Dr David Evans is qualified in mathematics,computing and electrical engineering.He helped build the carbon accounting model for the Aust Govt.By some he is ranked in the top 5 computer modellers of climate in the world.Dr Evans is now more than a sceptic on AGW theory and no longer works for the Aust Govt in this field.

He makes the point that in 1995 the statictics no longer supported their theories of AGW caused by CO2 but the money now devoted to the science of AGW created an unrelenting momentum that perverted the science.Enormous amounts of money could now be made by Govts and on the share market by corporate interests.

What people weren't told that 2/3 rds of the warming was modelled on increased water vapor initiated by the supposed amplification caused by CO2.The predicted "hot spots" in the upper atmosphere did not happen.Weather recording stations were not calibrated to acount for the heat island affect of cities and often skewed reading were taken near asphalt,air conditioning units etc.2010 was declared the hottest year ever but the satellite records showed an entirely different story.The planet is actaully steadily cooling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_f0s_gKsNk After Jo Nova you will hear Dr Evans speak at the recent Hyde Park Rally .Ignore the yobbo near the camera.He must work for Get Up.

there are those who refuse to recognise they are wrong arjay
[these refuse to even think they could be decieved]

its much like the lies made by ommision
as in smoking..where the cancer stats
reflect the same proportion's
for non smokers getting cancer..as non smokers

but by cleverly deeming cancer as a cause...
all cancer statistics..goes into the numbers

add in the other thing's SAID to be caused by smoking
[like heart disease..and you soon come up with the BIG NUMBERS
they need to make their abusive taxation's..as 'the right thing to do']

we can add in things like speed camera's
or compulsory super contributions..

[that act much like a pyramid sceme
with 10% of our wages propping up..
[and inflating the stock value...'now'..

but like all gambling..
the pyramid will in time fall]

but those who have invested in guilt
mate they have pride...too much pride..
to even admit their spin is wrong..and they were lied to

we can keep on trying to explain the spin
but mate..let those who would be decieved
be decieved..

they so love the higher mighty blame/shame game
noting the indexed increase..kicks in tomorrow..[again]..on my smokes

by the too clever by half..half yearly indexation...
[your too clever by half mzzz rocks on]..

but got ya big mediSIN mates
a great new cash cow..on non patentable nicoteen..gum....lol

boy are the voter dumb or just numb
and still muggs pay tax on wages
when wage isnt 'income'

sheep
go back to sleep

bahhhhhh bah

next you get gmo/d into sterility
but hey...its the blind leading the blind
via a two party scam..run by backdoor boys
and paper fiat values

ha ha
soon the joke falls back on you
the money changers..new tax will make and break not just you

The problem has changed.
We are consuming oil and coal at too fast a rate.
What will we do when the fossil fuels are all gone?
If the Earth is too hot how can we power air conditioners?
If the Earth is too cold how can we run heaters?
How to power transport?
The fossil carbon tax is intended to reduce the wasteful use of
this asset.
The biggest problem is population.
Then running out of fuel.
The third problem is global heating or cooling.

i detest their lies
its allways been hotter and colder
thus clearly climate changes..but is it man made

its well known how the earth goes arround the sun
sometimes closer to it..other times farther out from it
accordingly..the earth on its elipitical orbit..has warmer colder times

hence gren land is now white ice land
on its way back to being green

we havnt reached peak oil or peak coal
in fact coal seam gas..now sems infinite
when realisiticly thats what was previously said re 'natural gas' and petro chemicals...

that of course are finite..
but will last longer than your solar cell roof bling

[the main 'infastructure'
that has caused our power to rise 40 percent..in 4 years
excepting the solar cell bling subsidy and supply by back bribes]

how dumb are the consumers
who pay more for services..[because state odious debt has gone nuts]
qld alone shall owe 85 billion..in two years..[currently 65 billion]

we need to have many debates
clearly the liars shoe leather
has become seat leather..[hence the big inflation of her belly zone]

we saw bert combie on bolt
avoiding the many questions
seems if they cant mention tony they got nothing to say

i would like to see tony play with models
[like a clear class case,...with a block of dry ice in it]
that melts..into a clear glass case...and photo's of the many poluting chiminies sold us as spin..that are in the main steam

or tony them bubbles in beer/softdrink...bread
all c02..mate

yes juliar is in hiding
but mate bring out your own model-bling*

''see that empty space..!
thats c02..''

