text:
Using IPCC numbers we can expect only half a degree of warming this century. Time to Panic? »
« High pressure propaganda: Greens using children to write activist letters in school
… Let it rip…
July 5th, 2015 | Tags: Unthreaded | Category: Uncategorized | Print This Post | Email This Post |
It's been a bit hot in the UK – but then, it's July, isn't it?
Here are two newspaper front page items from the same day (July 2nd).
Firstly, from The Independent, we have 'Britain overheats – from Wimbledon to Heathrow, the hottest July day ever leaves a nation wilting.'
Secondly, from The Daily Telegraph: 'Nation swelters in record July heatwave – Britain experienced its hottest July day for 160 years yesterday as temperatures hit 98F (36.7).
How the press varies in its reports! Of course, The Independent is firmly 'warmist', so the item above doesn't come as much of a surprise. Look inside on page ten, and it again affirms that 'Britain sweltered in record-breaking heat' – yet a little further on, we have 'The heat – not far off the all-time record of 38.5C (101F) near Faversham, Kent, on 10th August 2003…'
I can't help but stifle a yawn.
I've asked this question so many times and never received an answer. When Winter hits Victoria, hoards of people either migrate to the north or seek holidays in South East Asia to escape the cold.
When Winter hits the northern hemisphere, where do all the celebrities that support climate change action go? St Tropez and the like appear to be their choice of respite.
I don't know of one person that looks forward to global cooling, yet if global warming is such a concern, why the hell do so many people look for hot places in Winter? Why aren't people holidaying in southern Tasmania or looking to the Antarctic for refuge from global warming?
People says that they are worried about global warming, but seek warm places. WTF?
Just substitute "people" for "well off middle and upper class western people" and you won't need to ask your question.
And I should note that heaps of the "people" I illuded to, in the australian summer headed to Colarado, Switzerland and Northern Japan for some reason. The reason: to hand out with their mates.
And I should note that heaps of the "people" I illuded to, in the australian summer headed to Colarado, Switzerland and Northern Japan for some reason. The reason: to hang out with their mates.
I sailed into St. Trop. last Friday week. Didn't see any celebs. (well none that I'd recognise) it was too hot for me too, once off the water.
KinkyKeith
BBBBRRRRRRRTTTTT! pardon.
Rereke Whakaaro
That is arguably the most cogent comment you have made all year.
I agree, even though it's unthreaded I was deadly accurate in response to …Let it rip…
Andrew McRae
If you're reading the web on your phone you might want to sit down for this one.
Eight weeks ago that old barnacle of the climate debate Stephen Lewandowsky admitted that scientific climate consensus is capable of being altered by unfounded memes.
As Lewandowsky himself says in the executive summary of L2015: "Nonetheless, being human, scientists' operate with the same cognitive apparatus and limitations as every other person".
Now there's a concession that could come back to bite him.
Read all this and far more than you needed to know over at Climate Etc.
Looks like the harlot has attained his academic ambitions and is thinking of becoming a physchologists.
He is certainly declaring that he is ignorant of the empirical method.
Unfortunately knowledge about scientific methods is required to see that.
Let us hope that he is at the brink of discovering critical rationalism and the empirical method.
There is no single philosophy of science. Inductivism and critical rationalism are both scientific methods even though they are significantly and fundamentally different.
"Inductivism is the traditional model of scientific method attributed to Francis Bacon, who in 1620 vowed to subvert allegedly traditional thinking. In the Baconian model, one observes nature, proposes a modest law to generalize an observed pattern, confirms it by many observations, ventures a modestly broader law, and confirms that, too, by many more observations, while discarding disconfirmed laws." (Wikipedia)
"Karl Popper from the 1930s onward was the first especially vocal critic of inductivism as an utterly flawed model of science." (Wikipedia). Here are some extracts which seems essential to me:
The empirical method stands directly opposed to all attempts to operate with the ideas of inductive logic. It might be described as the theory of the deductive method of testing, or as the view that a hypothesis can only be empirically tested—and only after it has been advanced.
it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system can ever be conclusively falsified. For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible
what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to expose them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.
(extracts from The logic of scientific discovery by Karl R. Popper.)
Obviously there do exist fundamentally different scientific methods – also today. And a great variety of scientific methods are practiced by researchers.
Hence the term scientist is by no means a precise term. It really does not tell anything about which scientific method the researcher endorse. The term scientist does not tell us whether the researcher endorse the method of inductivism or the empirical method – or any other method or combination of methods.
Just-A-Guy
DHF,
Before I begin to 'Let it rip', as Jo wrote up top, I'd like to make an observation.
After 12 hours and hundreds of views, I'm surprised no-one has called DHF on this comment.
You come to this conclusion how? Please respond to this specific question.
You quoted Karl Popper:
. . . it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system can ever be conclusively falsified. For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible
It appears from this quote that Karl Popper acknowledges and accepts that there are valid ways to 'get around' the empirical method.
Did you use this partial quote to conclude that there is more than one valid form of the scientific method? Please answer this question directly.
The full quote from The Logic of Scientific Discovery:
Karl Popper wrote:
A third objection may seem more serious. It might be said that even if the asymmetry is admitted, it is still impossible, for various reasons, that any theoretical system should ever be conclusively falsified. For it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible; and this fact, it might be claimed, makes the logical value of my proposed criterion of demarcation dubious, to say the least.
Immediately followed by:
I must admit the justice of this criticism; but I need not therefore withdraw my proposal to adopt falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation. For I am going to propose (in sections 20 f.) that the empirical method shall be characterized as a method that excludes precisely those ways of evading falsification which, as my imaginary critic rightly insists, are logically possible. According to my proposal, what characterizes the empirical method is its manner of exposing to falsification, in every conceivable way, the system to be tested. Its aim is not to save the lives of untenable systems but, on the contrary, to select the one which is by comparison the fittest, by exposing them all to the fiercest struggle for survival.
The proposed criterion of demarcation also leads us to a solution of Hume's problem of induction—of the problem of the validity of natural laws. The root of this problem is the apparent contradiction between what may be called 'the fundamental thesis of empiricism'— the thesis that experience alone can decide upon the truth or falsity of scientific statements—and Hume's realization of the inadmissibility of inductive arguments. This contradiction arises only if it is assumed that all empirical scientific statements must be 'conclusively decidable', i.e. that their verification and their falsification must both in principle be possible. If we renounce this requirement and admit as empirical also statements which are decidable in one sense only—unilaterally decidable and, more especially, falsifiable—and which may be tested by systematic attempts to falsify them, the contradiction disappears: the method of falsification presupposes no inductive inference, but only the tautological transformations of deductive logic whose validity is not in dispute.
At this point, I feel obliged to present the following disclaimer. What I'm about to write is not an accusation if intention to mislead. It could just as well be a misinterpretation of Poppers position. Whatever the case may be, the end result is still the same. Quoting Popper to contradict Popper.
Francis Bacon proposed a method of enquiry into the nature of 'the world around us'. This is called 'The Scientific Method'. Hume, primarily, found a flaw in this method which he called 'the problem of induction'. From Hume and until Popper, there has been a large variety of proposed solutions to this problem, none of which adequately solved it.
Popper's 'criterion of demarcation' and his requirement of 'falsifiability' together, put an end to that situation by solving the problem.
All that really happened in the time between Bacon and Popper was the existence of a situation whereby the Scientific Method was not fully formulated, much like Newtonian Gravitation was not fully formulated. Karl Popper came in and added the 'missing piece' in the puzzle much like Einstein came in and added the 'missing piece' in the theory of gravitation. Neither Einstein nor Popper negated what came before them. They both simply added a roof on to an existing edifice.
There is only one Scientific Method, that which was formulated by Francis Bacon and now vindicated by Karl Popper. To reject Karl Popper's contribution to The Scientific Method, Empirical Science, and the verification of a hypothesis by observation with intent to falsify it is, today, clearly irrational, and we call any such attempts 'pseudo-science'.
Science can mean specific knowledge about a subject or craft. If the outcome is productive then you have deduced correctly ie you know what you're doing. Some natural sciences are no more intellectual than this.
The biggest flaw in climate science is that the only outcome that matters is promotion and grants.
I see that I have formulated my views in unfortunate ways.
I intended nothing but advocating for Poppers views and the empirical method.
It seems that this is also your position.
What I meant is that many researchers even today seem to rely on inductivism alone – even if the method is utterly flawed as Popper stated it.
Hence – there are several methods in use by researchers even if some of the methods is utterly flawed.
Hope I did not obfuscate this even more.
Thanks for bringing things straight.
I see that it appears that way from my unfortunate extract.
I tried to reduce the amount of text. My extract can be misinterpreted.
I regard it as a warning from Popper about a possible malpractice. A malpractice which we see a lot from those advocating anthropologic warming caused by CO2.
Thanks by the way – both for putting me straight and for providing a short version of the stages in development of the scientific method.
However – I would object to your formulation that Karl Popper vindicated the scientific method which was formulated by Francis Bacon.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia about Francis Bacon:
"His works established and popularised inductive methodologies for scientific inquiry, often called the Baconian method, or simply the scientific method."
It seems clear from the following quote by Popper that he did not vindicate the use of inductive methodologies:
"The empirical method stands directly opposed to all attempts to operate with the ideas of inductive logic. It might be described as the theory of the deductive method of testing, or as the view that a hypothesis can only be empirically tested—and only after it has been advanced. "
The Scientific Method – Francis Bacon
Strictly from memory, these are the steps involved when following the Baconian version of the Scientific Method.
