Yet another much acclaimed and high profile physicist has declared his disgust with all the global warming hype especially as promoted by the American Physical Society (ASP).
Ivan Giaever won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973. Earlier this year he did not renew his APS membership. When asked why, he replied by email that he did not agree with the APS’s promotion of global warming as settled science.
He also made comment that for the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of a proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence for global warming is incontrovertible.
Source: Climate Depot http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
“The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
Senile !
“The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
Excellent comment from another top physicist !
Senile! eh Luke?
When a self-professed AGW expert can sum up a very comprehensive statement from a sceptical scientist in one ad hom word it sure tells us plenty about those self-professed AGW experts.
What this simple, comprehensive statement from Giaever does say in spades is that of all the multitude of problems mankind currently faces, AGW is one of the least of them.
Self-professed AGW experts would much rather listen to “real science”:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/15/al-gores-climate-reality-project-brings-on-miss-rhode-island-to-talk-about-sea-level-rise/
Well I totally agree with that Spangled,
What this simple, comprehensive statement from Giaever does say in spades is that of all the multitude of problems mankind currently faces, AGW is one of the least of them.
The obsession with the climate is bordering on insanity!
The whole thing is based on a false asumption and the politics is now foisting a market onto us that sees them ‘marketting’ a valueless product.
The false assumption is that a centralised bureaucracy can ‘manage’ and even ‘change’ the climate /weather.
Actually I would go far as to say that is not just a false assumption, that is an extraordinary conceit.
The valueless ‘market product’ is CO2. The product is valueless because it is now called CARBON POLLUTION.
Anyone want to buy some pollution folks?
The only way anyone will buy pollution is by getting ‘paper’ tax credits or subsides.
This of course has to be backed up either directly or indirectly by the taxpayer.
We keep getting told it is only the ‘big polluters’ who will be paying.
Problem is….when we look up the ‘big polluters’, they are the companies and individuals who supply energy to our homes, supply the materials to build a roof over our heads and supply the food on our tables.
Don’t believe me? Look them up. The majority of the top 20 are energy companies and steel companies.
So …we are demonising those who supply some of our very basic essentials in order to ‘improve’ or ‘manage’ or ‘change’ the climate?
So… even if there was some truth to the false assumption, we have to almost double our fixed expenses or reduce our basic lifestyle.
We are spending insane amounts of time and money on this ridiculous obsession.
There are far more serious problems that need to be dealt with.
Wrecking Australia’s ability to responsibly use its rich natural resources to cheaply and efficiently provide the basic necessities of life is not going to solve any of the real problems we face.
I would suggest it is going to make them worse.
The problem we’re facing out here in the MDB is also linked to this insane obsession and is also linked to this absolutely extraordinary conceit.
I’m pleased to see people like Giaever are starting to speak up.
Giaever is obviously a sceptic, and does not believe in The Science of AGW. Therefore he is not a climate scientist, and his view must be discounted.
I guess this is an indicator of how serious the Government really is.
Remember back to that dreaded hole in the Ozone Layer.
Remember what they did. They completely banned the use of the CFC’s that we were told caused that hole.
It cost literally Billions to change the way things were done.
Forget how it changed aerosol cans for everyday products we used. Every one of them had to be changed.
It was felt most in the air conditioning area, where the gas used for so long had to be changed. Each of those new replacement gases was not as good at doing the job as the old gas used, hence air conditioning became a little less efficient.
The same with cleaning electronic circuitry components, which some of you may not realise as being as huge as it is. The cleaning fluid used there had to be changed, again for a new fluid that was not as good as doing that job.
Put all that aside for a minute.
They just shut it down completely.
That’s it. You’re not allowed to use those gases any more. Full stop.
Now, fast forward to CO2.
We are told it’s just as dire as that earlier scare campaign.
So, what are they doing this time?
Saying shut it down completely. That’s it. No more CO2.
Not this time.
They instead place a cost on it and you have to purchase paper credits from the Government.
This they hope will lower those emissions by the tiniest amount.
What they need to do is do what they did with those CFC’s.
Shut down the emitters full stop, if the problem is as dire as we are being told.
That would be absolute political suicide, and they know it.
So what they seek to do is to make money from it.
However, that’s not all.