its not our fault that the gullible need the platitudes/spin

yes petro/coal will end..but it was cheap energy that made the industrial revolution..

and it will be expensive energy scams that end it

it takes carbon
to make those carbon free 'alternatives'
there is no such thing as carbon free..[its a building block of life]

live with it
its not worth dying over

Arjay, it’s the wrong debate, as I keep saying on OLO.

It really doesn’t matter if AGW is real or not.

What is important is the undeniable fact that we are living in a manner that is a million miles removed from sustainability, and heading in the wrong direction still as rapidly as ever. And this is all been made possible by fossil fuels. Or at least greatly exacerbated by our use of them.

We’ve built a grossly unsustainable existence, around the world, on fossil energy. Humanity’s top priority has surely got to be to strive for a sustainable future, and that means a maximised effort to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels, especially oil, with coal being a little less critical.

The whole global warming debate is a huge diversion.

So, we shouldn’t be concerned about whether Dr Evans and his ilk are right or wrong. It is IRRELEVANT!!

We’ve GOT to maximise our efforts to develop alternative energy sources, improve energy-use efficiencies, reduce overall average per-capita consumption, and stop population growth, regardless.

Ludwig stopping the carbon tax is the pressing issue at the moment.I've just arrived from my third Carbon Tax protest at Hyde Park.There is abundant energy on our planet and we can fix the environmental problems and have a good comfortable existance.

Currently I'm experimenting with hydrogen via electrolysis as a fuel supplement.The kit I've bought seems to work.It needs to be broken in and and calibrated with the right amount of electrolyte.Hydrogen has 2.6 times more energy per litre than petrol.Just a small amount of hydrogen can make petrol 25% more efficient and far less pollutive.Apparently it has a bigger impact on diesel.Why haven't our car companies focused on hydrogen as a fuel supplement?

We probably can use hydrogen as a major fuel source but they seem reluctant to go there.It might make energy too cheap.

Arjay and Under One God (UOG)
I know you feel emotional about the Carbon Tax but can we at last agree that global warming science is different to government policies? I'm sure we've discussed this before, but you both really sound like you've been taken for a ride by the Denialists. There are 160 well known climate MYTHS, and you've both just promoted them. Are you qualified climatologists to make these pronouncements from on high?

It's not just the IPCC and their special panels of expertise all coming together for a synthesis report. No way. It's every decent scientific organisation and National Academy of Science on the planet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

So what I'm often left wondering is which is scarier; the true science of global warming or the Denialist belief that the whole world's science community has been had by some enormous, elaborate conspiracy? Seriously, do you both just think you woke up one day with Phd's in climatology? You know better than the climatologists and every climate department in every scientific establishment on the PLANET!? How on earth did you become persuaded of this? Who is running this conspiracy? And if you stopped inhabiting paranoid Denialist websites in the middle of the night, and just concentrated on living, nice meals, and getting a good night's sleep, don't you think a little balance and common sense might return to your perspective?

Eclipse Now,just more adhominem from those who who do not pay respect to the true scientific method.Dr David Evans is a true scientist and the imperical evidence as well as the every day experiences tell us the CO2 is not the demon portrayed by the IPCC.

Your scam ahs been layed bare and it is time to fess up to the reality.

Arjay, not wanting to get offside with a good OLO mate, but there seems to be something fundamentally contradictory in what you are saying.

You’re experimenting with hydrogen and espousing it as an excellent energy source. That’s great.

But you are fundamentally against the carbon tax.

Isn’t the purpose of the carbon tax strategy to get a whole lot more effort put into this sort of alternative energy source.... in order to reduce fossil fuel usage just a little and thus reduce emissions just a tad?

Why do you think the carbon tax is the pressing issue of the moment?

