Excuse my ignorance James, but what's a 'warmist'? I don't know this word and it's not in my dictionary.

There is something that can be done so we do not leave our grandchildren and our great grandchildren with a bitter legacy. We can look at the social, political and cultural change needed to face up to the reality that continued and indefinite growth is not possible without dire social and environmental implications. The unknown is where is the tipping point, Some would say we have already passed it. The sooner we face up to this and develop new sustainable economic models we can move towards leaving a not so bitter legacy.

A warmist is the person standing closest to the fire.

Well, without examining the merits of such a posit, what I was stating is that a viable solution must be found prior to making such posits.

Consider what has happened. As the author rightly points out, the alarm of our impending doom has been 'shouted for the mountaintops' for well over 20 years. But, what accompanied the prognostication of doom was our supposed salvation. Renewable energy!

And, that's where much of the difficulty comes into play. Many people, including myself stated this wasn't possible. And, we gave a plethora of reasons why not. The games of shooting the messenger commenced. And, still today this continues. The warmists (see definition in response to Michael below) continued to insist that things such as wind and solar could save the day. They've done this for over 20 years.

Time, energy, resources, innovation, all have been expended moving toward these impossible goals. The populous of the world was asked to believe a group of people which were clearly not founded in the realities of the physical world. How is it that we should believe the energy calculations of the globe when they can't demonstrate they understand the physical constrains of electricity, a form of energy?

Today, there are a few things which are clear. One, for whatever reason, the world will not unite in an effort to combat this alleged crisis. Two, even if the world did decide to unite, regardless of the approach, the globe will double GHG concentrations over the supposed baseline of CO2 280 ppm and other gases. And three, the Quixotic pursuit of renewables has been an utter waste of time. It is starting to appear that more GHGs were expended in creating these things than what they could save over the life time of the whirlygigs and pinwheels.

As stated earlier, I don't share the distress over GHGs, but, if I did, I'd be pretty bitter about these 'solutions" being pushed upon the public. They're much of the reason why the posit has been rejected by the globe.

We'll get there
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/02/06/twin-solar-thermal-plants-commence-operation-in-spain/

100 MW project with energy storage (and they said it couldn't be done).

If you take North Korea as one end of an extreme and the other end as the USA, I think that you will find that neither are working, both 3rd world and neither admitting it.

That's very good Alan ... I might pinch that. And I will start looking for further similarities between these apparently polar opposites.

Must admit North Korea is pretty weird though... all that labor intensive plasma TV with people and bits of cardboard... seems a rather hard way to go about it.

I agree that this is a pointless article. Its message, shorn of the angry frustration, is: let's give up, and let destruction happen. I'm more optimistic, and think that we will overcome some of those problems in time. And the fiery furnace projection of AGW is quite unlikely, in my judgment. So I'll go about my life without too much gloom and doom, unworried that my children and grandchildren will think that I have left them a 'bitter legacy'.

Did any of my generation, incidentally, think that our parents and grandparents had left us a bitter legacy as we moved through the possibilities of nuclear holocaust, overpopulation, silent springs and war? Where did all this apocalyptic stuff come from?

I agree the bitter legacy discourse is emotive nonsense. When asked the question by imaginary grandchildren wallowing in their bitterness "Pops / Nanny what did you do during the great climate change inaction that destroyed our home planet Gaia Prime?"

"Oh sweet heart I was one of the good guys, I posted on websites and was part of the great blogohrea fight back!"

Don Aitkin,

Excellent point. Clear thinking. Cuts through the reilious beliefs to get to reality.

1. AGW is not catastrophic or dangerous. In fact, it may well be net beneficial up to about 2 C. Bryongd that jist just a minor net cost, perhaps 0.1% of GDP.

2. If higher CO2 concentratiosn delay or prevent us sinking into the next ice age that is good (the natural cycle is already past the peak for this interglacial - we are on the cooling trend. Transition to very cold temperatures can occur very rapidly - in a decade or two as happened in the Younger Dryas. Who is taking these sort of catastrophic risks into account?

3. We will transition to low emissions technologies as the cnetury progresses. However, we will only do it when it is economically rational to do so. Therefore, ntil the Greens and so called environmentalists stop blocking nuclear power, there will be little progress. It is the Greens and so called environmentalits that are blocking progress because of their ideological beliefs. They've been blocking progress for at least 50 years..