CO2 is just one of those gases.
So the Government has a chart it can refer to, and from that chart, each gas is given a value according to its level of volatility when compared to CO2, a chart originally brought out by the UNFCCC and the UNIPCC.
This chart is now the World Standard when any ETS is proposed.
So, whatever the starting price for CO2 is, then just multiply that by the number alongside the gas.
The image at the following link is taken from the legislation already passed by the Australian Government, and in the new pieces of Legislation introduce into the House of Reps this week, references throughout those Bills refer to CO2 equivalence.
http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/co2-equivalence-master.jpg
Each of these 24 gases will be costed at whatever CO2 is traded at multiplied by the number alongside the gas.
If the problem is as dire as it was with the earlier CFC ‘hole in the Ozone layer’ scare, then why are they not doing what they did on that occasion.
Oh, with respect to the range of gases, they introduced to replace that original gas used in all those applications.well, those gases are also now on this list as well, all up to around six to seven thousand times the value of CO2.
That hole in the Ozone Layer we supposedly stopped all those years ago.
Well, it’s been back now and then, sometimes even larger than it was during the time when that original gas was banned.
Naah!
They’re not serious.
It really is just about the money.
Sorry to take so much space here.
Tony.
Debs, when you see the ethics behind the Gore-a-thon type propaganda you have to suspect that what little science there is supporting it, is also subject to a fair bit of this:
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/15/on-torturing-data/#more-4906
Does the “warming” of Antarctica etc, fit the picture?
You can be sure that the MDB assesment has it’s fair share too.
Interesting chart of CO2 equivalence TonyfromOz. What is also interesting is that the Clean Energy Bill 2011, in Part 3 Division 2 Section 31 specifically excludes, from the operation of a facility: hydrofluorocarbons; sulfur hexafluoride; perfluorocarbons – the last one only applies if attributable to aluminium production. These emissions have global warming potentials (GWP) (from “Tony’s Chart”) of 140 to 11,700, depending on the type of hydrofluorocarbon, 23,900 for sulfur hexafluoride, and a range of 6,500 to 9,000 for the various perfluorocarbons.
It has been estimated that by the year 2050 hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) could account for approximately 10% to 20% of greenhouse gas heating, a result of increasing demand for air conditioning and refrigeration. (Somewhat ironically, large amounts of HFCs are released during the manufacture of foams used to insulate buildings to make them more energy efficient). About 30% of HFC coolants leak from air conditioners and refrigeration units each year meaning that HFC production keeps on rising to replace loses from existing units and in the manufacture of new units. In 2005 production of HFCs was approximately 280,000 tons (GWP equivalent to 500 million tons of CO2); it is estimated to rise to 672,000 tons in 2015 (GWP equivalent to 1,200 million tons of CO2).
The combined potential effect of HFCs and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) alone is equivalent to approximately one-fifth of the combined anthropogenic CO2 from all sources in terms of their GWP. This is a problematic situation for unlike anthropogenic CO2 HFCs and NF3 are not absorbed into natural systems or ‘sinks’ but remain in the atmosphere until they break down, realising their GWP all the while. Neither were HFCs and NF3 included in the climate models prior to the release of the IPCC’s 4th Assessment Report. In fact NF3 has not yet made it onto “Tony’s chart” even though it has an estimated atmospheric lifetime of 550 years and a GWP approximately 17,200 times greater than CO2 over a 100 year time period. This would imply that any measurable increase in global temperature anomalies, attributed to anthropogenic CO2 is in fact due, in part, to the greenhouse gas heating effect of these two gases, thus reducing the relative heating impact of anthropogenic CO2. The same would also apply to other anthropogenic greenhouse gases mentioned above.
Rather than relating these anthropogenic non-CO2 greenhouse gases in terms of their GWP relative to CO2, and expressing their emissions as CO2 equivalents, these gases need to be modelled individually with their resultant global temperature anomaly outcomes differentiated from the increased global temperature anomalies resulting purely from anthropogenic CO2 output. Doing so would mean that the observed and modelled increased temperature anomalies of the global annual mean surface air temperature (GAMSAT) could be broken down as fractions, expressed as temperature, of the likely heating impact of each anthropogenic gas. This would tell scientists and policymakers the likely effect of each gas on GAMSAT and where the emphasis should be on mitigation, and what the appropriate legal mechanism should be. All the Clean Energy Bill 2011 seems to do is impose a cost on local producers of these gases or encourage the transference of these gases to off-shore facilities, with the (proposed ETS) market deciding whether or not there is to be a real reduction in the mitigation of these gases. (Sorry about the long post).