I don’t get it. It is so piffling. Economic growth will continue just the same. The effects will be minimal. Basically I reckon that the big-business pro-growth-forever lobby has had a huge win with this carbon tax thing. Now they and the Gillard government can be seen to be a little bit green, with a slight change of course, while essentially powering on in the same old grossly unsustainable manner.

I would have thought that your camp would be very happy with the outcome, Arjay. Afterall, the tax could have been much greater and it could have easily included petrol and diesel. And if the government was serious about the whole deal, they would have been looking at least at a 25% cut by 2020 instead of the ridiculous 5%.

Arjay,
Dr David Evans might be a true scientist. There are many "true scientists" who disagree with global warming. But what is he a true scientist of? Geology, like the infamous Ian Plimer? Has he had any work reported in the climate peer-review literature?

Again — when it comes to *peer reviewed* climate literature, there isn't one National Academy of Science that disagrees with the AGW position. So tell me, why hasn't Dr David Evans convinced the NAS that it's all bunk? Precisely because of the NAS respect for the TRUE peer-reviewed process that analyses ALL the factors and doesn't just rip them out of context, cherry-pick, and attack straw-men.

So once again, rather than attacking *me* for not respecting the 'true scientific method' why don't you Denialists tell us why the NAS's of the world aren't all respecting the 'true scientific method'. Seriously, do you know how that sounds? "There are Aliens at Area51 — if you'll just LOOK at the evidence and read the dozen websites I've selected for you and be prepared to believe the evidence for yourself!" Um, no. The data has to be verified and analysed by the proper authorities and sources. I'm not going to just believe something because it is on some cooky website.

In the meantime, Ludwig's hit on a point. Not only is this little piece of paper not going to do very much while nuclear power remains illegal in this country, but it can be reversed at a moment's notice. Say, when oil prices climb even higher because of peak oil. After all, rather than just NATIONALIZING energy and building the nukes, Labor have applied a Carbon Tax as a free-market mechanism. They just want the price of coal a little bit higher and then let the market decide. It's not like the government is going to do anything *bold* and make an actual decision on how to get off coal for once!

I note that none of the people here bothered to engage with Saul Eslake's excellent articles on the carbon tax proposal except Arjay and his contribution was the usual "it's all imaginary, why are we bothering", which may or may not be true, but it doesn;t add to the debate at this late stage.

Basically, Eslake is in favour of some carbon-reduction scheme, but he's quite a lot less happy with the idea of a financial derivative instrument as the means for achieving it. I agree.

I made the comparison between greenhouse pollutants and other forms of waste. We don't have a "toxic liquid waste" trading scheme, or a "municipal garbage trading scheme", but we do have lots of both of these waste streams. Because the cost of sequestering such waste is high, businesses pay lots of money to other businesses to handle the disposal on their behalf. Because this costs lots of money, they look for ways to reduce, reuse, recycle and so less waste is produced and useful things begin to be made from what used to be considered fit only for landfill.

Why on earth would the same thing not work for greenhouse pollutants, including but not limited to carbon? Make the release of such pollutants a costly exercise by making laws that say you musn't do it, just as waste disposal was fostered by making laws that said a business wasn't simply allowed to pile it up in a corner of the yard. Soon enough some enterprising firm will decide that paying all this money to throw useful stuff away isn't very clever and voila! we have a new industry.

Instead of that simple approach we have created a massive cashflow product for financial traders with no real incentive for anyone to do anything but pass the buck around in circles.

As Eslake said :"I'd like to hope (but I can't be sure) that regulations [will prevent misuse by the financia markets]". Great scheme...

I'm tempted to agree. Make nukes legal and we'll have powerful abundant clean energy 24/7 (unlike wind and solar). Then companies can be set up to build today's Gen3 AP1000 complete with passive-safety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000

But part of me says just nationalise energy and build the beasts now! Enough already with the farting around! Then when the Gen4 S-PRISM arrives in 20 to 15 years, we'll have enough nuclear waste from the AP1000's to feed into the S-PRISM's. Then we can run the world for 500 years just on today's existing nuclear waste, let alone any new waste we might have to burn from all the new AP1000's I hope we get stuck into building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-PRISM

(The potential to run the world for half a millennium has the additional side effect of turning nuclear waste into a resource worth $30 trillion dollars! Australia should volunteer to 'store' the world's nuclear waste while we get busy building our own S-PRISM's. Then when we show them how it's done, we can sell both the S-PRISM's and nuclear waste back to them at an enormous profit! Say it with me.... $30 TRILLION dollars! That's $30 thousand billion dollars!)