1. Propose a hypothesis.
2. Gather data.
3. Analyze the data.
4. If the data analysis conforms to the hypothesis, accept the hypothesis as true.
5. If the data analysis does not conform to the hypothesis, reject the hypothesis.
In theory, the first step isn't even necessary.
3. Propose a hypothesis based on the data analysis and aceept that hypothesis as true.
As you can see, the entire process hinges on the assumption that you can extrapolate, from a limited set of observations, to form a rule or law which will include all future observations. Or, in laymans terms, going from the particular to the general. This is what's called Induction.
The power of this method of enquiry is in the data-gathering and analysis stages. In other words, the observations made of the outside world are the key to comprehending it. We are freed, therefore, from the shackles of authority. No one can tell us how things are or how they ought to be, because we can observe and conclude for ourselves.
The Problem With Induction – David Hume
Again, strictly from memory, Hume's objection to this mode of reasoning was really simple, in hindsight. It goes like this, in laymans terms.
Just because every observation you've made up until now conforms to some rule or law, there's no guarantee that the next observation you make will also conform to that rule or law.
Obviously this is a simplified version of what Hume wrote. But, if you had to put the concept into one sentence, that would be it. David Hume went to great lengths to present his case and to date, no one has been able to find flaws in his reasoning. So we can all agree that the problem is real.
The Criterion of Demarcation by Way of Falsification – Karl Popper
Side by side with inductive reasoning there existed deductive reasoning which goes back at least as far as Aristotle. The underlying premise here is that you go from the general to the specific. The rule or law comes first, and through a set of well formulated steps, you determine whether or not a specific observation fits that rule or law.
The genius of Karl Popper was that he was able to integrate deductive inference into a system which was based, per force, on inductive inference. After all, we can never make all the observations necessary to come to a satisfactory conclusion. We are limited by time and resources to only making a limited set of observations.
The solution was twofold and simple, again in hindsight.
First of all, make sure that before you start you have both a hypothesis and it's opposite, which is called the null hypothesis.
Second, gather your data in a way that guarantees that neither the hypothesis nor the null hypothesis are favored.
The Scientific Method – Karl Popper
Once again, strictly from memory, these are the steps involved when following the Popperian version of the Scientific Method.
2. Propose a null hypothesis.
5. If the data analysis conforms to the hypothesis, accept the hypothesis as provisionally true.
6. If the data analysis conforms to the null hypothesis, accept the null hypothesis as true.
Notice we've added a new step, the proposal of a null hypothesis. This ensures that when the time comes to analyze the data, the result will always yield either true or false with regard to the hypothesis.
Notice also that the last step has changed. Now, not only do we reject the hypothesis as false but we accept it's opposite, the null hypothesis, as true. This is key to understanding Popper.
With Induction, there was no way to prove something true. Now, although we still don't have a way to prove something true, except provisionally, we do have a way to prove something false.
Conclusion – Karl Popper Vindicates the Scientific Method
As you can see, The Scientific Method has changed. It is no longer based solely on inductive reasoning. It now has a new foundation, i.e. deductive reasoning. But that doesn't mean that we threw away Bacon's accomplishment. Recall what I said at the outset:
Not only does this still hold true today, it's now reinforced by our ability to trully determine what's BS and what's not. The Rule by Authority has been undermined completely.
This is why we demand the raw data. This is why we demand the detailed methods.
The data gathering and analysis portions of the Scientific Method are the key to differenciating what's BS and what's not. That's what determines our freedom from Rule by Authority. That's how Popper vindicated The Scientific Method.
Thanks for taking your time with me.
However- are you still sure that vindicated is a proper word to use?
As English is not my native language I have to rely on easy available dictionaries.
Here are some explanations of vindicated:
Show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified
To clear, as from an accusation, imputation, suspicion, or the like
To assert, maintain, or defend (a right, cause, etc.) against opposition.
Here is Wikipedia on the Baconian method:
"Bacon's method is an example of the application of inductive reasoning. By reasoning using "induction", Bacon meant the ability to generalize a finding stepwise, based on accumulating data. He advised proceeding by this method, or in other words, by building a case from the ground up."
Popper described his method as directly opposed to the inductive method. Further Popper did not seem to care much how the theory came about. He cared about it being falsifiable. How can you say that he vindicated something he opposed.?
(All quotes below are from "The logic of scientific discovery")
"According to a widely accepted view—to be opposed in this book — the empirical sciences can be characterized by the fact that they use 'inductive methods', as they are called."
This is how Popper described his method:
"According to the view that will be put forward here, the method of critically testing theories, and selecting them according to the results of tests, always proceeds on the following lines. From a new idea, put up tentatively, and not yet justified in any way—an anticipation, a hypothesis, a theoretical system, or what you will—conclusions are drawn by means of logical deduction. These conclusions are then compared with one another and with other relevant statements, so as to find what logical relations (such as equivalence, derivability, compatiblity, or incompatibility) exist between them.
We may if we like distinguish four different lines along which the testing of a theory could be carried out. First there is the logical comparison of the conclusions among themselves, by which the internal consistency of the system is tested. Secondly, there is the investigation of the logical form of the theory, with the object of determining whether it has the character of an empirical or scientific theory, or whether it is, for example, tautological. Thirdly, there is the comparison with other theories, chiefly with the aim of determining whether the theory would constitute a scientific advance should it survive our various tests. And finally, there is the testing of the theory by way of empirical applications of the conclusions which can be derived from it.
The purpose of this last kind of test is to find out how far the new consequences of the theory—whatever may be new in what it asserts —stand up to the demands of practice, whether raised by purely scientific experiments, or by practical technological applications. Here too the procedure of testing turns out to be deductive. With the help of other statements, previously accepted, certain singular statements— which we may call 'predictions'—are deduced from the theory; especially predictions that are easily testable or applicable. From among these statements, those are selected which are not derivable from the current theory, and more especially those which the current theory contradicts. Next we seek a decision as regards these (and other) derived statements by comparing them with the results of practical applications and experiments. If this decision is positive, that is, if the singular conclusions turn out to be acceptable, or verified, then the theory has, for the time being, passed its test: we have found no reason to discard it. But if the decision is negative, or in other words, if the conclusions have been falsified, then their falsification also falsifies the theory from which they were logically deduced. It should be noticed that a positive decision can only temporarily support the theory, for subsequent negative decisions may always overthrow it. So long as theory withstands detailed and severe tests and is not superseded by another theory in the course of scientific progress, we may say that it has 'proved its mettle' or that it is 'corroborated'*1 by past experience.
Nothing resembling inductive logic appears in the procedure here outlined. I never assume that we can argue from the truth of singular statements to the truth of theories. I never assume that by force of 'verified' conclusions, theories can be established as 'true', or even as merely 'probable'."
For some reason you keep thinking that what I've written means that Popper vindicated induction. He did not. I never said he did either.
I said he vindicated the scientific method. The root of that method involves observations. The process of making observations will always be inductive by definition. Without observations we have nothing.
What we do with those observations is what's changed. Whereas in the past, before Popper, we used inductive logic to interpret inductive observations, we now use deductive logic to interpret inductive observations.
Whether the logic used in arriving at some conclusion is inductive or deductive has nothing to do with the observations themselves. I really can't think of any other way to explain this right now because I'm exhausted from a long day of 'just-life'.
If this is still not clear then please quote the part that's not clear in what I've written and I'll be happy to reply tomorrow.
PS – I don't think quoting other wikis or statements from Popper will help. Let's just stick to what we already have.
PS – It should be noted that, even now, the fundamental element involved when utilizing the scientific method is still basically inductive. We must still make observations and those observations will still and always be limited. I don't think I made that clear enough. The change is that now the inductive process is 'supervised' by 'deductive reasoning'.
The 'edifice' is still inductive, the 'roof' covering the edifice is deductive. Without that roof the 'rain' of un-reason gets in and mucks things up.
Hope that makes things clearer.
When thinking about it – I would say that induction alone isn´t any more scientific than becoming a parent or spending money. It can be more or less sophisticated but it ain´t science.
In my view – that´s one important part of what Popper tried to tell us.
So basically you reject that observations are by their very nature inductive?
Furthermore . . .
I would say that induction alone isn´t any more scientific than . . .
I would reply that deduction alone isn´t any more scientific than . . .
wikipedia on deductive reasoning:
An argument can be valid even though the premises are false.
and . . .
We deduced the final statement by combining the hypothesis of the first statement with the conclusion of the second statement. We also allow that this could be a false statement.
Unless you have both induction and deduction, you have nothing.
Just to bring the point home.
It is usual to call an inference 'inductive' if it passes from singular statements (sometimes also called 'particular' statements), such as accounts of the results of observations or experiments, to universal statements, such as hypotheses or theories.
Now it is far from obvious, from a logical point of view, that we are justified in inferring universal statements from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.[1]
[1]Bottom of page three to top of page four in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Popper, Karl
Logik der Forschung first published 1935
by Verlag von Julius Springer, Vienna, Austria
First English edition published 1959
by Hutchinson & Co.
italics in the original.
bold italics mine.
I bring you this quote because it appears to me that you think I may be mistaken in charecterizing observations or experiments as inductive. I didn't make this up nor is my explanation a mistake. Induction is there in the current, modern form of the scientific method by necessity.
