Page 29 of 115 < 1 2 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 114 115 >
Topic Options
#920935 - 05/01/2011 07:36 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Askmorenow.com are the same crowd that run that vegetarian 'plug' on..and where else..SBS TV.

The rest of its website gives some insight into the philosophy that motivates the pro-GW agenda. It's clear to me that science has nothing to do with it but rather religious cultism.

Top
#920940 - 05/01/2011 07:47 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
red1 Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 03/01/2011
Posts: 62
Loc: Dunoon 2480 nsw
Rom i thought this was a scientific discussion not a political one. Of course renewable energys are going to cost more money in their infancy, that is the nature of corporate greed. The science of renewable energy would be far more advanced than what it is now if humans were humane, but we're not.

Top
#920947 - 05/01/2011 08:19 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Simmosturf]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
Simmosturf,

Why are we melting our way toward a cooler planet?

Where is the permafrost going?

Why is it that the colder we get the less glaciers and snowpack we have?

Top
#920949 - 05/01/2011 08:24 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ben Sandilands]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
Following up on yesterday's news reports of weather events in which global warming wasn't mention, and no snide comments were made about our fellow citizens, this appeared in the News publications this morning:

Courier Mail: Australian ice runway too warm for flights

Note that the words global warming have not been used. Just words stating the obvious, that it is too warm for the ice runway to be safe for even a comparatively light jet airliner as in an Airbus A319.

Top
#920952 - 05/01/2011 08:32 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ben Sandilands]
Keith Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 16/12/2001
Posts: 6453
Loc: Kings Langley, NSW
Does the absence of the words 'global warming' simply mean that it isn't the cause? Perhaps that's also stating the obvious, by what it doesn't state?

Not that I would give any credence to press commentaries on the issue anyway.

Top
#920959 - 05/01/2011 09:06 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Keith]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
Keith, It's not a commentary. It's a factual report. It's too warm for the jet to land.

I notice the ABC has just contrasted the Antarctic thaw with the ice breaker efforts to free trapped shipping in northern Siberia. Again, a perfectly factual, non ideological report.

It would be ironic if the entries here continue to try and frame everything through the prism of wicked conspiracy driven warmistas when in fact that nonsense comes to an end, or at least falls into disuse.

Top
#920972 - 05/01/2011 10:29 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ben Sandilands]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 2608
Loc: Buderim
Its a factual report which has nothing to do with AGW. The article states that it is too warm to land a plane in Antarctica, and that this warmth is 'unseasonal'. But for all we know it might be normal that every 5 or 10 years they get a warm season and it is too warm too land a plane.

And if its the first time ever that it is too warm to land a plane, is that a long term trend? Or just a freak occurence?

The truth of AGW should not be decided based on such media reports.

Top
#920986 - 05/01/2011 11:17 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: ROM]
Loopy Radar Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 880
Loc: Lismore NSW
Originally Posted By: ROM
You are right about corporate greed and in spades being responsible for the rising costs of heating, red1.

Those corporate pirates are the ones who lobbied the government to provide huge tax payer subsidies to fund the erection of the wind and solar farms owned by those same corporate pirates which generate a bit of electricity that costs about 3 to 5 times as much to generate as that same electricity from a coal fired power station.
And all those wind and solar farm owning corporate pirates used the so called global warming from CO2 supposedly arising from from those same coal fired power stations as a reason for them having to get those subsidies for their non CO2 producing wind and solar farms.
No mention of the levels of CO2 produced by the for the concrete, steel, copper and etc production when building those turbine towers

But it gets worse, much worse!
To make sure they collect huge profits from farming not only from the tax payer subsidies, the wind and solar owning corporate pirates also convinced the governments to force the owners of the coal powered generators and hydro power owners to buy all the power from the "alternative energy" wind and solar farm owners at prices, as above, of some 3 to 5 times higher costs than the coal fired power station owners could generate the same amount of power for.
Worse yet again, as wind and solar power are so variable and can either drop out of power generation or increase production of power in time frames of only minutes due to wind speed changes and clouds and etc, the big base load coal fired power generators have their generators running, spinning all the time to get replacement power on line very quickly if and when the wind and solar generators stop or drastically reduce power output.
Recently in Britain with the intense cold and a high pressure ridge across the whole of the UK, british wind farms which in theory should be able to produce 10% of the UK's power requirements were only producing .1%, ie one tenth of one percent of the UK's power requirements and this right when the maximum of power generation was required because of the cold.
Solar panels in the middle of the winter in Britain!? You have to be joking!
Besides they were covered with snow, something nobody considered a few years ago!