There is no contradiction whatsoever in my logic.Currently so called green energy alternatives do not supply base load power.Hydrogen can be free energy from your tap.The oil gas and coal are not going to last forever.If I can reduce my fuel bill by 25% and reduce real pollutants like sulphur that is both an economic positive as well as being good for the environment.The internal combustion enegine is very inefficient and hydrogen from water has not been developed enough because the big players see their power base being eroded.They claim just 3 litres of hydrogen per minute boosts your octane rating to 140 thus burning the fuel more completely.I think that we could easily use hydrogen as a 50% supplement to carbon based fuels.If they can harness the heat energy from your car to produce more electricity to produce hydrogen,then we can cut fuel costs dramatically.The carbon based fuels will not last forever.

Saul Eastlake and Malcolm Turnbull are Goldman Sachs devotees.Wall St want the ETS as another derivative that they can rort again.Saul tries to use adhominem against me and will not debate me on the banking system which expresses our increases in productivity as debt.He won't debate becasuse he knows he won't win.

The facts are that carbon is not the problem and the science has been perverted by a lot of greedy people.

How we know what Co2 does.

It's repeatable, demonstrable, verifiable, provable spectrometry that can be done in any decent lab on the planet. Which might just be why every decent National Science Academy on the planet has signed on to support AGW!

As a more technical friend explained it to me:
———
The simple answer is we know the absorption spectra of CO2 because we can measure it directly, unambiguously and very accurately.

The measurement is conceptually very simple – shine a light source of a given wavelength through a sample of CO2 gas in a glass box, and measure the decrease in intensity of the light that passes through. The difference between what goes in and what comes out is the absorption, at that particular wavelength. If you measure the absorption for a range of wavelengths – say from infrared through to ultraviolet, thats the absorption spectrum. If you know the dimensions of the box, and the density of the gas, you can then calculate the absorption per molecule, or mole, or whatever. You can then use that to calculate the absorption through any amount of CO2, say, that in the atmosphere above us.

Look up Beer’s Law on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law

In the old days we would have used a single wavelength spectrometer, which would split light through a prism and slit arrangement to select a single wavelength. A more modern instrument is the FTIR – Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy – which illuminates with all wavelengths at once and uses fourier analysis to back out the spectrum. But the spectrum of CO2 is a bit like the boiling point of water. It was established a very long time ago, and if you need it, you look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform_infrared_spectroscopy

Guess what Eclipse, the earth is not in a glass box, or wasn't the last time I looked, & neither am I.

You may, although from your posts I'm inclined to think it is an ivory tower.

No one with half a brain pays any attention to anything in Wikipedia regarding global warming, at least no one who knows what was going on there.

You'll have to do better.

Arjay, you're corrrect in saying that carbon is not the problem, it's acually a very valuable commodity indeed. However, when it's locked up between 2 oxygen atoms, it becomes a costly commodity to recover for useful purposes, which is why it hasn't been done as much as it might have been.

However, there are lots of things that could be done if there was lots of cheap energy as well, including making useful carbon-based fuels for transport needs. Eclipse's ideas on nuclear might be worth a good look. Certainly China thinks so and so do many other nations that don't have coal as freely available as we do. Our coal is far to useful for other things to be burnt as fuel and the carbon given to the atmosphere. Make the producers actually get rid of it instead of giving them an overlay to fudge the figures with

Hasbeen tries to write off the laws of physics that are currently allowing this conversation to continue over the fiber optic internet. Interesting. The laws of nature only work 'in a box'! How fascinating.

We *know* that Co2 traps energy. We know how much energy it can trap. From here on it's a matter of counting:-
* how much Co2 is in the atmosphere (easy),
* how many other forcings are at play (more complicated — eg: the very FEW climate papers in the 70's that warned of a cooling trend did so because of global dimming which was a significant cooling forcing. We could even use global dimming in a real emergency!)
* where this extra energy will go (which seems to me to be the area of biggest debate in climatology such as following heat shooting away from the Tropical Hot Spot through to understanding how climate interacts with short term climate systems like El Nino and La Nina).