There seems to be a sense in some of the posts that the planet can support indefinite growth in consumption and population. The reality is that it can not. The unknown is the timing. We can continue on our current trajectory and see what happens or we can be proactive and try to develop some different economic and social models.

OK Mr Lang.

Let's look under the hood of your Cost Benefit Analysis a bit....

(1) When you say that increased CO2 might cost 0.1% of Global Domestic Product (I assume you mean something like that) whose GDP are we talking about? Is this just an overall global average? So who wins? Who loses? Some places according to your analysis will benefit from a slight CO2 warming - others won't. By how much?

See it's that old joke isn't it ...for an economist if you have your head in a fridge and your feet in an oven you remain, on average, comfortable and relaxed. To quote Tim Curtin, nothing that needs correction.

At what point is the switch to renewables "economically feasible" ... where is the break even point? For whom?

Let's start there.

USA v Korea as polar opposites, possibly but not as some suspect. The single largest line item in the US Federal budget (and that doesn't include all the state and municipal welfare budgets) is Welfare, the largest expenditure, by far, in the North Korean Budget (guess here as the numbers are not exactly forthcoming) is the military.

As to the other argument people often bring up to demonstrate extremes, Nazis being on the right and Communists on the left, as Hayek points out, NAZIism is National SOCALISM. As to Capitalism, that's my neighbour and me trading a chicken for a couple bottles of jam with no Government interference, throw in the private ownership of land and that is Capitalism, long may it live. I will never understand people using the USA to represent Capitalism, they're as far from Capitalism as Cuba is, no matter the rhetoric of their representatives.

Strange concept that. If the brake pads on my car are worn out and I can't afford new ones I will drive through red lights because it isn't "economically feasible" to stop.
Likewise we will keep burning fossil fuels because it isn't "economically feasible" to do other wise, no matter what the consequences.
Or will build nuclear reactors even though the waste is extremely dangerous, and we will leave it laying around for about 250,000 years, because we don't know how to or it isn't "economically feasible" to dispose of it safely, or we leave the problem to future generations, so we can sit in over air-conditioned Mcmansions watching crap on our plasma TV's.
Or we do nothing because it isn't "economically feasible", without considering the alternative which could be destruction of of life as we know it, but we won’t worry about that because it isn't "economically feasible".

That's bullshit mate. The universe is constantly growing, expanding, spreading, enlarging... been doing it for billions of years.

And by following the principle of "the macrocosm within the microcosm" with regard to the fractal nature of reality, we can also see that it is correct and proper and good for our economy to constantly grow and expand and spread and enlarge.

I think you've completly misunderstood what you're talking about, the universe is expanding (possibly it will expand forever), but the conventional wisdom is that the matter and/or energy contained within is finite. If the universe does expand forever eventually all the stars will expend all their fuel and the universe will be unable to sustain life as we know it.

Nothing can grow forever without eventually consuming all the resources available, you are mistaken if you believe otherwise.

I dream of a future where mankind conquers. A world beyond the shackles of ecology, where we live by the power of our mind, past the slavery that ecosystems have locked us into. A future completed by our intelligent consumption of Earths’ resources, one were we have built a utopia befitting our status as the rulers of the Earth and beyond. Free of the restrictive grip that incomprehensible Earth systems have over our progress to Godness. Where we have taken the past and made a future. A climate controlled and blended to our will.
Imagine a pristine and relaxed society with machines and engines giving service, powerfully and unflinchingly. Where we have consumed resources beyond any need and have dominated the march of evolution rather than being dominated by it. A self replenishing ark, a biotape we have designed, that slaves to us. No work other than to direct our everlasting future in a pristine relaxing environment. Free, so we are able to indulge in frolics of pleasure, with no purpose other than the quest of ever expanding our knowledge.
We sure ain’t going to do it by hugging every tree we pass.
Now Peter Ormonde, you will not be able to run. I will chase you across the blogosphere until you answer the question you cannot. After all, I educated you about planetary harmonics. No?
Name the scientific literature that proves AGW addressing these three areas? I’m not asking you to explain something, just show me the peer reviewed proof, because I am wise and sceptical person, if you tell me where the papers are, I will digest them myself and then would be able to understand why I, like you, should be a BELEIVER in AGW.
1. Empirical - That which we can see, hear, record, or write down. A measurement of observation from the natural world.
2. Related to CAUSE and EFFECT. That means evidence that shows that our extra carbon caused most of the recent warming. Not just evidence that the world has got warmer (which could be due to some other reason).
3. Evidence that shows carbon has a major role that doubling the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide would cause, say, 2 – 10 degrees of warming.
You can even let your BELEIVER mates Alex Cannara and Michael Wilbur-Ham give you a hand if they can stay of the pills long enough. It might take a while though to find the scientific literature specific to the above three points.