The base load coal fired generators run most efficiently when running a near full load all the time but highly variable loads create huge problems controlling the power in the electricity grid and cost the base load power generator companies a stack of money as their load factors change all the time so their power is now also far more expensive to produce.
It has been found that to maintain control of voltages and power fluxes on the grids, no more than 15% of the total power generated can be of the so called alternative energies, ie; wind and solar.

So there is a double cost / price whammy for consumers which the coal and hydro powered generator owners had nothing to do with.
First because wind and solar power cost many times coal fired electricity per unit but the coal fired base load generator companies are forced by government dictate to buy all of the very expensive "alternative " energy from the wind and solar companies, the prices of electricity per unit have risen dramatically in any country which has been stupid enough to allow the alternative energy companies to get a footing.
Secondly because the big base load stations are no longer as efficient due to the significant variations in generator base load as the wind and solar power comes and goes, their generation costs have also risen significantly.
Then as a tax payer you are subsidising, ie; the corporate alternative energy scammers are collecting huge amounts of tax payer's money in the form of subsidies to build their wind and solar farms from which they then sell the electricity that cost 3 to 5 times as much as from the coal fired power stations.

On top of all this here in Australia, Gillard now intends to make the coal users pay a tax on coal because of the so called green house CO2 they put out, all of which will raise electricity costs even further and make not the slightest difference to the global CO2 or global temperatures even if that was measured over all of the next century.
And that is even conceded by the more rational global warmers.

What has not been discussed is the cost of pulling down those wind turbines when those corporate pirates walk away from them.
No doubt as taxpayers we will have to wear that cost as well!
In the USA some wind farms have just literally been abandoned and the owners have very conveniently declared bankruptcy and walked away from any responsibility for their derelict wind farms and the same with the smashed up, strewn with glass solar panel farms.

In Spain there has been a dramatic reduction in subsidies to the alternative energy companies and they are screaming like stuck pigs over it.
It is estimated in Spain that for every so called green job created about 3 or more jobs in the rest of the economy are lost as business costs and taxes rise significantly to cover the costs of the alternative energies, rises that employers can no longer afford so they cut costs and labour and jobs.

Currently in the very cold UK winter, social workers are finding a lot of elderly people still in bed when they visit.
Physically there is nothing wrong with them
They can no longer afford the very high and rising costs of energy for heating their homes due to the british governments pathological concentration on wind turbines as a replacement for their base load electricity plants so power is no longer affordable for many of the poorer class of citizens such as the old so they are trying to stay warm by staying in bed.
A truly sad state and all due to the stupidity of global warming and the claims that CO2 is the cause of global warming and the craziness and utter stupidity of the politicians and greens in forcing the prices of energy up until ordinary people can no longer afford it.
All supposedly to reduce the use of energy and reduce CO2 output and stop global warming.

Any wonder that global warmers and the greens and their fellow travellers in politics are increasingly being regarded with contempt by an increasing percentage of the population!

