atmospheric CO2 concentration of approximately 20ppm.

Beyond that level the contribution made by CO2 to the greenhouse effect, through reabsorption of modified IRR created by the albedo effect, diminishes logrithmically until it disappears completely at around 50ppm.

Increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 beyond 50ppm make no contribution to IRR absorption because all the IRR which CO2 can absorb has already been absorbed. The sun just simply doesn’t put out any more of it than that.

So 400ppm where we are now is no more dangerous than 100ppm, and 800ppm will be no more dangerous either.

I thought everybody knew that. You’ve been conned.
6 2
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:06pm
Griff

😆
Sounds real sciencey Boris Piscina

Except you dont know what the fuck you are talking about and can give no links the source of your tawdlle.

Interesting paper just released

Abstract
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/23/1409659111.abstract
Water vapor in the upper troposphere strongly regulates the strength of water-vapor feedback, which is the primary process for amplifying the response of the climate system to external radiative forcings. Monitoring changes in upper-tropospheric water vapor and scrutinizing the causes of such changes are therefore of great importance for establishing the credibility of model projections of past and future climates. Here, we use coupled ocean–atmosphere model simulations under different climate-forcing scenarios to investigate satellite-observed changes in global-mean upper-tropospheric water vapor. Our analysis demonstrates that the upper-tropospheric moistening observed over the period 1979–2005 cannot be explained by natural causes and results principally from an anthropogenic warming of the climate. By attributing the observed increase directly to human activities, this study verifies the presence of the largest known feedback mechanism for amplifying anthropogenic climate change.
0 10
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:17pm
OneTrack

Still no warming for 18 years. It MUST start again soon. The models MUST be right.
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:20pm
OneTrack

It will be an organic farm of course.
2 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:21pm
Scott Chris

I cannot comprehend how, in this day and age, there are still people who profess to believe that man’s activities are somehow affecting the climate of planet earth.

I suspect there are a lot of things you can’t comprehend Boris.
1 8
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:25pm
adc

what’s the problem, are they burning coal?
1 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:28pm
adc

If there was any sort of positive feedback on Earth around temp, the oceans would all have evaporated by now.

I take the continued existence of the oceans to be proof that there is a negative feedback loop, which will prevent runaway warming. After all, at many stages of Earth’s history the atmosphere has been a lot hotter and had a much higher CO2 content than it does now.
4 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:31pm
Griff

Still no warming for 18years

Wrong
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/6
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for April 2014 tied with 2010 as the highest on record for the month, at 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F).
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for May 2014 was record highest for this month, at 0.74°C (1.33°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F).
The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was the highest on record for the month, at 0.72°C (1.30°F) above the 20th century average of 15.5°C (59.9°F).
0 9
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:33pm
Boris Piscina

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

So there’s 1,350 links just to get you started Griff. I’ll bet my mortgage that you won’t read a single one of them, nor admit to believing it even if you were capable of understanding it.

However you will very probably claim to have read several, and that some other study you’ve seen says they’re ALL discredited, etc. I have heard all that crap before, many times.

Tell me instead how, from your understanding of science (or even Google’s understanding, I don’t mind) my contention regarding CO2 is not correct.
9 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:36pm
adc

also, for those happy to spout average temperatures. There’s still a lot of controversy about those. these things are not easily come by, and there are a lot of problems with generating an average temp for one year let alone decades. Check out climateaudit.org for more info.
3 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 1:39pm
Griff

Go lie in the sun for half an hour Boris .
Then tell me how it warmed you if all oncoming irr is absorbed at 20ppm co2.
we have 400ppm and the direct sunlight will still warm you
as to your list 😆