Don’t be sorry Tony, it’s a good read.
These humanz! LOL
If you look at that list of 24 gases, and think, well, they’re not all that much anyway, then think again.
All those replacement CFC’s are on the list, as also all the HFC’s.
With those CFC replacements, think every air conditioner, and they all require gas. Think every single building higher than 2/3 stories with a conditioner on the roof. Think every new conditioner sold, think car air conditioning.
Those gases will be levied at the point of sale for the gas distributor, not the servicing area. All of those costs will then be passed onto the item wholesaler, then to the retailer, and then to to the consumer.
The HFC’s. Think every single spray can on the supermarket shelves. The point of sale of those gases. then onto the wholesaler, then the retailer, and ultimately the consumer.
Methane. Every emission, and here also add in crop farming, and grazing ruminant animals, because the end aim of the ETS is all Methane emissions.
Farmers and graziers will now have to calculate their Methane emissions from the standard, and have enough credits to cover those emissions. They in turn will pass those costs to the wholesaler, then the retailer, and then the consumer.
No worries though, the Government has added a little bit extra onto what they give back as their bribe to some of the community.
All the emphasis is on CO2, and there is a monster amount of money to come from that.
However, look at hose multipliers again, and it doesn’t take much to see how much extra the Government will be making from this.
Betcha didn’t hear them mentioning any of this.
Well yes they say, it’s plain for all to see. It’s in the freely available legislation for all to see.
“How can you even dare to suggest that we didn’t tell you.”
I wonder how these people sleep at night.
We’re onto you lot, don’t you worry about that.
Tony.
TonyfromOz, farmers and graziers are to be exempt as a liable entity for their methane and nitrous oxide emissions under the Clean Energy Bill 2011 (Part 3 Division 1). This may not remain the case though. 🙂
If you take the ~300 year longest temperature records in existence the amount of warming is still only 0.8°C, the same difference that a cloud can make on a warm summers day. Trend or Noise Luke?
Thank goodness that there are still people like Giaever.
Only a gang of lazy civil servants and cynical profiteers would sum up the legitimate concern expressed by a physicist regarding the accuracy of what has proven to be a very dodgy data base as ‘senile’.
Oh, I just noticed that the Luke gang jumped in and proved my point right off the bat.
Good job, Luke.
BTW, we are doing our job here in the US- we are shutting down our idiocratic govt. attempt to destroy the economy and enrich insiders pretty well.
Our President has gone from bragging about how his reign would end global warming and lower the seas to simply pushing phantom legislation no one has seen, and will never pass.
He knows he is facing a tsunami of rejection and is trying to find a way to survive politically. He knows that part of that is to stop making up crap about CO2.
Is there any way y’all in Australia can get your PM out of power before she actually hurts your country?
Another defection Luke,
Ivan Giaever finally can’t live with the lie any longer.
I’m amazed how much our sceptic goons have been taken in by his comments.
Firstly the old diurnal range ruse – compared with a centennial trend. I hope you understand while this is simply moronic.
Then this little gem ” both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.” – well hunky dory – let’s strain our little pea-brains to work out why this could be – hmmmmm – could it be technology, industrial and agricultural development? Or perhaps it’s just being warm and cosy. Let’s see what happens if you meet warm climate with no technology eg. Horn Of Africa – oh that’s right – you die !
What a silly old coot making fallacious arguments. His expertise on the topic – zilch – might as well as Al Gore.
Luke,
Ivan got his Nobel for physics.
Al got his for bullshit.
Notice the difference?
“Let’s see what happens if you meet warm climate with no technology eg. Horn Of Africa – oh that’s right – you die !”
didn’t the IPCC predict more rainfall for the Horn of Africa because of the warming? Wrong again.
” both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
Unfortunately the warming is over for a few decades which gives Australia an unprecedented opportunity to take commercial advantage and help stave off shortfalls in North American grains because of the damp summers and extra cool winters.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbotts-plan-for-northern-foodbowl/story-fn59niix-1226139412448
This is a big ticket item.