Markus ...

Too much Star Trek, not enough Pills.

Too much making Stuff up, not enough Reading

Otherwise you'd Know - being wise - how to Spell "believe". Yet not Do it. This Stuff you don't Understand.

Your word-salading suggests that You are not taking your Meds Markus and that you are Drinking. and Not sleeping, which is why You Drink.

Please get some professional help Markus. And I mean that sincerely. Psychosis is not something to play with, sorry, Play with...! Maybe your Friends will help. Maybe not.

Markus, your irrational rants here do nothing but make you look silly. While you and other deniers try to rewrite physics, the problems get worse. Your self-proclaimed dyslexia and total lack of understanding of mathematics are apparent in every word you write. Stick the the weird denier blogs you poor, sad thing. Let the grown-ups talk.

Well played sir!

Well, that is an interesting fantasy markus.
But for the moment and probably some time into the future - we are dependent on the climate and the ecosystem for our survival - and probably shouldn't be changing them too much.

Don’t like fantasy? Then let’s consider some sobering facts.
Almost half the world — over three billion people — live on less than $2.50 a day. According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.
Around 27-28 percent of all children in developing countries are estimated to be underweight or stunted. In developing countries some 2.5 billion people are forced to rely on biomass—fuel-wood, charcoal and animal dung—to meet their energy needs for cooking. Indoor air pollution resulting from the use of solid fuels is a major killer. It claims the lives of 1.5 million people each year, more than half of them below the age of five: that is 4000 deaths a day. To put this number in context, it exceeds total deaths from malaria and rivals the number of deaths from tuberculosis. 1.6 billion people — a quarter of humanity — live without electricity:
Peter Ormondes statement, “No such thing as a free lunch ... we just must learn to consume less and produce more... not with machines and engines, with our hands, with work, along with the authors “Specifically, we Australians and others from wealthy countries will have to reduce our consumption to levels that could be sustainably adopted by all Earth’s people, as in the “shrink and share” proposal. It could very well mean a steep decline in cherished practices like air and even car travel, perhaps even serious shopping. But if it is the best way to maintain a planet we can still live on, surely it’s worth it?”, are fantasies.
They are ignoramuses who think in a narrow dimension of self. What planet are they living on? They consider the Earth and her resources sacrosanct and policies that develop low cost fossil fuel energy sacrilege.
Why would anybody think they can save the world from the ravages of underdevelopment by restricting the development of the western world and the flow on to those most in need?
It is a fantasy that they would consider it a moral imperative to save the world from a mystical and unproven theory of AGW that, even if true, has questionable consequences? There could very well be a net benefit to ecosystems. Peter Ormonde should consider the increased numbers of the mob that visits his paddocks, mine has grown 3 times to 42 members during this current La Nina system, and I’ve had 2 burn-backs. For 2012, Australian adult cattle slaughter is forecast to total 7.55 million head - an increase of 3.1% on the estimated 7.325 million head in 2011, in a tight rebuilding environment.
I want the benefit of development of the Earth’s energy resources for all the world’s children including mine and theirs. By inhibiting fossil fuel supply we are restricting the third world’s chance of progress to population growth. Just how much smarts does Peter think that policy is?
In the 14 hours since this article was posted 1195 children have died from the lack of modern and clean fossil fuel energy generation to cook their meals. None have died from the effects from a changing climate. I might be a fantasist but I did not graduate from the University of East Wanker.These blokes are no better than the German academics of 1935.
Read this; http://phys.org/news/2012-06-urgent-climate-lake-eyre-region.html and then this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/29/climate-alarmists-target-the-arabunna-people-with-no-evidence/ and tell me again who is psychotic and deluded.

Peter, it is telling that this person hides behind a pseudonym to launch his attacks. Many of his comments on other climate related articles on The Conversation have now been deleted by the mod - many of them showed a person (as you say) who is in serious need of help.

If anyone knows who this markus fitzhenry is, please try to get him to seek help. There has been too much pain caused to scientists by anonymous extremists and I would hate to see this man's actions escalate beyond the hate-filled rants and threats to people posting here.