But the climatologists are aware of all these debates, and for Arjay to cite Dr David Evans against the body of peer-reviewed papers all discussing EXACTLY the problems Evans raises just shows an intentional misdirection. If Arjay is a regular here, he has no doubt been directed to the relevant papers addressing EVERY one of Dr David Evan's concerns. They are in the top 100 of the 160 common Denialist myths pushed around the Denialosphere. I almost see these myths as old friends, maybe a bit like a footy coach recognising the various songs from competing teams. It doesn't mean I take them seriously — even though the climatologists are. I'm just aware that they are being discussed in the peer-review system.

And I wake up another day to find out that yes, the entire world's scientific body of peer-reviewed science STILL accepts the basic premises of AGW, and there is STILL not one National Science Academy that has failed the hypothesis because of the THS, urban heat islands, or even Lord Monckton selling a cure for HIV AIDS and MS. ;-)

Eclipse Now,They should not be calling it a carbon tax.The argument is about the degree of warming caused by CO2.The reality is staring us in the face.The World has not warmed since 1998 even with huge increases in CO2.The argument is shot to pieces.Ice core data shows that there is a 800 yr lag in CO2 increases after temperature has gone up and this CO2 get released from the oceans.Water vapour is a far greater warming gas than CO2 but this system as Dr Evans says is self regulating.When there is too much water vapour it rains and the system goes back into equlibrium.

Having given up on getting any sense from the advocates of AGW I’ve decided to do my own modeling.

I’ve also extended this research to include modeling for the CO2 tax, renewable energy and government policy.

For the climate modeling I’ve used blue modeling clay, red for the CO2 tax, green for renewable energy and brown for government policy.

The climate model looks good. It’s basically round with pinholes in the top hemisphere to represent temperature measurement locations, no holes in the lower hemisphere as there are only the “seven station series” from NIWA in NZ. So it’s sort of only half a global model.

Anyway, I have managed to create a “feedback loop” and a “tipping point” but since there are no engineering drawings for such structures i’ve used the very same principle as the original authors, imagination. This has nicely plugged the hole in the model.

The white patches on the top and bottom are moveable and can be changed at will. These represent the polar icecaps and by moving these or shrinking them we can move them out of reach of most of the polar bear populations. All in all I’m quite impressed with my efforts.

The red modeling clay for the CO2 tax model is interesting. The results have produced confirmation that taking clay from the production side of the model and sticking it onto the compensation side, we create imbalance which causes the model to roll around uncontrollably. There seems to be no means of stopping this once it is started.

The renewable energy model required more green clay than was available in the whole of Australia. Even on a small scale there was no observable structural integrity and it just kept falling over.

The brown clay for government policy was a challenge. No matter how our researchers pulled, stretched, squashed or rolled this model, it always came out the same. In fact most researchers observed that the government policy model actually resembled a doggy poo, come to think of it, it did rather smell that way too

Oh no! Arjay's running a DSS attack! (Denialist Spam Swarm). To run a DSS simply employ the following tactics.

1. Quote a handful of common Denialist myths that are *all* easily explained by 5 minutes of googling those sites that document the peer-reviewed sources.

2. (Quietly: always ignore those sources when ever reminded of them.)

3. After completely ignoring those sources — even when reminded of them — info dump a bunch of other Denialist myths. There's 160 of them to choose from. Hopefully some uninformed member of the public will read the DSS and think there is a 'climate debate' because of all the complex sounding arguments and papers being referred to.

4. Never ever admit that most of the papers being referred to are NOT in the climate peer reviewed literature, but might instead come from another discipline like geology. Or not even a peer-reviewed discipline at all.

5. If you DO quote from a climate peer reviewed source, make sure you focus in on one *small* factor in global warming that is currently under further investigation and blow it out of all proportion. Then say something banal like "It is hardly surprising that XYZ is being debated. After all, carbon dioxide is natural, we exhale it. Co2 is plant food." (Water is also quite natural but can flood and drown and form Tsunamis.)