And for interest; From Bishop Hill More Wind and read the interesting comments from the british sufferers of wind power politics.
You can find the Australian situation in Quadrant Online; Turning off the lights


sub quote"Any wonder that global warmers and the greens and their fellow travellers in politics are increasingly being regarded with contempt by an increasing percentage of the population!"
And that is the end game for the profiteers of the grid of dependence. It is the end result of decades of manipulation thru spying and bribes to suppress 'sustainable' sources of energy. At least until they can be the providers and keep us slaves to the grid. This is no conspiracy. It is fact. It is documented.
I consider myself greenie, at least in the context of mainstream opinion, but I agree with everything ROM says. This put me at polar opposites with most greenies. I get dirty looks from other hippies when I declare GW to be a fraud. I wince every time I hear the 'all logging out of native forests' whilst meanwhile the millions of hectares of previous patchwork logging, combined with massive increases of fuel loads in post farm marginal lands mostly adjacent to state and national forests.It is creating a hell fire potential of an unimaginable scale. I said this in 1992. And it happened and it is going to get worse. And it has nothing to do with GW either, but caused by dramatic ongoing changes in land management. The solution can't be solved believing in global warming, but a change in land management can. And this has to include thinning out the forests including many previously logged national parks. So can you see how my opinions put me at loggerheads with most greenies. And there is no solution in sloganising/compartmentalizing interest
groups. If there is such a thing as greenies and conspiritors then thousands of hardworking farmers that would now fall inyo that compartment.
_________________________
It's going to be a great storm season... somewhere else!

Top
#921001 - 05/01/2011 12:05 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Loopy Radar]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3908
Had a quick look into the Casey Airstrip…

Fig 6 in this doc is a graph of January temps at the airport. However, its an average of only 3 years... nevertheless... it shows that the mean temp was at or just over the -5C max "threshold" for the same period.

Unfortunately, the airport Casey Airstrip, Antarctica itself is not reporting: but the forecast mins don’t seem to show anything out of the ordinary… [Actually it is forecasting record low / minimums for the next two days wink ]

BoM on the otherhand is reporting the temps for the airport Latest Weather Observations for Casey (Wilkins Runway) and it’s last reporting that the temp there is at nearly +20C is as warm as Melbourne. smile

Quote:
And if it’s the first time ever that it is too warm to land a plane, is that a long term trend? Or just a freak occurrence?


The real question therefore is… was the historical temperature at the site colder prior to 2008 / 2005 when they decided to build the airstrip there… Given I can’t find it, we can have a look at the nearest station and see trend there. Casey Station, some 65 km away (but lower) does not show any abnormal warming for the periods. These are the averages for the station:

Which correspond to the wiki ones linky
And the historical temps can be found here: Casey Station and changing the months / years… [And this past December, and January so far are below long term average].

So I would suggest that the current temps are certainly not “freakish” (unless BoM’s numbers are correct smile ). My guess is that it’s an admin SNAFU and the airstrip should not have been built in the first place at this location, and as the newspaper article suggests, the 737 is just flying around making work [to justify the bureaucracy supporting it].
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#921012 - 05/01/2011 12:32 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Arnost]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
I flew as a Sydney Morning Herald reporter on the first proving flight to a potential Casey strip site, at a place called Lanyon Junction from McMurdo on a ski equipped C-130 with Senator Webster the first ever Minister for Science and the Environment and the chief scientist the late Dr John Farrands in January 1979. We also did a 'day' trip to the Amundsen-Scott base at the South Pole, A fabulous trip to describe some other time.

Lanyon Junction was however ruled out, even though you could have skied to Casey in safety if there had been GPS units in those days. The killer was excessive snowfall because of its close proximity to the coastline. The project then went into limbo until Wilkins was selected. Wilkins is a compromise, in that it gains some benefit by being further inland and a little bit higher than Lanyon Junction but if you go much further inland logistics issues from Casey and heavy equipment transfers off the ice breaker start to become unmanageable. Or so it was thought at the time. And by going further inland you start to gain altitude, in fact, you also start to gain minimum speed issues as you advance up into the domed ice, where the physical altitude and persistent deep low pressure characteristics of ultra cold air impose serious limitations on aircraft performance. Much more so than the south pole. Even this last winter, which was comparatively mild I casually noticed a -80C reading from either Vostok or Dome A, and quite a few periods in which it was colder than -70C and down to around -78C from the Dome A and Dome C stations.