If you remove the observations and experiments from the scientific method, what's left?
My persistence in providing sufficient evidence to explain the prescence of inductive inferences, observations and experiments, within the scientific method as it is understood today, a deductive process, is necessary because of this:
Science isn't only about discovery and technology. It is first and foremost the freedom to know the world without having to rely on what other 'experts' tell us.
Given that "if A is true then B, C, and D are true", an example of deduction would be "A is true therefore we can deduce that B, C, and D are true".
An example of induction would be "B, C, and D are observed to be true therefore A may be true". A is a reasonable explanation for B, C, and D being true.
As illustrated by the following quote, Popper did not seem to care how an idea, hypothesis, theory or what you will; came into existence.
It may well have been based on inductive reasoning – or not:
"From a new idea, put up tentatively, and not yet justified in any way—an anticipation, a hypothesis, a theoretical system, or what you will — conclusions are drawn by means of logical deduction. "
Further the empirical method does not have to involve inductive reasoning:
You claimed that all swans are white – because you thought you had heard somebody say so at the bus.
If I observe 1 black swan all swans cannot be white.
I observe a black swan now.
Hence your claim, your idea, is wrong – it has been falsified.
Deduction seems required to employ the empirical method.
Induction does not seem required to employ the empirical method.
I would also say that an observation, hence an experiment, does not have to involve inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is widely used to form theories, but it is not required by the empirical method.
The empirical method is about attempts to falsify theories.
By the empirical method a theory is merited by the attempts of falsification that it has survived.
Not how it came about.
Yes it does. Did you miss this quote from Popper?
Now it is far from obvious, from a logical point of view, that we are justified in inferring universal statements from singular ones, no matter how numerous; for any conclusion drawn in this way may always turn out to be false: no matter how many instances of white swans we may have observed, this does not justify the conclusion that all swans are white.
You also wrote:
You missed Poppers point. Observations and experiments are inductive inferences not inductive reasoning. If you disagree with Popper then please provide a rational argument to substantiate your position.
Of course there's always the possibility that you accept Rationalism's approach to the philosophy science in which case nothing will ever convince you of Poppers analysis. If you're a Rationalist then you disagree with Popper by definition.
And please take heed: I used the term 'Rationalism' which is not the same as rational. The link to the wikipedia article explains both Rationalism and the distinction between the terms Rationalism and rational.
I understand the following quote from Popper different from what you:
He say that it is usual to call an inference inductive:
if it passes from singular statements to universal statement
if it passes from accounts of observations or experiments to hypotheses or theories.
He does not say that a single observation depend on inductive inference.
If I se a black swan I can take a picture of it and state that I see a black swan.
That´s it – the observation is made and reported – no inductive inference is involved.
Popper does not say that you cannot use inductive inference to come up with your hypothesis or theory.
You can do whatever you like.
He just say that his empirical method does not depend on inductive inferences.
Thats the whole point. You can falsify a theory without using inductive inference.
His method is a method for falsifying theories – not making them.
Regarding rationalism – I will not relate to that – I do not find it relevant.
I agree with Popper.
And Popper also said:
"but I agree that scientific statements, since they must be inter-subjectively testable, must always have the character of universal hypotheses."
I guess it is hard to arrive at an universal hypothesis without using inductive inference.
Will Janoschka
Plain and simple. Abe
You seem to be negating all that you claimed above!
A conjecture or hypothesis must have an opposing conjecture or hypothesis before anything empirical can be agreed upon to falsify one or the other without millions of outs. What is an agreed upon experiment that must falsify one or the other?
Observations of the spontaneity of nature never meet this criterion. Stumbling about falsifies nothing. The laws tell what "not to expect" but do not falsify. It is the "intent" to falsify something which is the scientific method. This helps get past Stumbling about!
"reject Karl Popper's contribution"
CANNOT! Sorry for not reading carefully!
I guess our discussion demonstrates that there are different views on scientific methods.
The discussion falsifies the idea that there is only one scientific method.
A scientist can only relate to his own perception and understanding of what he think is an appropriate method for the issue at hand.
He cannot relate to an ideal method which is both strictly defined, and all scientists agree that this is The scientific method – because such method does not exist.
If I ask Cook, Lewandowsky and Roy W. Spencer to elaborate on the scientific method they endorse, I would expect different answers.
That is my idea of it – which I cannot tell exactly how it came about – plenty of intuition I guess.
It isn't much science behind the idea – but the idea falsifiable.
Further I think of it as not likely at all that their elaborations would be equal.
I will here claim that the probability for that is zero. For all practical purposes.
Further, I regard the empirical method as elaborated by Karl Popper as a much more robust method than the Baconian method.
In my opinion you helped me to a better understanding – even though we still have different views.
Thanks for having this discussion with me
With all the IPCC and Climate Scientists going on about "models", this is the only model that I would trust:
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/vostok_temperature_co2.png
It shows three factors which obviously are relevant but the time scale may not be politically correct because it indicates that the glacial/ interglacials cycle is caused by orbital mechanics issues rather than CO2.
Incidentally, in looking for this graph, I put myself in the position of an innocent schoolchild looking for material to educate me on the "climate change – Global Warming issue.
It is scary, the amount of distorted rubbish there is on the net that would prevent anyone without a good knowledge of "the science" from getting at THE TRUTH!
Rick Will
Picked this up from NoTrickZone. Revised scientific consensus amongst eminent scientists on climate change now 55%. This link presents the story from a different angle; considering imminent threats to the human race:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-versus-the-dangers-of-nuclear-war-three-minutes-to-midnight/5460440
Story concludes with this note.
"1. The Mainau Declaration on the Dangers of Climate Change was signed by 36 of the 65 Nobel laureates in attendance. "
Will be interesting to see how the result gets reported. Some indication that many of the 45% who did not sign the declaration had to rush off to more pressing business – I guess that is a story in itself considering the threat AGW presents to mankind.
This article in The Conversation is getting a bit of run again to explain that the BOM homogenisation isn't making Australia warmer.
I've pointed out that the trends are % of days/year rather than °C/decade, with out defining what a hot day is and whether its the same for both plots. The latter is important because the legend at the bottom is not the same for the before and after plots.
To top it off, its only for years after 1951 when most corruption of the data is cooling of the years prior to 1951.
Is there any blog posts giving a good critique of this article that I can link to?
This response I did at the time covers a lot of the excuses the BOM were offering after the pressure of the articles from The Australian.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/under-pressure-australian-bom-puts-up-facade-of-transparency-too-little-too-late/
You are right that they are graphing post 1951 to hide the effects of the biggest changes.
They had to resort to "extreme temperature trends" to find one line that didn't get warmed. Extreme temperatures are just graphing noise, why don't they talk about mean, min and max, and why aren't they interested in Stevenson screen data before 1910?
Skeptics aren't cherry picking we're looking at trends cross 84 stations (Gillham) and 100 stations (Stewart). They have to knock down strawmen…
Thanks Jo. I'll bookmark it.
I'll put this up again in case anyone missed it.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01bb084ab2fa970d-pi
CO2 continues to rise and yet there is no positive feedback in the form of increased moisture, in fact the opposite is happening.
el gordo,
As you say "…feedback in the form of increased moisture, in fact the opposite is happening.", is remarkable when you consider that when burning fuels of any kind vast amounts of water is released into the atmosphere.
Okay, it's Unthreaded, so I guess we can talk about anything, eh!
Some of you may know I am a cricket tragic, and have been for more than 55 years now. I played the game at Grade level for 22 years, and I have an abiding love of the game, especially the red ball game.
The current Australian side has just finished playing Essex, at Chelmsford, a small ground noted for big scores.
In fact the highest score in one day of (traditional) cricket was scored on an Essex ground, this one at Southend.
That score was 720, and was scored by that legendary 1948 team, Don Bradman's Invincibles, the only team to play a whole tour and not lose a game. They played 34 games and won 25 of them, with 9 Draws. (for non cricketing people, that's a game played to no result)
Now, one of those games was against Essex at Southend.
Bradman won the toss and elected to bat. They played the usual three sessions, each of two hours, so six hours of cricket, 360 Minutes.
The last wicket fell in what was going to be the last over of the day, and the players walked off at a couple of minutes to six.
720 runs were scored in all. There were four Centuries, Bill Brown, Bradman himself, Sam Loxton, and Ron Saggers, the tour's deputy wicket keeper, and 79 by arguably one of Australia's best batsmen after Bradman, Sid Barnes.
Now, why I even mention it at all is besides the runs scored, the number of overs bowled during those 6 hours was 129 overs.
That's 129 six ball overs, and today they play a day's cricket and to get the full 90 overs, they usually play overtime.
Now, you may think that they probably had the spinners on all day, hence the fast over rate, but this was normal for a day's play in those times.
In fact, during the Fourth Test at Headingly Leeds, Norman Yardley had England bat for two overs at the start of the fifth day on a crumbling and dry pitch. There was a ten minute change of Innings, and then Australia batted, chasing an improbably 404 to win. They achieved the target with 15 minutes to spare.
During that time, they faced 114 overs, plus the 2 for England, and 25 minute of Innings change plus at the end, so that equates to an extra 8 overs, so that's a probable total of 124 overs, and that is at Test level.
Even here in Oz, where we had eight ball overs, we would in every game bowl 15 overs an hour, so 45 overs in 6 hours, 720 balls in all, or the equivalent of 120 six ball overs.