I do not hide behind any pseudonym as you suggest 'physicist' and my attacks are no more than retorts to insidious name calling. Go back over the threads, the mods have removed the original comment then my reply.

So; http://media.photobucket.com/image/albert%20einstein/slamchick440/albert-einstein.jpg?o=20

The volume of your works can be found where?

"There has been too much pain caused to scientists by anonymous extremists and I would hate to see this man's actions escalate beyond the hate-filled rants and threats to people posting here." Are you one of the "physicists" from the ANU.

Don't worry Markus the Carbon Tax Wrecking Ball will start strangling the Australian economy tomorrow like a cobra apparently ... the beginning of the End of the World. Life will never be the same again.

And the TV weather man up here is predicting a cold night and snow on the tops - as if! I believe nothing he says - he just says this for the money and political gain...

Children. Theirs and yours? As if !... "By inhibiting fossil fuel supply we are restricting the third world’s chance of progress to population growth." Oh dear.

Deeply unhinged Markus. Use that thick Alcan foil - not the cheap Chinese stuff ... too thin and lets in those special messages that only you can hear. And make sure the helmet covers your ears.

Good luck for tomorrow.

I call BS.

'markus fitzhenry' is not your real name.

I will of course apologise if you are able to provide any evidence that I am wrong.

I'm the one calling BS 'physicist'.
You can can ask any one of these individuals if my real name is real;http://www.linkedin.com/reg/webmail-connect-entry?goback=.nmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1&batchID=10481460&importerProvider=GOOGLE&goback=.nmp_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1&flow=1qbwqgl-18p591w
Also, contact this organisation; http://www.climate-sceptics.com/ my membership number is 814.
I'm in Sydney this weekend, you can meet me in person here;http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/anti-carbon-tax-rallies/
Now be fair, about your work, I can find it where?

Be a good girl, Peter, go and water your orchids. You are hopeless at throwing insults.

Thanks for that Markus, that's a very genuine compliment if unintended.

I've noticed that when you are hurling insults you tend to call them girls or change their names to girls' names.

Now thisis a bit difficult if you are going to have children Markus - most of the time it involves being in close proximity to women, talking to them, and much much worse.

It's probably quite unlikely that this will ever occur while you regard describing someone as a woman as being a severe insult.

Just something to think about.

Thanks for the CV member 814 ... a real hoot, dripping with ability and achievement... just imagine how it will be looking when you are 30 in only a few more years, when you have a happy family and the Nobel - the first one.

You are becoming sillier by the minute. The orchid propenol must be getting up your nose.

Markus, my sincere apologies. I see you are a bookkeeper at Helifix Australia.

Crop failures - like the one in eastern Africa that is causing the latest famines.

That is how climate change can kill people in the developed world.

Less reliable weather patterns - unseasonable rain - more floods - more droughts. And you just know the effects are going to fall disproportionally on the poor.

More violent storms. Hail. Frost. Strong Winds. Crop failures.

Don't kid yourself Robert and don't try to kid others. I see you left off a few other positions. But what could one expect from a bloke who calls himself a physicist when he is not. I'm still calling BS and I know I won't have to apologise. Why do you lie Robert?

When you and your trolling mate Robert Ormonde address the topic rather than me, other readers here might have some respect for you. As it is, I've have easily knocked both of you out.

How about a response to my statement? "In the 14 hours since this article was posted 1195 children have died from the lack of modern and clean fossil fuel energy generation to cook their meals. None have died from the effects from a changing climate. I might be a fantasist but I did not graduate from the University of East Wanker.These blokes are no better than the German academics of 1935."

How about you explain your complicity in the misery of so many humans on this Planet in the here and now? I find you to be pathetic Mr would be 'physicist'.

"More violent storms. Hail. Frost. Strong Winds. Crop failures."

Back to reality for a minute or two Gary.