Is it true that the CO2 tax cannot be repealed?
Whether it’s Mann’s trick of hiding the decline, the MWP or various emails he doesn’t want anyone to see or Trenberth taking only 1 DAY to get a rebuttal approved by Remote Sensing or any of the multiple dubious happenings to bolster AGW, on top of this we have our serial Luke coming home late in his usual D&A affected state giving us all a spray of his science-free logic.
Bit more JS101 and TfromO and a bit less D&A spray.
“Is it true that the CO2 tax cannot be repealed?”
Short answer: of course it can, as can any legislation
Caveats:
1) given the current composition of the Senate, and assuming the Coalition do NOT win Senate control in any double dissolution, repeal will depend on a Joint Sitting following the double dissolve (which itself can be triggered by the Senate rejecting the repeal twice within 3 months). It seems from current opinion polls that the Coalition would have the Lower House numbers in a Joint Sitting
2) the Rainbow Coalition (current Gillard Govt) is attempting to make repeal as difficult and expensive as possible by legislating emission permits a “private property”, thus triggering “just compensation” if repeal is enacted. The High Court, however, has in previous cases pointed out that the value of something brought into existence by legislation may also be altered by legislation without triggering the “just compensation” section of the Constitution … so we’ll see
This is also off topic, (says Tony, the serial offender) but you have all seen the TV ads spruiking the ‘Clean Energy Future’.
In some of those ads, you’ve noticed the Hepburn Wind Project, a local Community project in the Daylesford area in Victoria.
I’ve done some analysis on that project, and while it is an admirable Community project, if this is the direction for the future, then I’m afraid it’s a very dark (literally) future.
There’s only the 2 wind towers, and they don’t supply power for the area, which I suppose may have been the intent, because that power is supplied directly to the Victorian grid.
At their site they have a list of stats they proudly say indicates how much CO2 they have saved.
One of those Stats shows that this project abates CO2 in the equivalent amount of 18,000 trees.
The cost of the project is $13 Million, or around $725 a tree if you like.
It would have been cheaper to plant the trees.
I’ll bet there’s some Plant Nurseries wish they could get that much when selling their trees in pots for you to plant out in your garden.
If the Government is using this Project as an example of what to look forward to, then they are being disingenuous indeed. Either that, or they don’t know the facts.
Link to Post:
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/co2-tax-australia-the-hepburn-wind-project/
Tony.
Thanks Ian.
Can’t wait for tonight’s ABC headlines:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/slide61.jpg
Getting chilly down south too:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Didn’t we just get a story where all the butterflies were reducing due to warming?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038012/Coldest-summer-20-years-wipes-thirds-common-blue-butterfly.html
Good coverage on Giaever from Climate Depot:
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming
Duhh!
In vino veritas:
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/16/climate-change-improve-champagne/
In the recent confession in the Fairfax press quantifying our co2 emission savings they admitted that—
our reduction of 5% of our co2 emissions would be replaced by China in about 80 hours. (or about 6 hours in the case of NZ.)
Professor Roger Jones ( Vic uni climate scientist)calculated that our mighty effort would reduce temp by 2020 by 0.004C or one four thousandth of a degree C, But how would we measure this reduction anyhow? Of course China etc just increase their emissions at an incredible pace all the time, for decades to come.
I don’t think even dummies like Luke or Gav would honestly think this is a good deal for Australia or am I just a tad too optimistic?
I’m just mystified like everyone here, just why is the Gillard govt persisting with this madness.
Are they really so stupid that they believe we can make a difference, or that we “must tackle CC” and “take action to save the MDB, Kakadu, the GBR” etc, or is it just to increase revenue for the fabled balanced budget?
Just watching oppositions Greg Hunt explain the two co2 reduction schemes, Labor and Coalition.
What a hopeless dummy Cassidy really is, always trying to push the Labor line that sending billions overseas to buy carbon permits makes perfect sense.
These people are barking mad and are happy to send billions into overseas markets that are rort with corruption and fraudulent Ponzi schemes, just to buy permission to use our own coal here in Australia.