6. Adopt the moral high ground when you have none. Rant about 'respecting science' although you never actually quote from the climate peer-reviewed sources with any integrity. Create a flame war.

7. While maintaining the moral high ground as the only one who respects science, simultaneously accuse thousands of climatologists and *every* reputable scientific body on the planet as being "in it for the money". Yep, and the Moon Landing was faked just to scare the Soviets! ;-)

8. Above all, create an *air* of debate where there is none. Exaggerate some of the smaller debates within the overall larger picture that is regularly confirmed. For example, scream "There's no Tropospheric Hot Spot!" as if this somehow disproves Beer's Law and the basic absorption spectra of Co2, and ignores the fact that balloons see the hot spot, some satellites see the hot spot, and some may have missed it due to orbital drift and decay.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm

9. Create the impression that the Denialist must be protected because only he or she is truly sceptical. The freedom of speech becomes the freedom to ignore the peer review process and promote lies against the public good. But there is nothing sceptical or scientific or especially heroic to make a habit of quoting cherry-picking straw-man attacks.

10. Ignore the fact that scientists are professionally trained sceptics *always* on the look out for other variables. Ignore that they are competitive human beings out to make their careers and mark on the world, and that any young budding climatologist would give their eye teeth to be THE climatologist that made global warming go away, that discovered a previously hidden climate safety valve.
As Realclimate.org says:
"It has often been remarked upon that scientists and academics make their reputations by breaking down orthodoxies and by challenging previously widespread assumptions (but it will only work out well if they’re right of course!)."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/01/consensus-as-the-new-heresy/

So Dr David Evans is a liar? Very few on the IPCC are actually climate scientists.30,000 scientists have signed a doucument that they don't support the theory of AGW.Dr Tim Ball didn't sign because he does not believe in the consensus science.This where people like Christopher Monckton wins the debate.Consenus science is not science at all.The proof of AGW is not there and the imperical evidence does not support it.

Arjay I am still waiting for the influx of Polynesians who live on sea level islands ...they have not had to move yet, but I recall early in the dis information campaign 20 years ago that they would be gone in 10, and as low lying islands were to be the first casualties. But not so according to Tanya Plibersek, it seems the Central Coast faces the greatest risk from sea level rise if no action is taken against climate change, so she told a forum of old folks. I have old rels who moved up the Entrance in 1946 and they are water people and they see it for the rubbish it is, ask the oyster farmers if they have seen any change in sea level they said to me, we live with it.

Yet Tanya (only ever been on the public payroll) married to super bureaucrat and convicted narcotics smuggler Couttes Trotter tells us to get the floaties. Is there any Labor personality that does not have an integrity issue, either directly or by close association? The husband obviously was not averse to stretching his moral code for personal gain and neither is Plibersek. How morally bankrupt would you have to be to run a scare campaign with a forum of pensioners, probably the same pensioners that in 2009 caused Gillard to remark to cabinet "don't give them a pension rise, they don't vote for us anyway". No morality or integrity in this lot

Luddy when the modern Green movement started the proponents were focused on the obvious degradation and pollution that modernity brings with it. The effort was industry focused with the aim being to force the polluter to invest in cleaner technology and clean up the existing mess.

Regarding the green cost I recall reading minutes from early Green think tanks (1960’s) where they had rationalized that the industry segment should have legislation in place that prevented them from passing green costs onto the consumer directly, industry would be compensated via tax breaks to partially subsidize the clean technology along with dispensations from the Municipal authority of some of their fixed costs. The rest was to come from the increase in product and saving on their wage bill due to technological advancements, in other words shave your EBIT by a couple of percent.

Compare this thinking to the modern Greens; they have shifted the emphasis from the polluter to the consumer. Their plan is to tax us directly, and with no way of defraying it, but to allow the polluters to go on with polluting. Carbon Credits only foster corporations buying up our forests and when the crap is over they can harvest them. Have a look into who owns a load of NZ’s forests, factories buying carbon credits from a related forestry company.

There is no Green movement, just stooges of the “money” who own Green

You see? You just did it again! Rinse and Repeat, and move onto yet more myths. You won't read these, you guys never do. That's in the Top 10 Commandments of a Denialist Spam Swarm.

But you're not even keeping up with your myths, let alone the science. It's moved from a 'claim' of 30,000 to 31,000. Try to keep up!
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm

Let's take care of David Bell.
Water vapour?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

Urban heat island?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

It's cooling... last decade wasn't hottest on record?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Warming stopped in 1998? (Even Denialists at the Heartland institute are starting to warn their flocks of conspiracy believers that this one is getting a bit dangerous to your side).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

Now, just remember Steps 2 and 3.

2. (Quietly: always ignore those sources when ever reminded of them.)

3. After completely ignoring those sources — even when reminded of them — info dump a bunch of other Denialist myths. There's 165 to choose from.

Eclipse Now you are full of it.The basis of your arguments are adhominem and attempted character assassination.The AGW theory has lost momentum because the imperical evidence is not there.So move and find another religion to cling to.Perhaps you could start up a new religion on flat earth science.

Come the next election Labor and the Greens will be decimated.Enjoy your brief respite.

Thanks for your comments Sonofgloin.My detractors on this theme have now convinced me to take off Tuesday 16th August and go to the Canberra anti- Carbon tax protest.Come the next election Labor will suffer the worst defeat in their history.

Perhaps it is time for a new major political party that is not influenced by corporate interests and Green communists.

Arjay, I still don’t understand why you are so irate about the carbon tax and see it as the pressing issue of the moment.

Could you possibly explain why you are so concerned about it and what would be so significantly different if it was abandoned?

I think this is central to your thread. We really need to understand this.

I’d love to get your response to these previous comments of mine:

< I don’t get it. It [the carbon tax] is so piffling. Economic growth will continue just the same. The effects will be minimal. Basically I reckon that the big-business pro-growth-forever lobby has had a huge win with this carbon tax thing. >

< I would have thought that your camp would be very happy with the outcome, Arjay >

With respect (a lot of respect after more than five years of amicable exchanges with you on this forum), I can’t help but still see your big interest in hydrogen energy as being highly contradictory to your vehement opposition to the carbon tax. I find it most strange that you are strongly supporting hydrogen technology, and presumably various other renewable energy technologies, but are dead against a strategy to encourage the development of these.

You addressed this point but I didn’t get anything out of your answer. Everything you said strongly supports the development of hydrogen energy, which is surely something that should be supported by the carbon tax. A strategy that favours renewable energies like this should surely be supported by you Arjay.

I guess hydrogen won’t be a part of renewable energy programs funded from the carbon tax, as fuel is exempt from it and therefore hydrogen as an additive or alternative fuel to petrol/diesel is not going to be funded? I don’t know. But it certainly should be!

Incidentally, you wrote:

<<Hydrogen can be free energy from your tap >>

But hydrogen is far from free energy. Doesn’t it take a lot of energy to refine it, via the electrolysis of water or whatever means? And it is problematic to store and work with safely?

Ludwig currently the carbon combustion engine is very inefficient.We can use this excess energy plus the positives of hydrogen to save money ,fuel and clean emissions.If yiu pa=id attention i said that just a small amount of hydrogen increases the octane levels of petrol thus increaseing efficiency and reducing emitions.This technology for some reason has been ignored by our car companies.If the waseted heat energy in our cars is used to produce hydrogen,I think hydrogen produced from water can cut our fuel bills in half.

The carbon tax will destroy our economy.If our competitors don't introduce it then industry will move off shore.Even if you believe the CO2 is a problem and I don't ,there is no logic in its' introduction.It will not lessen perceived Co2 pollution one iota.The ETS is another deriivate scam of Al Gore and Wall St.Internationally the Rothscilds are big financiers of the green movement.This whole CO2 polution is a lie and a scam.I am now convinced of that.

Arjay, hydrogen is a difficult fuel to deal with. It doen't compress much without being kept very cold, leaks from metal tanks even with the best welds and doesn't have a very high energy density compared to gasoline liquid fuels fractions. As for "raisng the octane level", what it really does is ignite very fast, meaning that it's difficult to couple a hydrogen-powered piston to a rotating crank efficiently. There is a lot of impulse, but it's applied over too short a time. Engines do a lot of tricks to make petroleum fractions burn less rapidly so that the piston is effectively powered for longer of the crankshaft's rotation and hence less energy is wasted as simple heat or expansion of the combustion chamber/flex of the crank.

I think your heart is in the right place, but you really do need to get a better grasp of the physical processes underlying what you're advocating.

I agree with you that there is a lot of wasted energy around our cars in the form of heat, but how do you propose this low-grade energy could be usefully recovered? A Stirling cycle engine running a compressor is one way, but that's heavy, cumbersome and not very efficient. there may be some useful advances in polymer technology around this subject, but I'd not count on it.

There are really three problems around this

1. minimise the waste heat at the source. This means more efficient combustion and this is being driven hard by the manufacturers.
2. Collect the waste heat that escapes the engine. We already do that with radiators, but there is a lot more than the radiator captures. It gets hard to gather that last. There's also a point of diminishing returns - a cold combustion chamber doesn't combust efficiently because too much heat is removed from the reaction to heat the chamber.
3. Reuse the heat collected. I'm at a loss as to how to do this usefully, except through a turbo charger or similar heat pump. Even if we could collect it all, how do we use it?

Antiseptic,by electrolyisis hydrogen can be used as it is created.There is not need to store it,hence it is actually safer than petrol or gas.This system just needs to be improved.So far I've got a 12% increase in fuel efficiency.Apparently after this system I've bought is broken in,it can produce 25% improvement in efficiency.This has been produced by very basic simple technology.It works.Why haven't the big manufacturers improved this system?Could it be the influence of the oil companies?

Arjay, if you're running your engine 12% leaner you are also running it a great deal hotter. Watch out that you don't burn out pistons, valves etc and that the rings have enough lubricant not to sieze. An upper-cylinder lube of some kind would be the go.

You'll also have some timing problems and you'll probably need to run colder plugs.

Just how much hydrogen are you adding?

Arjay,
I just watched your hero Dr Evans. What a dishonest and disturbing diatribe! Did you even look him up before placing your faith in this man?

He's not a climatologist and has never published in a peer-reviewed climate journal, he belongs to right-wing think tanks, he's mainly published and promoted by Denialist think tanks like the Lavoisier Group, he's not a 'rocket scientist' as he claims to be, and he was not even a climate modeller! Instead he has a Phd in electrical engineering, not climate science or modelling. Ooops.
http://www.desmogblog.com/who-is-rocket-scientist-david-evans

However regarding his claims, Dr Barry Brook — Professor of the climate change department of Adelaide University and pro-nuclear advocate — says:

< (1) the hotspot was not a signature of the greenhouse effect – it is a signature of warming from any source,
and (2) that the hotspot is not actually missing… >
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

once again, Oooops! But that’s what you get when you place your anti-science faith in non-climatologists.

How does Professor Brook sum up Dr Evan’s behaviour? If you look carefully, Barry says Dr Evans uses a DSS attack!

< Despite this revelation and other careful countering of his claims, Dr Evans chose to simply ignore these corrections and repeat himself on ABC 891 radio in Adelaide. This led me to a point-by-point explanation, on the same radio show, the next week, describing where Dr Evans was in error. Both interviews are podcast here for audio download.
Surely then, Dr Evans must now, in his words, once again “be an alarmist again instead of a skeptic” (apparently there is no middle ground). No? Unsurprisingly, he deploys the standard non-greenhouse theorist approach of yet again blithely ignoring any refutation and simply repeating the exactly the same arguments again in a third forum. So, yet again, a climate scientist had to patiently refute this.
Perhaps Dr Evans doesn’t understand that whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. >
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10/dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/

Ludwig if you go to http://www.themileshop.com you can see all the details.I don't believe the all of the claims of these companies make.The scrubber or filter needs to be improved.Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda) is the electrolyte and this is very corrosive.The version I have is supposed to produce 3 litres per minute

I will know in a couple of weeks how effective it is.