Many are outdated and obsolete dating from the seventies , utterly wrong rubbish like Willie Soons or from the discredited journal energy and enviroment.
goggling a few others and we find they dont say anything against global warming
ie
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n8/abs/ngeo578.html
CO2 concentration1, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5 °C of the warming inferred from proxy records. We conclude that in addition to direct CO2 forcing, other processes and/or feedbacks that are hitherto unknown must have caused a substantial portion of the warming during the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. Once these processes have been identified, their potential effect on future climate change needs to be taken into account.
Positive feed backs see my post on water vapor
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2010.517803#.U-waHKMXK1w
When satellite and radiosonde data sets are considered, the global trends for 1979–2009 of the lower and mid-troposphere are +0.15 and +0.06°C decade−1 respective
1 9
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 2:19pm
All_on_Red

Ignore Griff, the whistle on that train of thought never blows, he’s thicker than a Charlie Sheen pre nup agreement. He’s dumber than a sackful of wing nuts. Seriously I really don’t think he realises the margins of error on those land based temps quoted by NCDC, the 1200sqkm homogenisation , the blending of sea and land sources and yet he quotes points of aDegree as if it’s accurate.It’s risible.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 2:25pm
mikenmild

Think the NOAA is just making it all up, do you?
1 6
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 2:31pm
Griff

Dear dear all in red doing the unhinged wing nut dance again
You are the cut and paste queen yet never ever gives a source for your crap.
I just quickly Goggled a couple of papers from the list and found they blatantly supported global warming.
I am not wasting even more time refuting obvious crap.
as to your errors
The trend is not effected by the individual errors in any given station it is the trend from thousands of stations.
We dont need temperature records to recognize the effects we are experiencing the physical world gives sufficient proof
0 8
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 2:39pm
Ross12

” Think the NOAA is just making it all up, do you? ” yes milkenmild there is a lot of “making it ” happening.

Have a look at what NASA / NOAA are doing to temperature histories

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/what-part-of-this-isnt-clear-3/#comments
1 1
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 3:57pm
Griff

Ross 12
Yip ok
Steve Goddard is telling the truth and Nasa The uk met office the usa national weather service, Berkley earth, etc are all lying
😆
wing nuts
Steve Goddard doesn’t even exist Ross.
Who do you believe? Someone who writes under a pseudonym or the worlds scientific organizations …
Give you a glue as you obviously haven’t got many….. its not anonymous bloggers….
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 4:26pm
Ross12

Well , I was going to add a PS on the comment that Griff would attack the person not the facts.

Yes Steve Goddard’s actual name is Tom Heller. Yes he started his blog years ago, under a pseudonym , for his own reasons at the time but it is not a secret anymore.

But the facts remain. All he has done is taken the NASA/NOAA graphs which were on their website sometime ago and compared the same titled graph they have today. Then he has put it on a animated combined graph –he has NOT touched the data just combined it onto one graph.

Griff , if the science is settled and it is all so clear , why is there a continued effort to a manipulate the data? We are not talking about data from the last few months but that from decades ago.

PS. I don’t have any glues !!!
3 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 5:03pm
Griff

They dont “manipulate the data” accept trying to make it as accurate as possible.
The major changes are due to changes in the time the temperatures are taken and changes in the actual physical recording sites and methods.
BEST reexamined the global temperature data totally independently of the others and they have this to say
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings

Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.

That you take the word of an anonymous blogger (yes he posted his name on his blog only this year after it was discovered and published else where on the net) over Official sources including the national meteorological organizations of two country’s the university and peer reviewed science is why your conspiratorial rubbish is the same sort of hysterical twaddle as the crap ugly posts daily.
The satellite record closely conforms to the land record if you take into account the different methods used and the changes we see in the seasons snow lines glacial retreat etc independently confirm the globe is heating.
All the information on changes to the data sets is available on line if you bother actually looking into the official sites.
0 7
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 7:15pm
Boris Piscina

Jesus Griff, just let it go.

No-one likes to admit they’ve been sold a pup, but the horse is dead, and continuing to flog it won’t make it get up or save you embarrasment.

The climate is driven by the sun.

Man has no effect. We are not that significant.

CO2 theory is wrong, and provably so.

The earth is cooling, not warming.

The ice is not melting.

The seas are not rising.

The sky is not falling.