The modern game may be better, have better equipment, but we get less of the Sport than we did in those early days.
720 runs in one day of cricket. In 1948.
It's rare you get that many runs scored in the limited overs version of the game these days.
It's a wonderful game, one that some people have no time for, but it has such a rich history.
Did you know that the person who faced the very first ball in Test cricket still holds a batting record for Australia to this day.
1876 – Charles Bannerman – 165 Retired Hurt – The highest score on debut by an Australian, 139 years and counting. The oldest record in World Cricket.
The red ball rules.
Bob Malloy
Tony, in 1948 they would have been eight ball overs, making the 129 overs in a day even a greater achievement.
Please disregard above post, Tony is right Cricket matches in England reverted from 8 ball overs to 6 ball overs in 1947.
Apologises to all.
ianl8888
When did it re-revert to 8 ball overs ?
England had the 8 ball over during the War years, (39 to 45) so it was only rarely used, and they went back to the 6 ball over at the start of the 1946 Season of County Cricket.
Australia changed to 6 ball overs at the start of the 79/80 season.
Bob. In 1948 I was 2, not out.
Still not out in 2015.
My favourite sport after body surfing was running; anything from half a mile up with a little weight training with Joe Hensel and Gerald Hay.
In later years I was reduced to the bicycle; which I really loved and haven't ridden for three years, must get those spokes fixed and get back to my life!!!!!!!!! Watched the Tour when Lance Armstrong was in it but haven't bothered to watch since.
doubtingdave
Hi Tony , my cricketing hero is Harold Larwood who lived in a village close to me called Nuncargate that has a pub called the Cricketers with Harolds memorabilia all over the walls.I like you am a fan of the red ball game but i must admit that the recent oneday series between England and New zealand was fantastic entertainment.One of the radio commentators after watching some poor bowler get smashed to all parts exclaimed " who'd be a bowler' to which Phil Tuffnell replied that the game evolves and at the moment its a batters game but bowlers will work out a way to respond in time.Tony you mentioned the record held by Charles Bannerman since way back in 1876 well in those days most bowlers bowled 'round arm' maybe thats the way modern day guys should go now to stop batsmen getting underneath the ball,perhabs the most successful oneday bowler in modern times is Sri Lanken Lasith Malinga who is more or less a 'round arm' bowler. can't wait till the ashes this week and if its half as good as that recent tussle whith the BLACK CAPS it will be an ashes to remember cheers
doubtingdave,
being an opening bowler for so may years, I have a soft spot for those quicks, and Harold Larwood was only doing a job expressly given to him by Douglas Jardine, and Larwood had a beautiful approach and action, one of the best, and a model for younger bowlers aspiring to that art.
My (younger) brother is a resident at a Nursing Home on the Gold Coast, and he recently sent me a photo of him and a new short term occupant (on respite) Frank Tyson, now a long time resident of the Gold Coast. Frank's 85 now, but Bruce, my brother, says he's still sharp as a tack.
Frank was arguably one of the fastest of all time. He rarely appears in record books, mainly because he didn't make 100 wickets at test level. He only played in 17 Tests, but he took 76 wickets at an astonishing 18.5 Average, the seventh lowest of all time for qualified bowlers. He was known as Typhoon, because of his speed, and he only came off 18 yards.
I have a few favourite quicks, all of them from the past really. The Demon Spofforth, who played in that Oval Test of 1882 which inspired the use of the term, The Ashes. Then there's Jeff Thomson, and perhaps my favourite Wes Hall.
In 1960/61, the West Indies toured Oz. Part of the tour conditions was that the visiting team would send individual players to visit at schools around the Country and run coaching clinics.
I was nine years old and just getting into cricket and like all young boys wanted to be a batsman. After that Tied Test in Brisbane, our school was visited by Wes Hall in the week school broke up for the Christmas holidays, and I still have the autographed card with my other cricket stuff.
He stood there on the crease and just rolled his arm over slowly, because, after all, we were only young boys. When the ball hit the stumps, I was just starting my downswing with the bat. I had never seen anything that fast in my life.
I forgot batting (literally) and spent that whole Summer break bowling a tennis ball up against the fence at the end of our long driveway at home.
I bowled fast ever since that time, well, slowing down considerably as I got into my late 30′s and early 40′s, when I finally gave the game away.
I've loved quicks all my life. There is a distinct art to fast bowling, and there's nothing like watching the best of them.
doubting dave
great memories tony thanks for that , what made larwood special was that he seemed to glide across the ground on his run in like a greyhound ,similar to malcolm marshall ,he was not tall maybe only 5ft 11 but on delivery would leep in the air as if was a much taller man, the technique is amazing when you watch the old youtube videos. YES he was sh@t on from a great hight by the english establishment at the time but when he retired to australia your people especially Bradman took him to your hearts, soimething that an old nottinghamshire lad will always be grateful for
Incidentally, I mentioned in the original Comment the over rates, and it's interesting to note the over rates for that last day of the Tied test, keeping in mind that in Australia, we were still bowling 8 ball overs.
On that last day, The West Indies batted for 7 overs until they were all out. There was a 10 minute change of Innings and the Australians batted for 69 Overs, so that's 78 (possible) overs, or 624 balls, the equivalent of 104 six ball overs. Keep in mind we had Alan Davidson and Ian Meckiff (off his long run in those days) and to a lesser extent Kenny Mackay, while they had Wes Hall, Frank Worrall, and Gary Sobers.
So, even with all those quicks in operation they were still managing around (the equivalent of) 100 overs a day and more.
In those days, ABCTV would always play the last Session of all Queensland Sheffield Shield home games, and I was an avid viewer of all of them. ABC Qld had two specialist cricket commentators, Errol La-Frantz and Clive Harburg, and they supplemented the Test coverage team of Allan McGilvray, Johnnie Moyes, and Keith Miller.
Anyway, at the Tea break, the match looked like it was going to won easily by The West Indies, so McGilvray and the other commentary team got an early flight back to Sydney, and left the afternoon coverage to the locals, Errol and Clive, who, along with Johnnie Moyes, did the coverage for that last session, Clive Harburg calling that famous last over.
When the other two got off the plane in Sydney and heard the result, they were, like all of us, stunned. McGivray regretted missing that for the rest of his life.
No one knew the result at all, let alone the commentators, and the ABC, to their eternal discredit in my opinion, then mocked up the final couple of balls at a later time to reflect the result as a Tie.
I wasn't there, as a young boy still, but I watched it unfold on the TV.
JoKaH
Have you ever thought that the reasons for the slow overs rate may be that the players are instructed to take their time between overs to allow the television adds to run their full course?
The ads spoil watching cricket for me….flashing up rapidly, boggling the eyes every time there is a change of over. I've stopped watching on the box and no longer trail to the MCG…the racket from the ads is health-damageingly horrendous.
Good point JoKaH, but also the West Indies of the 1980s had a lot to do with it, sometimes as little as 72 overs a day of relentless express pace ( interestingly they had no trouble bowling their 50 overs on time in the one day format) the captains game plan was executed perfectly by a quartet of fast bowlers led by Michael Holding ( the whispering death) Andy Roberts with the slow bouncer followed up by the real one, then when these two needed a rest 6 foot 8 inch Joel Garner was thrown the ball together with Colin Croft, no sight screen appeared wide enough for this mans wide of the crease bowling action, these four were so good at their task that the late great Malcolm Marshall had to wait patiently for his time in the limelight.
I performed a little experiment over the weekend with my Infrared Thermometer as suggested by Konrad.
The result was initially surprising and confusing.
I took a piece of aluminium plate, about 6mm thick and 100mm wide and 1000mm long. I painted one end with flat black paint. Then I measured the temperature of the plate using my Infrared Thermometer.
The interesting result was that when the thermometer was held up close to plate; the black portion read a lot cooler than the silver surface. It read about 5-6 degrees for the black and 10-12 for the silver. I was expecting the reverse result.
If I held the thermometer further away and at an angle to the plate, both regions read about 10C, which was the ambient temperature at the time.
What does that say about the working of the thermometer or the radiative power of a black vs a silver surface?
No reflection from the black end.
You seem to indicate that you are actually measuring the AIR temperature ABOVE the metal.
The air above the shiney side is hotter because it is reflecting radiation back to the air just above the surface.
It might make a little difference if there was contact between the thermometer and the surface but even then you have a lot of round surface not in touch with the object being measured.
Ok I will see if I can check that out.
Apart from the reflections from the target's surface causing errors, your device has been calibrated for a restricted range of emissivity and emittance of the target.
Other causes of error happen because people fail to understand that these device are essentially an IR optical devices and should be used and thought of as such. You are better off thinking of this 'thermometer' as a spot light meter operating in the infra-red.
Your device will be accurate only over a defined range of IR frequencies, emittivity of the target, and the distance from the target, for which it has been calibrated.
A little test for you — aim your device at each of these — a dark opaque cup of hot water, a shiny metal cup of hot water, and a glass of hot water. Ensure as far as possible that the water in each is at the same temperature and your meter is at the same distance. Now do the same test from differing distances, say from 2cm to 2meters.
Can you understand why they measure differently?
I will try those things and report in next week.
My view is that I am measuring reflection from heat generated within the thermometer device itself. The thermometer is not passive. It has a battery and only records when the trigger is pulled. It also has a laser light to assist aiming.