So we may be stuck with Wilkins or nearby for sometime. I've suggested on Plane Talking today @

Plane Talking: Things get slushy in Antarctica

that we need to permit refueling at Wilkins and also to put in place an ILS that would allow all year operations, since there is either daylight or a period of bright twilight on every day of the year at the site. (Very long nautical twilight even in most of the winter is a feature of high latitudes.)

The jet BTW is an A319. Nothing wrong with 737s except that the engines are slung too low and the cargo handling arrangement is primitive compared to the Airbus.


Edited by Ben Sandilands (05/01/2011 12:37)

Top
#921025 - 05/01/2011 12:57 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Arnost]
davidg Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 01/06/2008
Posts: 2204
Loc: Glenbrook/Penrith
Lol and as a quick look at other stations in the vacinity indicates that every other station is recording much lower temps. (see http://www.bom.gov.au/ant/ant-observations-map.shtml) Not sure where that 20c comes from. Looking at your graph though Arnost it would appear they may have created a bit of a blunder if the airstrip has a similar climate to that of Casey Station.

Top
#921108 - 05/01/2011 15:54 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: davidg]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3908
I should note that the procedure is to fly in early in the morning at low temps, it is therefore worthwhile noting that the low temps at Casey this year would have allowed the plane to land there:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW9203.latest.shtml

And late December was not execptionally warm either with the highest max being significanlty higher than Dec Average on only two days:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/201012/html/IDCJDW9203.201012.shtml

(the average max temps being 2.6C in Jan and 2.1C in Dec...)

So even though the temp at the Airstrip is not reporting, I can not see that: "AAD director Lyn Maddock blamed unseasonally warm temperatures in Antarctica for the failure of the airlink." being anything but a cover your arse dumb f*ck explanation hoping that nobody will look and check... and hope we assume it has to be true as we know the place is warming.

And same for the Crikey article Ben:

"Meanwhile, flying gets slushy in Antarctica"... slushy eh? "the Wilkins blue ice runway in Australian Antarctic territory is closed because of warm conditions"... warm eh? Given the below average temps at Casey, and with the airport just 65km away AND higher in altitude we can therefore expect slushy conditions and it be below average (i.e. warm)? Hmmm...
_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
#921215 - 05/01/2011 17:56 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Arnost]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
Arnost,

Scepticism is commendable. But so is an element of commonsense or inquiry. The runway is certified for surface ice temperatures no higher than -5C because of the way crushed ice reacts as it approaches zero, and the risk of the impact of the gear at more than 110 knots digging itself into the surface and causing a nasty incident, and the needs for more seats than expected in the mess at mealtimes if they break the jet not to mention other consequences. There is a distinction, and a very important one, between the ice temperature and the air temperature. It is the ice temperature that determines compliance with the conditions for the operation.

A little research might have helped here. The surface of the runway is regraded and coated with crushed ice after each rotation. In the video I posted with my article you can hear the contact with the main gear on landing and the quite distinct sound made as the jets slows gradually. The avoidance of harsh braking or prolonged reverse thrust is something that is accommodated not just by 4000 metres in length but 400 metres in width, as at each jet rotation a different track is used for the arrival and departure.

Now let's examine the arse covering, which is something one does in Antarctica always.

The AAD has nothing, absolutely nothing to gain from not operating the full flight schedule which is on its website. What particular wicked motive for falsely blaming the weather do you have in mind. The loss of flights because of the current conditions is a logistical nightmare.

On top of that, one of the two CASA turboprops used as feeder flights out of Casey was bent a while back, and the race is on to retrieve it by tractor and then ship it back to Australia for repairs.


Edited by Ben Sandilands (05/01/2011 17:58)

Top
#921567 - 06/01/2011 06:38 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ben Sandilands]
Simmosturf Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 17/03/2008
Posts: 1620
Loc: Wangaratta
From Ben,

"Simmosturf,

Why are we melting our way toward a cooler planet?

Where is the permafrost going?

Why is it that the colder we get the less glaciers and snowpack we have?"