Floods, droughts and climate change
Alexander, W J R
S. Afr. J. Sci./Suid-Afr. Tydskr. Wet. Vol. 91, no. 8, pp. 403-408. Aug. 1995

"Observations of apparent cyclicity of climatic extremes - floods and droughts - are as old as civilization itself. As all climatological processes are driven by the redistribution of solar energy, it is natural to search for explanations of the observed anomalies in solar radiation. The only available long-term indicator of perturbations in solar radiation is the sunspot counts. In this presentation it is shown that there is an uncanny correspondence between cumulative deviations from the mean annual river flow for most river systems in South Africa and cumulative deviations from the mean annual sunspot numbers. This correspondence is not as apparent in the annual rainfalls over the catchments, however, or in the Southern Oscillation Index. There is no visual evidence in the graphical relationships that the annual Southern Oscillation Index precedes annual river flow or precedes annual catchment rainfall as one would expect to be the case if the El Nino phenomenon was the cause and not a consequence of global climatic disturbances. As there is a stronger linkage between solar activity and annual river flow than between solar activity and annual rainfall, or between solar activity and the Southern Oscillation Index, it appears that perturbations in solar activity are affecting the phenomena that control the extreme events (runoff-producing rainfall, floods and droughts) rather than the mean conditions. More studies will be required to determine the validity of this conclusion."

In other words, it's the Sun stupid. Concentrations of Co2 in atmosphere do not drive the frequency of extreme weather events. Note the paper explains 'perturbations in solar activity rather than the mean conditions' those mean conditions include atmospheric mass and composition whatever their timescale of change.

markus fitzhenry: "... it's the Sun stupid ..."
If you can point me to the climate science papers you've had published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, I might take your opinion seriously. For myself, I freely acknowledge my ignorance of the subject.
After doing my own due diligence, I came to the conclusion that I don't understand enough to credibly judge the science. From what I've seen, the same can be said of anyone who isn't formally qualified in Climate Science. Given the complexity and ongoing developments, anyone not currently active in the field is less credible.
I'm therefore left to judge the scientists. Given that independent studies, employing different methodologies, produced similar findings (to paraphrase) of the best qualified; 97% agree that we face substantial risks, for which humanity is probably responsible, 1% disagree and 2% aren't sure.
On the side of those denying either the risks or our culpability, I see little credible support. For example; one of their favourites is the so-called Oregon Petition of 31,000 signatures. Amusingly, if we look at the target demographic, that petition managed to attract signatures from less than 0.1%. 31,000 may be a big number, but 0.1% is a tiny proportion. http://www.skepticalscience.com/meet-the-denominator.html
Some of the best minds on the planet have warned about the severity of the risks we face:-
Carl Sagan: "... Venus is an ominous reminder that in a world rather like the earth, things can go wrong. There is no guarantee that our planet will always be so hospitable."
Stephen Hawking: "We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees C ...".
For younger readers; Carl Sagan was arguably the best mind this planet has ever produced, when it comes to understanding the dynamics of planetary atmospheres. His perspective extended beyond our home planet. If memory serves, he headed the science team on the Mariner missions to Mars.
Given the overwhelming support of the scientific community and the magnitude of the risks, would any sane and decent person oppose prudent precautions?

Markus

You should not be embarrassed about being a bookeeper. It is a fine job to have.Some one has to do the paperwork for what the productive employees do.

What I'd really like to know if where you received your other qualifications - the BB.L.and B.Phil.?

And what exactly is a BB.L?

What sort of data would you like? What would convince you?

It seems Peter Bruce is incapable of either reading or understanding science. If you don't want to accept the word of the IPPC then Peter, why don't you look at the reference list that is used for the IPCC reports, then go away and read all the papers. There are hundreds of them, but obviously that won't be enough to convince you because you have already made up your mind. CO2 church huh?

And pray tell us, what is the expertise and what qualifies you do 'make up your own mind' on such a complex issue, even if you had access to the 'raw data'? Would you know enough about how to use it?

Or how about you ask someone like Richard Muller of the BEST project? He wans't convinced either. But then he got access to the 'raw data' - and lo and behold, the scientists were right all along!

I wonder what you would say to me if I came into your office and told you that you don't know what you are doing and I want access to the 'raw data', because obviously you and every other software engineer in the world is on some sort of gravy train to distort the truth.

But if you want some 'raw data', how about you go to the BOM website and download the temperature data for every station in Australia over the last 50 years or so and see what it is telling you. It's freely available you know. But of course, make sure you know what you are looking at and that you know what, if any, adjustments to apply.

Thanks Peter for your scientific response.

If you can get me the complete data file of global atmospheric temperature readings collected over the last 20 years that would be great.
I am after raw data, place time and temperature.

As to the other responses to my post:
I have been a database professional for 25 years. In that time I have produced tens of thousands of reports, many of these were flawed because of the specifiers requirements. Many more were misrepresented. Many datasets already had "uncomfortable" spikes deleted.

Most of this misuse of data was to suit a predetermined agenda and many of the minions involved had no idea they were being manipulated.