Peter C,
Be aware that just about all of the modern devices are built to work within limited ranges IR frequencies, aperture to distance ranges, and that they calculate the temperatures that they read from parameters programmed into them when calibrated. Measurement made outside the calibration parameters will obviously give inaccurate and anomalous readings.
The manufacturer should be able to tell you what the permitted range of all these parameters are, and most manufacturers supply stick-on tabs of known emissivity to put on highly reflective or transparent materials, so that accurate measurements can be made. Also be aware that rough and uneven surfaces can have variable emissivity!
Have a look at http://support.fluke.com/educators/Download/Asset/2563251_6251_ENG_B_W.PDF
Table of Total Emissivity
Hi Tomomason and PeterC
By now you will have decided that my original comment was well off beam.
My excuse was that I had a few drinks aboard and not having noted the very prominent INFRARED bit about the thermometer.
Slack!
Basically IR thermometers , from what little I know of them, have to be calibrated by taking the temperature with another more accurate device where possible, otherwise you are just getting differences rather than absolutes.
If you can get hold of a mercury thermometer and lay that on the surfaces that would be interesting.
Sun-Climate 101 update to include most recent 18 months of SST (sea surface temperature):
http://s15.postimg.org/g8wfenpgb/Sun_Climate_101_ERSST_Thermal_Equator_SCD_RI.png
NH (northern hemisphere) SST is currently tracking SCD (solar cycle deceleration) and getting a boost from BDO (bidecadal oscillation):
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/06/05/noaa-tries-to-make-global-warming-slowdown-vanish/comment-page-1/#comment-103230
Robert O
On Radio National, Thursday, after the publicity about the Great Barrier Reef there was a comment by an emminent Professor that the greatest threat to the reef was, yes you guessed it, climate change. Nothing about the Crown of Thorn starfish, agricultural run-off, the odd cyclone. Not too sure about the mechanism whether it is warming oceans or their acidification as it was not mentioned, but why does the ABC give these people publicity, and yet the Argo buoys don't show any warming and the oceans are not acidic but basic.
Air-Sea Coupling in the North Atlantic
The authors of this new paper say 'most IPCC AR4 climate models fail to capture the observed NAO/NAH coupled feedback.'
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V18/jul/a2.php
On another topic, the failure of the equatorial hot spot is generally just considered another of the many dud predictions of CO2 driven Global Warming. This is quite wrong.
The missing hot spot was a central plank of the theory, not just an observational prediction. On its own, no one expected CO2 to cause noticeable warming.
The other logical puzzle is how the hot spot was supposed to occur in the first place. Warming was to produce the extra evaporation which in turn was to amplify the warming, but how does that work again? If the warming does not occur, the hot spot does not occur and the amplification does not occur. It is a chicken and egg argument, usable only in hindsight. The fact is that all scientists agreed from the start that without the necessary hot spot there cannot be CO2 driven Global Warming.
All our weather is driven by the sun and water. From rain to ice to snow, from oceans to rivers to lakes, fog and frost, sea ice and deserts. It is all about sun and water. Clouds and humidity and reflections from clouds and ice.
So it is ironic that to get a 5C increase in the global temperature from a trace gas increase of 1/7500th of the atmosphere, the promoters of CO2 driven global warming have to invoke a wild hypothesis of an increase in water vapour. It is a tacit admission that water is the real driver of the weather and of course the other product of combustion, but who would believe water was a pollutant?
As Jo said "Let it rip", so…
The other aspect of weather that is often overlooked is wind. Our spinning watery globe moves the fluids around — both liquid water, and the atmosphere's mix of damp gases and particles.
The sun warming one side of the globe, causing expansion and convections, while the dark side cools and contracts. Along with earth's geographical features, all this ensures that the atmosphere is never totally at rest, it is always chaotically moving.
Billions of tons of atmosphere always in motion, caused by the energy nature provides.
It is a turbulent system where temperatures at even modest altitudes are -60C and the combination of wind, sunlight on only one side and the fact that water has so many forms should make prediction of global temperature, even the concept of a global temperature very hard to determine. There is more air in the water than in the air and there is much more water than air, 400x by mass. The phase changes of water with heats of evaporation and latent energies all coming into play plus the physical mass movement of heat energy through ocean currents mean a super complex chaotic system. In the middle of all this a change in a tiny component is supposed to be the biggest and only driver of global temperature, regardless of whether it is man made or not. Only now are the warmists complaining about 'natural variation'. They must be on another planet.
Has a single prediction been right? Has a single mechanism involving CO2 heating actually been confirmed? Have 220,000 windmills made any difference? The only thing which is certain is that a Carbon tax in Australia stopped Global Warming dead. That could however be coincidence.
I guess my subtle point is that the freezing/melting point of water at 0C is very significant for our planet. It dictates our lives. The removal of the glaciers from Europe and North America changed live for humans on this planet but it was only 10,00 years ago.
When Newton wanted to define temperature, it was a loose concept. He suggested 100 should be the point where water was so hot, it was too hot for your elbow. So the master of exact calculations thought temperature was hardly an important thing. Now people are arguing about 0.005C?
More importantly, it is the closeness to the freezing point which means our world oscillates about zero. Colorado was -40C to 40C when I stayed there. The change in air from conductive of heat to non conductive is dramatic. Antarctica is the world's biggest desert. Ice changes everything and we should have a terrible fear of cooling, where water moderates the heating, as in the tropics. However for blatant political purposes, the Communist Green parties have created this myth of terrible warming, when in fact in most places it would either not happen or would be welcome. As for ideas about the total non adaptability of fish, insects, birds, plants, coral, you have to be kidding. With their short lives, they are far more adaptable than humans by natural selection.
So the whole Green myth that Western Democracies are killing the planet and China is the hero country is obvious manipulation. Why anyone believes it is the puzzle, but that is the power of the left dominated western media, even government media like the activist ABC and SBS and now the BOM. Government funded propagandists. Sell them all.
changed life for humans on this planet but it was only 10,000 years ago. (Sorry)
I'd assumed that's what you meant!
Water, about the weirdest substance that we humans normally come into contact with. Also known as the Universal Solvent due to it's ability to dissolve so many substances. Remarkably most times when water dissolves a substance it characteristics change only by a small amount, this is most evident when comparing it to other solvents.
Another barely acknowledged characteristic of water is at its densest water is a liquid. There are very few other substances where this is true, and is why solid water (ice) floats on water.
So save a thought for water and all its characteristics and muse on this little puzzle named after its discoverer — Mpemba effect; how does that work?
I have been told this. However it is impossible and illogical.
At some stage the warmer water is exactly the same temperature as the colder water, so the time to reach that temperature must be added.
also horn or fingernails are mostly water if I remember some of my psychobiology from way back.
The fact is that all scientists agreed from the start that without the necessary hot spot there cannot be CO2 driven Global Warming
Yes, but now it is claimed, in the absence of a "hot spot", that it doesn't matter
Of course I've asked how the amplification of tiny CO2 warming may occur without increased humidity, but such a question is never answered
AGW is caused by WGA.
Anthropogenic Global Warming
Wacky Gullible A…….s.
Are you aware that it seems that you will have do deal with Brian Schmidt at the Australian National University next year?
http://www.dw.com/en/nobel-laureates-call-for-action-on-climate-change-at-lindau/a-18559670
"That process is what we're supporting, and we are very strongly of the view that that process has shown a body of scientific evidence [...] of deep and grave concern, and needs to be acted upon," says Schmidt, who is set to become vice-chancellor of the Australian National University next year."
I thought you already had a handful at the University of Western Australia.
The task of correcting Academic fantasies is not getting any easier.
Brian Schmidt's views are well known and he has learned nothing over the past 2 years. He joins Ian Chubb.
From my point of view one Freeman Dyson is worth 20 Brian Schmidts and 20 Peter Dohertys put together.
Some good news, Australia's abandonment of a tax on a harmless trace gas has seen emissions from coal fired powers station jump by 4.3%.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/05/carbon-tax-repeal-sparks-jump-in-australias-electricity-emissions?CMP=soc_568
ScotsmaninUtah
"Greece and what's next….?"
As Greece unravels (unthreads so to speak ) many European politicians are no doubt rushing to their financial models to predict the consequences..
From Greece's perspective , I hope that they are thinking that this is more an unsnarling of itself from the mass of wooly financial "balls" it knows as the institutions IMF and ECB.
What are the thoughts on Global Warming and a CO2 tax in Greece…. at this time ?
I suspect the arrival of this actual "real" crisis, is proving to be more important than some future "fantasy" event..
For all those countries waiting with open hand for a piece of the $100 billion pie, I think Europe will be too busy in the next year with real world issues…
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/china_even_more_scary_than_greece_market_freaks/
An absolute must read. Dr Tim Ball on the Vatican's letter
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/05/the-popes-encyclical-exposes-real-agenda-behind-global-warming/
Very well researched and written
We, your appointed and anointed leaders, regret to inform you that, in view of the unsustainable increases in global human population now approaching 7 Billion, it has been decided on your behalf, and with only your best interests at heart, that the services of 6 Billion of you are no longer required forthwith.
Please retrieve a sealed envelope from the front desk and examine the contents. Then form two orderly queues on either side of the auditorium, those with an 'X' please form a line to the left where a Human Protection Services officer will escort you to the nearest Viability Reassignment Facility for your ultimate and final re-designation.
Those with a "tick" may queue to the right, where you will surrender all your worldly possessions to the Wealth Redistribution Consultant who will guide you through the Enforced Philanthropy Process (EPP).