Just let it go.
7 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 7:23pm
Griff

Boris Piscina (36 comments) says:
August 14th, 2014 at 7:23 pm
You really are a simple idiot.
Why dont you discus how 20ppm of co2 means irr will not get past the atmosphere according to your first post
when it plainly does .
Or the fact I easily found two definite statements supporting agw in your list of proof that agw isn’t happening
Took me two goggles at random from your list when I ignored the known wing nut sources.
Don’t bother with the pigeon chess wing nut it doesn’t impress any one except the usual idiots.
0 6
Log in to Reply
Report
August 14, 2014 10:13pm
Poptech

Griff I suggest you read the “Rebuttals to Criticism” section before posting anymore nonsense about the list,

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Rebuttals

Criticism: Papers on the list are outdated.

Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius’s 1896 paper “On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground” and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 1000 papers published since 2000 and over 1250 papers published since 1990 on the list.

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 28 times
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thomson Reuters (ISI)
– Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
– Thomson Reuters (ISI) lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
– Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed physical science journal
– EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
– “E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed” – Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
– “I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal.” – Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
– “All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed” – Multi-Science Publishing
– “Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed” – E&E Mission Statement

The paper “Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming” is not even on the list! What are you talking about?

The paper “Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming” is explicitly listed in the Satellite Temperatures section for a reason as it is discussing problems with other temperature records that show warming rates higher than the UAH record.

“For temperatures from microwave instruments, UAHuntsville’s indicates the lowest trend for 1979–2009 and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – Center for Satellite Applications and Research (NOAA-STAR)’s the highest, being slightly higher than Remote Sensing Systems’ (RSS). Updated analyses using radiosonde data suggest RSS and STAR experienced spurious warming after the mid-1990s. “
0 0
Log in to Reply
Report
August 15, 2014 8:22am

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Login to comment or vote

« X is for X-efficiency

Cultural correctness on teacher training »

Donations

You can now donate to Kiwiblog

Exclusive content from DPF on Patreon

Become a Patron!

Never miss a post

Email Address

Join 37.4K other subscribers

Highlights

Health Target 5 – elective treatments
Health Target 4 – Specialist appointments
Health Target 3 – Emergency Dept Waiting Times
Health Target 2 – Immunisations

Links

D-day for the government
No Right Turn
Mike's Minute: Is this MMP working properly?
Breaking Views
15 YEARS AGO: Now a more bigoted state
Not PC
I Hikoi’d across Bridge in 2004 and 2024 – here’s why it was different and why National should be worried
The Daily Blog
Greenpeace And The Green Party Would Never Tell You This About Penguins.
No Minister
Sowell says
Hompaddock
This Government’s day of shame
The Standard
A Day of Reckoning
NZCPR
LANGUAGE MIS-USE
No Punches Pulled (Bob Jones)
Next time you buy Mainland Cheese, don’t think the “Mainland” is the South Island – it will be Mainland China
Point of Order
Trump’s victory: Golden age or fiscal reckoning?
Utopia
“Trans & Pregnant” – Biology trumps gender ideology
Bob McCoskrie's McBlog
Media Link: “A View from Afar” on the US elections.
Kiwipolitico
This will not end well
Offsetting Behaviour
Top 14 Predictions for Round 10
Stats Chat
Pretty (il)legal
Croaking Cassandra
Tory Whanau may have to sell Wellington mayoralty to make ends meet
The Civilian
The Accidental Engagement
Imperator Fish
Legal Beagle: Election '23: The Special Votes
Public Address
Making this movie might have been a mistake
Liam Hehir
Why I am retiring from political blogging
Kiwi FireWalker
Angie Warren-Clark: Meet the Newbies
Dan Moskovitz

editor@kiwiblog.co.nz

PO Box 12270, Thorndon, Wellington 6144

Facebook
Twitter
FourSquare
Instagram
LinkedIn
Google+

Archives
Disclosure Statement
Editorial Policy
Privacy Policy
Complaints Policy
Comments Policy

Design by cre8d

%d

Share this:

Like this: