CLIMATE MODELS
There aren’t any. Not
one. To make it easy, consider starting,
say, with the beginning of the Common Era (CE): does anyone know of a computerised
climate model that would list the influences and explain their interactions while
playing through the waxing and waning of the Roman Warm Period, or its
following Dark Ages Cold Period, or the Medieval Warm Period, in turn followed
by the Little Ice Age – none of which could possibly have had any human made
contribution. With timespans in the
order of half a millennium for some of these periods, now that’s Climate. A
picture is worth a thousand words, perhaps:
Only if and when we have such a model explain known Climate
might we possibly know what, if any, difference to global climate the Watt,
Otto and Diesel engines may have made when seen beside the other sources that obviously
must have been – and still are – at work before these inventors’ machines and
their offspring were widely employed.
Where are the RealClimate modellers?
Certainly not here: http://tinyurl.com/q4rtmvf
LYSENKOISM
“Lysenkoism, or Lysenko-Michurinism was the
centralized political control exercised over genetics and agriculture by Trofim Lysenko and his followers. Lysenko was
the director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural
Sciences. Lysenkoism began in the
late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.
Lysenkoism was built on theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics that Lysenko named "Michurinism".[1] These
theories depart from accepted evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance.
Lysenkoism is used metaphorically to describe the manipulation or
distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined
conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or
political objectives.[2
There is no great leap of imagination required to equate
what I described in my blog post of 04 October 2011 with this definition of
Lysenkoism, viz. “to describe the
manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a
predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to
social or political objectives”, or Kyotoism, if you will. I prefer Lysenkoism
as it has become the descriptive term for any state, or similar political power-ordained exclusive adoption of predetermined conclusions, scientific or
otherwise; from the Constantine invention of a single state religion, or the
geocentric world view, or the current AGW variety.
“Blitzed in the polls, the Australian Labor Party have picked the
communist solution — straight from the Soviet rule book of Free
Speech. Goskomizdat revived as a kind of Goskoshopfront.
It’s more desperate and simplistic band-aid legislation to benefit the ruling
class and not the people. Surprisingly, the media seems to be silent on this
scandalous attack on free-speech.
The Gillard Government tells us the tax’s effect will be minimal, but
they are clearly terrified of the blowback.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has been
directed to enforce accurate business promotions with a $1.1m dollar fine, and team of
23 “carbon cops”, to stop Australian businesses from posting any signs telling
the public how much extra they are paying due to the Carbon Tax, or having a
“Pretax sale”. Imagine the travesty of transparently letting customers
see a breakdown of their invoice, or of warning customers of price rises to
come?”
How’s that for a Stalinesque enforcement of atonements for largely
imagined indulgences!
Just how much this IPCC collection of CO2
tributes costs, is stated for the UK by Matt Ridley in his Angus Millar
Lecture of the Royal Society of Arts Edinburgh, 31 October 2011:
"Remember Britain's unilateral Climate Change Act is officially expected to cost the hard-pressed UK economy £18.3 billion a year for the next 39 years and achieve an unmeasurably small change in carbon dioxide levels."
Cui bono this
dead-horse trading?
UPDATE on those dead-horse trainers: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/
UPDATE on those dead-horse trainers: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/climategate-3-0-has-occurred-the-password-has-been-released/
OXYMORON
As the Oxford dictionary tells me, an oxymoron is “a figure
of speech or expressed idea in which apparently contradictory terms appear side
by side… stemming from the Greek oxumoros [meaning] ‘pointedly foolish’ “.
Renewable
Energy is about as foolish and misleading an
oxymoron as one could get: if such
energy were to exist, it would be the ultimate perpetuum mobile which, of course, is impossible to obtain anywhere
in the whole universe according to the laws of thermodynamics, i.e. entropy
won’t let you.
As Buckminster
Fuller pointed out long ago, there are only two kinds of energy sources available
to us: Income energy and Capital energy. Living off Capital equates in energy terms
with burning fossil fuels to extract their energy for our multifarious uses. Fossil
fuels are certainly not ‘renewable’ at the rate we need to employ them (that
includes biomass) and we could inevitably be heading for energy bankruptcy if
there were no alternative. Income energy, in contrast, is inexhaustible and available
anywhere on Earth – called Sunshine (and includes its first-order derivative: onshoreWind). OK, that safe source of nuclear fusion
will also burn out in a few billion years (barring astronomic Black Swans), but
that’s practically eternal for present practical purposes and certainly beyond our grandchildren’s
grandchildren's lifetimes.
Some earlier musings on entropy and energy needs are at
So, how to measure progress?
How many kWh of affordable CleanEnergy will any technology provide?
appears the be the only question to answer. And here is a reminder of the criteria constituting CleanEnergy:
Where does it all
come from?
Micro Hydroelectric power seems to fulfill all the requirements. I have such a situation but government (of course) will not allow it.
ReplyDeleteHow is that energy flux from the Sun reaching the atmosphere of Earth calculated? While I have no reason to doubt Oliver Morton's figure of 4000 trillion kWh per day doing their job -- after all his book EATING THE SUN from where this figure comes was first published in 2007 -- and I have not seen it questioned anywhere. Anyone know?
ReplyDelete