Your patience and cooperation is greatly appreciated,
UN General Secretary
Executive Secretary UNFCC
CEO International Monetary Fund
President of USSR
President of People's Republic of China
Leaders and Finance Ministers of G20
Council for Foreign Relations
The Pope, Bishop of Rome
Chief Rabbi of Israel
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
ABC's "The Science Show" got another full airing this morning (which is apart from the two broadcast times mentioned below):
4 July: ABC The Science Show: Energy Futures: Solar and hydrogen power
Saturday 12 noon Repeated: Thursday 9pm
In the final episode of Energy Futures, Carl Smith looks to the sun—the source of much of our planet's energy.
Australia is one of the best-resourced countries for solar power. There are wide open spaces, and long hours of sunshine beating down on a continent much of which is desert. So is it best to harness that energy using rooftop systems or giant fields of solar panels? ***Or perhaps both!
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/energy-futures—part-4-of-4/6542368
***"or perhaps both!" what about "perhaps not"?
heard the final minutes and, once again, was struck by how no-one is challenged about any of the claims they made. the only dissent i heard was from a woman in a heritage house near Canberra who didn't like a solar farm spoiling her view.
on "the science hour" homepage, re this FOUR-PART SERIES:
Energy Futures
At the G7 summit in June, world leaders pledged to act on climate change and phase out fossil fuels by end of century. In this timely series, Energy Futures, Carl Smith examines Australia's energy options beyond oil, coal and gas…
as Australia's energy future will, most assuredly, not be "beyond oil, coal and gas", surely ABC's "The Science Show" should now do a FOUR-PART SERIES with equally unchallenged cases put forward for the future of "oil, coal and gas" in Australia (that's 3 programs)… plus a fourth program featuring, unchallenged, the best CAGW sceptics, armed with real facts and figures the ABC never reports.
obviously, ABC should not get to choose the sceptics.
i nominate Joanne Nova, David Evans….who else?
who else?
Perhaps Tony from Oz
The Klimatariat minions have worked out this European heatwave is not unprecedented and have opted for the idea that they are more frequent.
'In De Bilt in the Netherlands, for example, a heat wave like the one forecast for the next few days would have been a roughly 1-in-30-years event in the 1900s, according to the scientists. It is now likely to happen every three and a half years, they said.
'In Mannheim, Germany, a heat wave like that of the last few days would have been a once-in-a-century event in the 1900s, but is now likely to happen about every 15 years, they said.'
There was a heatwave in England in 2003, another in 2006. It seems to have taken a further 9 years before this present one…what's up with that then?
Three and a half average? Fifteen year average? What do they really mean?
Its the clumping of heatwaves which has them excited, but as usual they fail to see the big picture.
In 1947 Britain had a monstrous winter and a terrible heatwave in summer, which is what we would expect as the planet enters a cooler phase. Sadly increasing man made CO2 cannot stop this natural cycle.
handjive
Oh, the humanity: "N. Ireland sizzles in glorious summer sunshine with temp. soaring to 25C (belfasttelegraph)
Unseasonably Cold weather in May damages UK cider and lager sales (belfasttelegraph)
Well. That is settled.
Summer days with girls frollicking in bikinis in the water, with plenty of cider & lager, or, reversing the climate with a tax?
Unicorns and Pixies to save the world from 97% Global Warming
Add it to the collection.
Peter C -
of course, but i want TonyfromOz on the coal hour. mind u, he could be on that and the sceptics' one.
yet another Fairfax reporter who is deemed fit to report the following in a fair manner! ***fancy bringing up the 11 WWF-connected farmers again:
6 July: SMH: 'Your argument is weak': Climate scientists offer briefing to sceptical Liberal MPs Dennis Jensen and Chris Back
by Nicole Hasham, Environment and immigration correspondent
A group of top Australian researchers have offered to educate Liberal Party sceptics on the evidence of climate change, saying a push for Federal Parliament to re-examine the science is unnecessary and ignoring expert consensus may "imperil" the nation.
But Liberal MP Dennis Jensen claims those who say scientists have reached agreement on climate change are trying to avoid scrutiny of the data…
Among those who signed the letter were leading Great Barrier Reef researcher Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and ecologist Lesley Hughes, who is a member of both the Climate Council and the respected Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists…
***The plea from scientists follows an open letter from farmers calling on the Liberal Party to defeat the climate sceptic motion…
Professor Peter Newman, a signatory to the letter and a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the panel's research was an "exhaustive" process…
Professor Newman said MPs should "just deal with the politics, that's their job", adding "the scientists have done their job".
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/your-argument-is-weak-climate-scientists-offer-briefing-to-sceptical-liberal-mps-dennis-jensen-and-chris-back-20150706-gi5zl8.html
… the coal hour
You need a geologist for that, Pat
Bob Carter is a good nomination
To me it was always plausible that burning carbon would increase the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This is something that I had given little thought to until Murry Salby came along. I have two plots testing different hypothesis to determine what drives CO2 in the atmosphere.
The first is what the IPCC would have us all believe:
http://www.rickwill.bigpondhosting.com/CO2vCarbon.pdf
The second is what Murry Salby has demonstrated but using a simple correlation:
http://www.rickwill.bigpondhosting.com/CO2vTemp.pdf
Both charts use data from 1979 and it is readily available from the various measuring authorities. The temperature is UAH lower troposphere data.
The correlation coefficient of 0.52 for temperature driving CO2 is notably better than the 0.13 for anthropogenic carbon being the driver. The linear regression for the temperature as driver has an intercept at -0.9 indicating there is some likelihood that atmospheric CO2 will fall once the temperature anomaly is 0.9 degrees K below the 1978 to 1998 reference period.
Uh, so, Rick, what do you do when measurements don't support Salby's hypothesis?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1960/mean:12/integral/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960/mean:12/offset:-318
Temperature went down for 25 years but the CO2 still went up exponentially.
Your own graphs show temperature anomaly as both positive and negative, but the dCO2 is always positive, which is a pretty big clue.
You could ignore the evidence and go on sycophantically cheerleading for him, or you could dump the religion of Salbyism.
My chart indicates that the temperature needs to fall 0.9K below the 1978-1998 average before atmospheric CO2 begins to fall. Given the temperature is presently hovering 0.2K above the mean it needs to fall 1.1 degrees below the present level before the atmospheric CO2 starts to fall:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah
Until that occurs the CO2 will continue to rise.
Your hypothesis seems to imply that CO2 was at equilibrium with temperature in whatever year the world was 1.1 degrees below current level, and that the 1.1 degree rise has caused most of the subsequent 120ppmv rise in CO2, and that despite small annual fluctuations in temperature the CO2 is currently taking longer than 60 years to equilibrate to the 0.5 degree rise in temperature between 1910 and 1950.
Three problems with that.
Firstly, the last time world average sea temperature was anywhere near that low was more than 160 years ago, it is not in our post 1850 temperature records. Possibly in the depths of the Dalton Minimum in the 1790s, and by definition that was an unusually cold period, not a long term typical equilibrium condition.
Secondly, you have the fact that dCO2/dt is responsive to world temperature even within the same year as the temperature change, that's how fast the gas equilibrium is affected by ±0.2°C changes in the 1-year moving average. So on what basis should the CO2 *not* respond almost immediately to the 0.15 degree decrease in 5-year moving average over the 25 years after 1945? It's a contradiction. Does dCO2/dt respond to global temperature quicker than 5 years or not? Because if it doesn't then why is it observed to respond on annual timescales? If it does, your hypothesis can't be true because CO2 should have decreased after 1950. dCO2/dt was positive while dT/dt was negative on a 30 year time frame, so it wasn't temperature that was causing that.
Thirdly we have the Vostock ice cores, which show that on the exit from the last glaciation the average temperature went up by 4 degrees in about 1200 years, plenty of time for CO2 to reach equilibrium, yet the CO2 only went up 20ppmv. But I'll be generous and take the value at 4000BP as the final value, at +40ppmv from the start of that temperature rise. The equilibrium ratio between pCO2 change and temperature change can't be too much different than 10ppmv:1°. Maybe 20ppmv/degree at the most. But you are claiming a 1.1 degree rise has already caused a 120ppm rise in less than 150 years and hasn't finished rising. It just doesn't add up. The time scales for ice are different to MLO data and the ice cores don't have good temporal resolution on CO2, but if the ice core CO2 data is the average over a lengthy period then longer term average of the temperature should still match that ratio. It still doesn't add up.
I mean, that's aside from the observable fact that Salby's explanation violates conservation of mass, as previously outlined.
1. The "more than 160 years ago" is a reasonable fit for the CO2 data as the concentration fell from 1500 to around 1750:
http://s2.e-monsite.com/2009/11/30/64155072co2-south-pole-jpg.jpg
2. The Salby hypothesis is that the rate of change of CO2 is a function of the temperature:
dCO2/dt = T + constant
What my chart indicates is the constant is 1.1 degrees K below the current level. That means we should not expect to see CO2 fall until the temperature is 1.1 degrees lower than now. At no time through the 1950s was temperature more than 1.1 degrees K lower than present:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940
Therefore CO2 would continue to rise throughout that period albeit the rate of rise should be lower in the late 1940s due to temperature being around 1 degree lower than present.
3. The lowest temperature during an ice age is of the order of 8 degrees K lower than present:
http://www.rebresearch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/global_temperatures.jpg
At that temperature, based on the crossover from absorption to release being 1.1 degrees below present, the CO2 would still be getting absorbed until the temperature rose by 6.9 degrees K from the minimum.