If the data supports the concensus then I'm in, but not before.

As to my scientific qualifications:
Peter has responded with an offer of proof. That's exactly what I am after.

I notice that no one has provided an answer to the questions I asked, yet prefer to jump on me for being scientifically sceptical.

I though science was about providing solutions and religion was about faith.

Perhaps you could explain why big chunks are falling off the Antarctic?.
Why you can sail through the Artic every year, when in a 100 years of Artic exploration that only occurred once and was limited to one area?.
Why nearly all the worlds glaciers are in retreat?.
Why the permafrost is melting in the Artic circle?.
Why the Greenland Icecap is retreating?.
Why birds, animals and insects are relocating higher up mountains because their normal habitat is warming?.
Why Europe is experiencing colder winters because there are more Artic icebergs and thereby cooling the Gulf Stream?.
These are all real happening events not some theory or a computer model, you don't need raw data, just Google it, its all there.

Alan,

Polar warming see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

You will find that CO2 is a minor player compared to CFCs.

And yes I have been collating data from the BOM, not an easy task I might add. The data interface is designed for one station in a given year. There are many stations and many years to do.

I have no doubt that mankind is looting the planet. I would like to see effective measures taken, not knee jerk nonsense that in all probabilty will provide nothing other than employment. The CO2 options are there, but they are not being taken up.

There seems to be a bucket of money in C02 and not much in CFC elimination, nuclear base load generation of hyrdogen powered vehicles.

Don't you smell a rat too?

Try this lot ... the US bas es its main temperature anaylsis on the data from this database both NASA's Goddard Centre and the National Climatic Data Centre ... pretty kosher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Historical_Climatology_Network

As you go back the number of measurements (and their bonafides most likely) get a bit "rubbery" but the last 60 years worth is pretty comprehensive and decent.

Hope that helps.

Let me know if it doesn't.

Thanks Peter,

Looks like what I'm after.

I'll load it up and play.

Cheers

Peter,

Hydrogen is an energy vector no different to electricity. It is not an energy source. It is also highly inefficient at this point in time due to the energy required to convert (and store it (either compression or liquefaction).

The one real advantage hydrogen does have over electricity is that it can be stored whereas its a lot harder to store electricity. But until such a time that our power is sourced from clean technologies - it is far from a solution of any sort.

A rat?

No - I smell some arrogant fool who clearly hasn't done any research and just arrives at a forum and starts making vile accusations against good people.

What do you think this is - the Bolt report? Where some idiot who is too weak and cowardly to take a position of his own just throws mud at others?

Pull your head in and show some respect.

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for your response. Up until a few weeks ago I would have agreed with you 100%.

I sat with a good friend who explained how our electricity supply works.

Power stations bid to supply in 30 minute segments. Some operators will look for a higher price and miss out on "plugging in", some will settle for a lower price and get to sell more of the energy they generate. When the wind generators come on line they are guaranteed to supply the grid.

Solar input is negligible.

So at any one time numerous stations are generating and not supplying.

I think that hydrogen generation would be an ideal way to use this wasted electricity. There are many challanges to surmount and establishing the supply chain is a major hurdle.

BMW released their Hyrdogen 7 a few years ago, but alas there only a few fueling points. Many manufacturers are working on hydrogen propulsion and quite a fewe prototypes are out there.

I see a very simple solution. Nuclear power generation and hydrogen or battery powered or battery cars.

Also Peter,

With the BMW Hydrogen 7 which incidentally was released about the same time I was working on our own hydrogen car and shares the similarity of being a hydrogen ICE rather than fuel cell car.... if you read the wiki entry on it, you will find many issues which halted it from mass production beyond just refuelling infrastructure.

The hydrogen was stored in a specialised tank at cryogenic temperatures to maintain the hydrogen in liqued form so enough hydrogen could be stored to get a decent range. H2 fuel consumption rates were 50l/100km.

If the car is parked and not driven, over a period of 10-12 days all the hydrogen basically gets vented from the tank. This is because although the tank is heavily insulated, over time it warms, the hydrogen expands and vapourises and in order to prevent it from exploding, BMW engineers designed it to safely vent. Far from practical would you not agree?

Yes, impractical. Alas.

Thanks for you knowledge. It is very much appreciated.

Perhaps the fuel cell will prove to be workable.

And thank you for your years of research.