This is a good interview to understand the real facts of the case. What a total fraud.
@Neville
The ALP is raggedly pushing the tax, despite the internal squabbles and doubts, because Gillard agreed to it with Brown in order to become the first female Prime Minister (vanity always wins – she double-crossed Rudderless for the same reason). The ALP has no choice now but to persist since re-nigging at this point is guaranteed electoral suicide. And this tax is only directed at those earning > $80k pa. Note that the “compensation” for those earning < $80k pa (majority of the electorate) starts next March, well before the actual tax starts. So forced transfer of income is the Robin Hood hook for the ALP
The Greenies are supporting it because it is the thin end of the wedge (they are not repeating their earlier mistake of rejection for "purity's sake") – anything is better than nothing
Windsor and Oakeshott are supporting it because rejection will summarily end their time in the sun – again, vanity wins out
‘The ALP has no choice now but to persist since re-nigging at this point is guaranteed electoral suicide.’
The more likely outcome is that Julia will be replaced by Stephen Smith before the end of the year and Gary Gray will become Treasurer, otherwise the ALP will end up as a rump.
They will drop the tax on carbon dioxide and claw their way back.
el gordo
“The more likely outcome is that Julia will be replaced by Stephen Smith before the end of the year and Gary Gray will become Treasurer, otherwise the ALP will end up as a rump.
They will drop the tax on carbon dioxide and claw their way back.”
Wishful thinking – the reason Gillard brought on this tax early was to avoid just such possibilities and lock the ALP in … worked too
EG and Ian I agree that the real reason(s) for this idiot tax is not about their concern for CAGW and could be personal vanity and power I suppose.
But the stated reasons are about saving our climate and the terrible effect on those various iconic areas if we don’t “take action.”
So are the people really that stupid that they believe the stated reasons and not the vanity underlying her/their agenda?
Of course we know Luke and Gav believe Labor and the Greens whatever they say, but is the electorate really as stupid as they are?
Neville
Of course we know Luke and Gav believe Labor and the Greens whatever they say, but is the electorate really as stupid as they are?
Actually I think Luke is quite aware of the fraud, gav is beyond understanding anything anymore so his views are irrelevant.
As to the “electorate really as stupid” I’m afraid so.
Sad but true.
The landslide victory for the Coalition in NSW is an indication that the electorate is not stupid and this pattern will be repeated across Australia.
Here is an interesting article by Richard Haddad on the ‘new deniers’.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/the_new_deniers.html
In the UK the low carbon energy schemes are intent on replacing coal with wood to run power stations and the big wood companies are trying to halt the madness.
Complete lunacy and the greens are not happy either, for the same reasons.
Why isn’t this sordid tale not front page news in all of Ozs newspapers and discussed openly in all other media as well?
If this was a coalition PM now in power we would never hear the end of it, but because it’s Labor the loss of $1.25 million from the union doesn’t seem to concern anyone.
Would Obama or Cameron for example be protected by the same lame media in their countries?
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/how-scam-worked/story-e6freo8c-1111114849360
The other possibility is that someone like Gary Gray will cross the floor, quit the Labor Party and come back as an independent senator, a hero of the people.
It’s a long shot, but you can imagine the ramifications.
el gordo
What you say about NSW is true, and at the same time proves my point.
How long and what level of mismanagement and scandal did it take for the voters to finally wake up?
How long did it take the Victorians to change government, and may I add JUST by a few votes, and also to a very pinkish shade of conservative at that?
Sorry mate, most people are either stupid or don’t care.
In NSW the agrarian socialists and miners stood shoulder to shoulder and gave the Coalition a mandate.
It’s true that NSW Labor was a bankrupt government, hopelessly inefficient and without vision, but it was the carbon tax revolt, a protest against Julia which gave O’Farrell the huge win.
This pernicious tax hits the hip pocket nerve of everyone and the majority will vote accordingly at state and federal level.
Little Luke,
“What a silly old coot making fallacious arguments. His expertise on the topic – zilch – might as well as Al Gore.”
Except he actually has a degree in something useful and a Nobel for something objective rather than subjective. Of course you warmers wouldn’t understand the difference since all your Climate Science appears to be subjective!!
These days only one in four vote Labor. There is already talk about the end of the two party system, but that is premature.