Right, so you've proven Salby wrong.
1. The recent low point for CO2.
If CO2 fell from 1500 to 1750 then dCO2/dt was negative over that period. Fine. No reason it shouldn't be, as Henry's Law would predict.
2. The Salbyism formula.
There's got to be a scaling factor in there surely. If the function really is
dCO2/dt = a*T + k
then the moment that temperature rises above -k/a then the CO2 outgassing begins and it does not stop until the ocean is entirely devoid of CO2 (or the temperature drops below the zero point again). This is in violation of Henry's Law and simply cannot be true. An equilibrium will be reached and dCO2/dt will be zero even if the temperature does not ever decrease again.
Anyhow, you just adduced evidence that dCO2/dt was negative for the entire period from 1350 to 1750, then became positive for the whole time after 1750, and increased exponentially towards the end. You have also agreed that somewhere between 1750 to 1790 is when the balance point was last achieved and the temperature rise since then has caused most of the CO2 rise. But the centuries on both sides of 1750 were both warmer than this alleged 1750-1790 balance point [Moberg,Mann,Ljundqvist], so according to that function CO2 should have been rising for the whole of the period 1350-1750, the opposite of what actually happened. The formula is simplistic and doesn't match the measurements even in the period where human activity had no effect.
Trying to quantify the relation using that multiproxy temperature graph shows the CO2 decreased from 285ppmv to 280ppmv between 1350 and 1750, and over that time the temperature drop was around -0.25±0.05 degrees depending on proxy.
That's… wow… exactly 20ppmv/degree… the same as was estimated from the glacial termination!
So even during this much shorter and more recent period in earth's history we can see that the natural relationship between dCO2 and dT is pretty close to 20:1, at least according to ice core CO2.
Again this is completely inconsistent with the late 20th century, which is higher than the natural ratio would predict.
Now when I try to use the above SimpleSalby™ function to fit the data, using HadSST3 data since 1960 and using only decadal averages temperature, the linear regression is:
dCO2/decade = 19.744*T + 12.46
This implies dCO2/dt is zero at -0.63° relative to HadSST3′s 1961-1990 baseline.
You said the equilibrium was 1.1° below current level, which is 0.35-1.1=-0.75 on the HadSST3 chart, an error of only 0.12 which is quite close.
So on closer inspection, according to Moberg and Ljundqvist, only the Little Ice Age of 1600-1700 got cold enough to qualify as your equilibrium point, the 1790s weren't cold enough. This again shows the Salby theory is nonsense as an unusually cold period cannot be a long term equilibrium point.
3. >> "the CO2 would still be getting absorbed until the temperature rose by 6.9 degrees K from the minimum." !??
What a load of nonsense. You have just admitted that the temperatures during the transition out of the last glaciation into the Holocene were all lower than your stated equilibrium point (by as much as -6.9 degrees) and yet dCO2/dt was positive that whole time and CO2 was increasing, the opposite of what your Salby equation implies. Substitute -6.9 into your formula and you get -123ppmv/decade not the +0.166ppmv/decade shown in the ice cores. One of those two things must be false, and the CO2 increase did occur at temperatures more than 4 degrees lower than at present, so it's the equation that is nonsense.
And you're still ignoring conservation of mass, which establishes since 1950 there has been a net flow of carbon from the atmosphere into the oceans and biosphere, not the other way around. A 20th century warming would have created an increase in CO2 naturally, but that would be 15ppm, not 120ppm.
The trend line is a short term linear fit for recent data. I would not expect it to apply with same parameters for all time given the biological and chemical processes involved on a long term basis. That said the historical record shows that CO2 does fall rapidly once temperature drops one to two degree below the peaks of each interglacial period:
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/hansenFigure2.jpg
The correlation between change in CO2 and temperature over the last 40 years has significance. The correlation between annual carbon burnt and annual change in temperature over the same period has no correlation. That is the point I am making.
I have not ignored conservation of mass. I have not even considered it. I have simply shown there is a reasonable correlation between annual Change in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. I am note even making any conclusions about where the carbon comes from or goes to. It is simply that there is a good correlation between global temperature and change in CO2 in the atmosphere. There is a much less significant correlation between annual burnt carbon and change in CO2 in the atmosphere as well as zero correlation between annual burnt carbon and change in temperature. Forecasting the 2015 UAH temperature ends up 0.2 degrees above the reference period mean then increase in CO2 will be 2.1ppm.
Wayne Job
My reasoning on this is that CO2 in the atmosphere is not dependent on the global average temperature but on the average temperature of the ocean. With a long period of high solar activity the ocean warms, there has been a long run of high solar output so CO2 increases. The sun is now due for an extended holiday and the increase will slow then stop. My hope is that we can maintain high levels for the health of the planet.
The chart I produced shows reasonable dependency. That means there is some likelihood that change in CO2 IS dependent on global temperature. In fact SST is a subset of the global average temperature but with higher thermal inertia than air temperatures.
I have checked your hypothesis using NOAA 0-100m world ocean anomaly and get a similar correlation to the lower troposphere temperature:
http://www.rickwill.bigpondhosting.com/DeltaCO2vSST.pdf
In this case the correlation coefficient is 0.51 compared with 0.53 for the global temperature. Given data errors and possible time lags in the release processes the difference is not significant.
I have included the formula for the trend line on the chart. The intercept for no change in CO2 is 0.43 below the anomaly reference. The oceans are presently 0.3 above the mean so the ocean surface temperature needs to drop 0.7 degrees K from present levels for change in CO2 to fall to zero.
Jo! I've found the ironclad peer-reviewed evidence that concerns about rising CO2 are just psychological.
Unstable maternal environment, separation anxiety, and heightened CO2 sensitivity induced by gene-by-environment interplay.
D'Amato FR, Zanettini C, Lampis V, & co-authors.
[...]Cross-fostered pups showed significantly more ultrasonic vocalizations, more pronounced hyperventilatory responses (larger tidal volume and minute volume increments) to CO(2)-enriched air and heightened aversion towards CO(2)-enriched environments, than normally-reared individuals.
Obviously, all warmists were taken from their parents and given to foster parents at an early age.
Which means… the entire global warming crisis is the result of an enormous Stolen Generation!
(Some logical abduction may have occurred in this comment, but it is safely contained.)
There are more sceptics in New Zealand than anywhere else on the planet.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11472277
Congratulations to our cousins across the gap.
On further reading they are third behind Australia and Norway. Maybe we should pat ourselves on the back.
ianl8888 -
yes, Bob Carter would be great.
time to shed a tear!
Private Island Owners Fret About Climate Change
TIME – 15 hours ago
No man is an island when it comes to climate change — even if he owns one…
the google link to Time is broken, it seems; maybe Time pulled it cos Lovitt's pieces usually get pubished on NBC/MSNBC/CNBC:
5 July: NBC: Rob Lovitt: Some Private Island Owners Have Climate Change on
Their Minds
No man is an island when it comes to climate change — even if he owns one.
Famed illusionist David Copperfield is among the few handfuls of A-list celebrities and billionaire businessmen who own private islands around the world. But he's also part of an even more exclusive club: Island owners who say they are concerned about climate change and are making efforts to
address its impacts…
Sir Richard Branson, for example, is working to switch from diesel to renewable power on Necker Island, his private retreat in the British Virgin Islands. And Leonardo DiCaprio is in the process of restoring Blackadore Caye in Belize…
(Farhad Vladi, owner of Vladi Private Islands Ltd., in Hamburg) said the threat of climate change is ***unlikely to dampen enthusiasm, as anyone who can afford a private island can also afford the necessary steps to protect their investment: "They're aware of it but not overly concerned," he told NBC News…READ ON
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/real-estate/some-private-island-owners-have-climate-change-their-minds-n385961
no actual group of island owners, mind you and, according to Vladi, they probably aren't "overly concerned" anyway.
wipe those tears away.
'Sydney's run of exceptionally chilly mornings could become the city's coldest spell in more than three decades – and a return to milder conditions may be weeks away.
'The mercury dipped to 6 degrees on Monday morning, making it four days in a row of temperatures of 6.2 degrees or cooler.
'That's the longest run of such days for Sydney in 17 years and Tuesday morning is a chance to make it five days – a stint not seen since 1983, Brett Dutschke, senior meteorologist with Weatherzone, said.'
Hannam / SMH
To quote from Stalky and Co (Rudyard Kipling)
"Full confession on the left boot"
In your post
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/07/global-warming-to-destroy-sea-food-as-well/
I pointed out that the map was 1997.
Well over at
http://realclimatescience.com/2015/07/bill-gray-biggest-el-nino-since-1998/
I've been sprung quoting a Canadian sea surface map of about a year ago (link in there). It said "Daily" but days in Canada can't be that long.
Further research yields this as an annomation site
http://weather.gc.ca/saisons/animation_e.html?id=year&bc=sea
el gordo -
ignore the early winter, the freezing temperatures…we're totally doomed, according to the RED LIST CRITERIA!
6 July: Guardian: Oliver Milman: Climate change compounding threats to Australia's ecosystems, studies find
Changes in climate 'the most pervasive threat' to forests, wetlands and deserts, adding to harm caused by urban development, agriculture and invasive species
The research is the first of its kind to assess Australian ecosystems based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's benchmark Red List criteria which has, until recently, focused on the status of individual animal and plant species rather than whole landscapes…
Under the Red List criteria, eight of the studied Australian ecosystems would be classified as "endangered" or "critically endangered", with just the Lake Eyre wetlands considered in the "least concern" category.