Peter

Lol, Peter, take care to note, the raw data isn't exactly "raw". The GHCN has several versions. While most here would scream to high heaven about this site, you should go here... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/22/comparing-ghcn-v1-and-v3/

Be sure to read the discussion which follows. There are actually different versions of the same versions.

Thanks James,

I am used to truely raw data, that which has come from the instrument.

I have visisted the GHCN site and their deifinition of "raw" does not match mine.

I may sound like a data Nazi, and yes, I am. I will try to the best of my ability to be objective and impartial.

What sort of "raw data" would you like Peter?

The revisions of the GHCN database are due to uploading print records, as I understand - old stuff in the main. How does this reduce the value of the data for you... particularly the last 20 years?

Peter, it's a silly game these deniers play. They pretend the data is not available, so you give it to them. They then say the raw data isn't really raw data, even when it is. Even when their paid shills at the BEST project prove the data is valid, they deny it. They are fake skeptics, worthy only of derision.

Peter Bruce, good luck. I once set out on a similar excursion with tidal gauge measurements. I believe you will find a time on your journey in which you won't be able to operate on pure objectivity. At some point, a subjective judgment will be required to move forward. The cause is mostly because of lack of continuity and coverage.

While it is an incredibly frustrating experience, it is also very illuminating.

James, I was hoping to get data that had not been "corrected". It appears I will not have access to that data, so any analysis, for my purposes will be a waste of time.

This thread has been an interesting experience for me. There have been a few participants that have tried to help and some that have given me had won knowledge. To them I am very grateful. They embody the ideals of science.

Those that wish to burn me at the stake, take a look in the mirror and see what a zealot looks like. Some responses have been akin to what I would expect if I stood up in a congregation of the faithful and questioned the existence of God. You are doing your cause no good at all.

To those that think I am taking a cheap shot at the science community: read again. My concern is that the base data is flawed. It is comforting to hear than many good minds believe the data to be truly representative, but I would like to see that myself.

I will try and track down the uncorrected data ... you're right that will be difficult but I'm pretty certain I can find it for you ... give me a couple of days. They do correct their data for a reason you know ... the raw numbers make no allowances for time of measurement between stations, the technology changes and the stations get moved about... but such adjustments would be rather insignificant I suspect.

There's an explanation of the data correction process here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/faqs/20100506-Global-Warming-Karl.pdf

I suspect that the NOAA doesn't release the uncorrected data since it could be open to misinterpretation without these adjustments and explanations of difference.

Anyway I'll see if I can find you "raw data" with the errors in it but why anyone would want it is a bit beyond me, unless they suspect the data is being doctored for some conspiratorial or sinister reasons. Or would be able to do the necessary corrections themselves.

I too am deeply suspicious... the local commercial TV here has a shiney new weatherman - all teeth and haircut - and I don't believe a word he says.

It was these terms that particularly offended me:

"Sacred Church of Co2"
"Gravy Train"
"smell a rat"

And your other comments clearly indicate that you have done no research and don't know what you are talking about - which is fine - but it certainly does not give you authority to be making such offensive remarks.

BTW: I wasn't accusing you of being an idiot who was too weak and cowardly to take a position of his own - that was directed at Andrew Bolt.

Try this out Peter... the US National Climate Data Centre has a seriously immense set of databases ... all sort of stuff from plankton counts through to upper atmosphere, ocean, land temps.

Several of the databases I've looked at provide access to uncorrected data (like COD) but I haven't looked at them all.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html

I wonder why I am getting those pesky little "unconstructive" messages for tracking down data for someone. Seems facts can be unconstructive for some folks. Let's see whom.

Thanks Peter,

I pull it down. Of course I can't analyse the data, just assess it's integrity.
I guess that's "unconstructive" to some.

"Water shortages being overcome by technological innovations so they don't worry me," I think you have major comprehension problem there, India has in 30 years of irrigation used 3/5ths of their groundwater, so in 20 years it will be gone, pray tell how "technological innovations" will get it back?. It has taken a hell of a lot more than 30 years to build that reservoir up so "technological innovations" will not replenishing it.
In Australia The Great Artesian Basin used to spout water out of the ground, not anymore, now it has to be pumped, we are using the futures water now, humans are incapable of rectifying their mistakes. Take the fishing industry, when stocks started to decline did they say "Whoa we better slow down and conserve our fish stock". No! they went and bought bigger boats thereby increasing the decline, now they are idle as they are fished out, I could go on giving examples like this till long after we are both dead.
So relying on "technological innovations" is a crock, the same crock as relying on "THE MARKET", and see where that got us.