I'm sure you have all the answers! You seem to on all other topics! But to reply to your inquiry, I believe the Earth has rounded the bend from a warmer period to now to a cooler period and it takes time for the systems to catch up. Just like CO2 rises following warmth then drops following cooling, the ice will increase after the cooling commences, just like a fridge after you first turn it on, or off.

Top
#921644 - 06/01/2011 11:25 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: SBT]
duckweather Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 20/12/2010
Posts: 2556
Loc: Wantirna, Vic
Well said Sir Boab Tree wink (re:nov 2009 post)


Edited by duckweather (06/01/2011 11:32)

Top
#921687 - 06/01/2011 12:36 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: duckweather]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
Simmosturf,

So, you believe in a special law of physics for ice, in that it will ignore the cooling trend and continue to melt until suddenly it remembers that it is ice and starts to stop melting and accumulate.

How about the alternative, that the environment in which glaciers exist across the planet is magically continuing to warm while the rest of the planet actually flirts with an imminent ice age?

Neither works for me. Neither accords with the real world. And the glaciers continue to waste away.

Top
#921698 - 06/01/2011 13:05 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Ben Sandilands]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6033
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
How about you continue on glaciers every post and ignore all other evidence Ben...really, with due respect, sorry, but all your posts are becoming very boring and repetative about nothing but glaciers retreating, and denying that snow is of any significance when it is falling anywhere, and denying that it is colder than it has been for a long while...give it a rest and break please, please, please...really, it is all getting a bit over the top, to keep reading your glacier and snowless and coldless talk constantly, after everyone's posts on any subject to do with climate change whatsoever!!!


Edited by Bucketing Down(BD) (06/01/2011 13:05)

Top
#921721 - 06/01/2011 13:32 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Ben Sandilands Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 07/09/2006
Posts: 1252
Loc: Southern highlands NSW
BD,

How about actually explaining why in a supposedly colder world the glaciers keep disappearing?

There is a Nobel prize in there somewhere for proving an inverse relationship between glacial coverage and temperatures.

Top
#921730 - 06/01/2011 13:38 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: bd bucketingdown]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 2608
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
and denying that snow is of any significance when it is falling anywhere


The deniers continue to make a big deal out of whichever place is receiving a big snow fall in winter, as if it was something new and evidence we are heading into some ice age. However winter snow depends on two things - cold, and precipitation. As the world warms we get less cold, which means less snow, but also more precipitation in cooler parts of the globe (a long standing model prediction) which means more snow. The effects seem to be cancelling out so far:


In Spring, snow is melting, and extra precipitation doesn't help create any more snow, and the extra warmth causes a reduction in overall snow extent:




Originally Posted By: Bucketing Down(BD)
and denying that it is colder than it has been for a long while


December was the coldest December globally in 3 years. Thats not a long while.

Top
#921758 - 06/01/2011 14:23 Re: The Science in AGW Climate Change ? [Re: Mike Hauber]
Arnost Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 10/02/2007
Posts: 3908
Ben,

Whilst the detail re crushed ice and impact of gear etc is interesting it does not really bear much to the point that was the thrust of the Courier mail article. Which was: The plane scheduled to go to Wilkins Airstrip has not been going and is meandering around the Pacific even though (as you say) "The loss of flights because ... is a logistical nightmare".

AND

"AAD director Lyn Maddock blamed unseasonally warm temperatures"

Unseasonally warm temperatures my arse! A little bit of research will show:



The area is below average by over 3 degrees C!

_________________________
“No. Not even in the face of Armageddon. Never compromise” ...

And this of course applies to scientific principles. Never compromise these. Never! [Follow the science and you will be shown correct in the end...]

Top
Page 29 of 115 < 1 2 ... 27 28 29 30 31 ... 114 115 >


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
10 registered (Steve777, ozone doug, KomonStan, Kino, Hailin, RC, Homer, Ronfishes, Snowmaker, 1 invisible), 287 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
CraigA74, Ken, Maarten Brandt, wing tip vortex
Forum Stats
29370 Members
32 Forums
23685 Topics
1462371 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image