Professor David Keith of the University of NSW, who led the international team to expand the Red List to ecosystems, said the Australian study, which he also led, shows that climate change is leaving its imprint on vast swaths of the environment…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/06/climate-change-compounding-threats-to-australias-ecosystems-studies-find
The compilation and production of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ would not be possible without the financial support of many donors. IUCN would like to thank all the donors who have generously provided funds to support this work, and in particular would like to acknowledge the ongoing financial support from The Rufford Foundation and the MAVA Foundation for Nature Conservation (MAVA Stiftung für Naturschutz / Fondation pour la Protection de la Nature) that enable the production of the IUCN Red List.
In addition to considerable ongoing support provided by all the IUCN Red List Partners, other major donors to the Red List assessment process include the Moore Family Foundation; the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation; the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund; ***THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION; the Esmee Fairburn Foundation; ***THE FRENCH MINISTRY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (DgCiD – Direction generale de la Cooperation internationale et du Developpement); and the MacArthur Foundation. Further details about the specific contributions of these and other donors are included under the acknowledgement sections for the different assessment projects (see under Contributors) LINK.
(CLICK ON THE CONTRIBUTORS LINK & U GET "We're sorry, the page you were looking for does not exist."
http://www.iucnredlist.org/
(PLUS MORE CONNECTIONS – MICROSOFT, TEXAS A & M UNIVERSITY, CONSERVATIONAL INTERNATIONAL ETC – AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE)
btw for my proposed ABC Science Show 4-part series, we would have 4-6 individuals/organisations as guests on EACH program, all advocating on behalf of fossil fuels, for the oil, gas & coal programs. Minerals Council would be an ideal addition to Bob Carter for the coal one, for example. then we would need 4-6 CAGW sceptics for the fourth program.
SO MANY ORGANISATIONS, SO MANY CAUSES, SO FEW PROTESTERS:
5 July: Toronto Star: Tamara Khandaker: March for Jobs, Justice and Climate draws on allies for a clean-energy revolution
from Photo caption: Fonda calls the Toronto rally 'historic.'
Thousands march through downtown representing diverse environmental, union, anti-poverty, health, faith and aboriginal causes.
David Suzuki, Jane Fonda, Naomi Klein and Joel Plaskett marched loudly through downtown Toronto on Sunday, along with thousands of others: an eclectic coalition of unionists, environmentalists, anti-poverty groups, faith organizations, health care workers, and leaders from frontline First Nations communities…
The priorities on the signs they carried might have seemed jumbled and conflicting…
Protesters, some 10,000 according to one estimate…
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/07/05/march-for-jobs-justice-and-climate-draws-on-allies-for-a-clean-energy-revolution.html
Toronto Star: Photo Gallery: 13 Pics March for Jobs Justice and Climate
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/07/05/march-for-jobs-justice-and-climate.html
google "March for Jobs, Justice and Climate" & click Images – not a single pic showing any numbers larger than pic 2 of 13 in above photo galllery.
in other words, a complete flop.
Ag White Paper
'The Greens' agriculture spokeswoman Senator Rachel Siewert said the absence of climate change considerations from the White Paper meant the document was "fundamentally flawed".
'She also flagged concern about the environmental impact of major dam expansions, which she says "doesn't seem to be factored into the thinking" in the White Paper.
"But more importantly, they haven't considered the impact of climate change on water supply and dams," she said.
"Of course we need to be bettered prepared for drought, but drought isn't the only thing that we address in climate change. Extreme weather events need to be factored in properly, planning for what our agriculture will look like in a drying climate and in a changing climate, but that's not there," she said.
"(As for) the significant investment investment that's needed in R&D, while (the White Paper) put a little bit more in, it's not enough to address how our agriculture is going to change under climate change.
"Climate change will shape the future of agriculture and it is fundamentally missing in here. The fact that it's not acknowledged says a lot about where this government's head is at."
I also note the letter is addressed to "Dear Julie Bishop". No manners for Greens and "progressives" (aka Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Pol Pot, the Kym Dynasty – mass murderers all). Teaching children to address Ms Bishop by her first name is just plain bad manners. Then again, when they take over, as they have and know the Truth, we will all be "comrade". Of course some comrades will have more privileges than other comrades, but that's how "progressive" systems work. Or will it be "earthian"?
'The Coalition's emissions reduction fund is likely to cut Australia's greenhouse gases by about 11% by 2025, far less than the expected target the government is soon to unveil, according to a new analysis.
'The $2.55bn in the emissions reduction fund, the centrepiece of the Coalition's direct action climate plan, could be exhausted within 18 months, rendering the policy toothless unless further money is committed, energy market analysts RepuTex said.'
Milman / Guardian
Summer rainfall increasing in Britain.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/actualmonthly/14/Rainfall/UK.gif
A sign of regional cooling.
Its only weather but…..
'Shanghai recorded its lowest temperature in 145 years on Monday, with the mercury dipping to 17.3 degree Celsius, close to the historic maximum temperature of 15.9 degree Celsius on July 2, 1876, according to wenhui.news365.com.cn.
'The day's high was 21.2 degree Celsius, paralleling with that on July 6, 1903, and the average temperature was 18.9 degree Celsius, making it the lowest average temperature in July in 142 years since 1873.
'Meteorologist Zhang Ruiyi said the record low temperature is a result of days of rains under cold air mass as the city is in the middle of the monsoon season.'
South-East Queensland to receive Antarctic blast.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/antarctic-air-mass-to-send-south-east-queensland-temperatures-plummeting/326125
Turtle on 57 Bushfire Inquiries isn't enough. We need one more for leaders to hide behind


The Raiden Network is an off-chain transfer network for Ethereum ERC20 tokens.
It provides a fast, scalable, and cheap alternative to on-chain token transfers.
At the same time, the Raiden Network transfers provide users with guarantees of finality, security, and decentralization similar to those known from blockchains.


As we MELT, we always begin indirectly from areas where we sense pain. Tenderness or achiness in the area is okay; pain is not. Why? We don't cause pain to decrease pain.
For example, just last week I broke a bone in my left foot.
I will not MELT close to the break until the area is not painful, but in the meantime, I've been MELTing my calves, thighs, upper back, hands, arms, the other foot, etc.
Do an Assessment at the beginning of your session to check-in with where you are sensing stuck-stress and Reassess at the end to track your improvements. Assess and Reassess heightens our body-sense (proprioception) and teaches us which moves or sequences are most effective for our body.


The refrigerator Combination supplier https://www.coolerdepotusa.com/products/front_index/100056/Combination is one of those wonders of modern life that has changed life completely. Before refrigeration, the only way to preserve food as meat was salt, and frozen drinks in the summer were a real luxury.
Nowadays, most homes have a refrigerator or other to keep food and drinks fresh and fresh. Over the years, refrigerators have evolved from a simple refrigerator with a few shelves to much more complex models with many functions. The basic idea of ??a refrigerator is very simple: it uses the evaporation of a liquid to absorb the heat. Although it is still possible to buy a low cost refrigerator with a limited interior design, most manufacturers manufacture high quality refrigerators with all the advanced features they can offer. These can range from improved exterior moldings to flexible shelving and new changes in interior storage properties.
The idea of ??keeping food cold is not a new concept. Today, more than 99.5% of households have a refrigerator. Although refrigerators are common in most homes, they are still a relatively new invention.
At first, people kept their food fresh in many ways. They had to be creative and use their natural environment. People used many methods, such as placing food in streams, hiding in caves and creating underground cellars to "cool down."
Many people cut the ice in winter and store it in refrigerators and cellars. He could stay salty for a long time to cover the top. The first device that looked like the refrigerator was called a refrigerator. They were simply wooden boxes lined with a kind of metal. The refrigerators were developed before the 19th century.
- A loose hose connection on the back of the unit prevents water from entering the unit.
- The probe arm is blocked and prevents the formation of ice.
- The heating, which is necessary so that the ice cubes do not freeze, turns on every few minutes. If the ice maker stays on for too long due to a malfunction or incorrect setting, it will become too hot to produce ice.
If any of the above problems occur, contact a refrigerator dealer as soon as possible.
People buy ice cream and store it in the fridge. As the ice melted slowly, many of these refrigerators had a drip tray. These drip trays were easily removed and then discharged. Before the actual development of the refrigerators, numerous studies were carried out on the refrigeration concept. Dr. William Cullen, a pioneer of refrigeration, conducted his first studies in the eighteenth century and observed how liquids evaporate in empty environments.
The first refrigerator was developed in 1876 by a German engineer named coolerdepotusa.com. He has developed the concept of converting large quantities of fluid into gas to keep the cold environment defined. In 1920, many companies manufactured different models of refrigerators. Many companies have also worked on the idea of ??combining refrigerators and freezers of refrigerators.
Over time, refrigerators have become what we know today. You can buy many types of refrigerators, for example. Small models for bedrooms, contiguous models and economic models with the freezer below. Regardless of the type of refrigerator you choose, there is a model that suits your needs and your budget. They also come in a variety of prices, and it all depends on how much money you want to spend on them. From the oldest model, like the most modern refrigerator from side to side, refrigerators have become a practical device that no one can do without.