Desalination of seawater is rapidly improving its energy efficiency and hence cost. For a country like India, the issue won't be water availability but how to distribute water from coastal desal plants into the large populations of people living inland from the coast.

Although the environmental impact of many aquaculture operations is significant and unacceptable, it's a technology that can readily supply us with fish protein for human consumption. I think Australia already imports more than half of its fish from overseas aquaculture operations, so issues of scale and environmental protection are more pressing here than whether the technology exists and can provide for future human needs.

Why this fascination with desal? cleaning stormwater must surely be cheaper and more environmentally friendlier than desal, for a start you are not dumping all that toxic crap in the ocean, and it must be easier to remove dirt than salt, and desal uses a hell of of a lot of energy. Sydney Harbour floor for instance is so toxic, that it is dangerous to disturb it. Perth pump their stormwater up to the reservoir recharge area and then it filters in the reservoir as clean water, it takes 10 years and its all sand so its not hard.

Take the fishing industry, when stocks started to decline did they say "Whoa we better slow down and conserve our fish stock". No! they went and bought bigger boats thereby increasing the decline"

How else do you feed the people if Government and "Green" groups knock back fish farm development ? and irresponsible entities like the Catholic Church and the US Government decry family planning advice.

That aside it gets irksome people saying we an't rely on some -ism or other. These isms have nothing to do with it, if they were run perfectly they would all solve the problems people decry, they can't because people are involved. Look to Economics, fundamentally it relies on people acting rationally, one just has to look to Parliament to see the stupidity in that assumption. Lets take a step back here, you can't rely on people to make the "right" decision as a group, Tragedy of the Commons and all, a lack of critical thinking prevents this.

It's obvious where the problems are (living in a world of finite resources and greed not wanting to share), I look on with horror from my new home in SE Asia at the continual debate over boat people but we can't even agree on that let alone we obviously over consume, worse the preschoolers in the sandpit not wanting to share their toys. Many do not want to give up there right to screw others over by having more than their share, from Palmer etal down to the poorest welfare recipient wary of boat people taking some of their share. Hell, many people still believe some mythical ghost or boogie-man in the sky controls and directs there lives, what chance has humanity when stories akin to the tooth fairy are believed through to adult hood, not only that we allow these people into positions of power: Blair, Rudd, Abbott, Obama, Romney and the list goes on !

Good point. If stormwater is available, it should be much easier and cheaper to treat to drinking water standards. The problem is that stormwater is usually only produced on a seasonal basis, whereas seawater is available all year round.
The brine that results from the operation of desal plants is simply a concentration of the naturally occurring salts that occur in seawater. Experience from WA shows that, within 100 metres of the desal plant's outfall, it is impossible to measure higher than normal levels of dissolved salts, so the dilution of the brine is totally effective.
I doubt that anyone would be seriously proposing to take water for a desal plant from a semi-enclosed waterbody such as Sydney Harbour, not just because of the poor quality of the harbour's sediments as you point out but because it is far better to return the brine to an open ocean environment where mixing and dilution can render it completely inoffensive very quickly.

Daniel,

There's actually some spiffy small scale hydro stuff about ... have a look at microhydro ... there's a website I used to have some dealings with... run by a bloke in Peru and a lot of development workers types from just about everywhere. Can't find it now but if you're interested I'll track it down.

Useful anywhere you've got decent reliable rainfall and nothing too valuable and seriously small you're going to drown. ... bit of height helps too ... in other words not here as a rule. Parts of SE Asia and India though - spot on local solution.

Can be as simple as sticking a pipe up above a waterfall or set of them and diverting a % of the running water off to a turbine and returning it down the bottom. Some very clever designs, simple to make and fix.

Having worked on big stuff you might find some of these set-ups rather ingenious.

Same here strangely David. The birds - blissfully unaware of the impending demise - seem quite chirpy, wallabies and roos are bouncing about in their typically unconcerned delirium... still, it's only 9.45am. I shall keep watch and report as the crisis unfolds.

Well David and Peter it is clear that you warmists are living in a different reality from me. Over here there is chaos and almost total collapse of the social order: Trotskyites have taken Cessnock, the unemployed of Wallsend are fornicating in the streets and a report has just come in that the entire membership of the NSW Lawn Bowling Assoc are at this moment drinking the orangeade. In the small hours I found a neighbour, a decorated member of the NSW Public Service, weeping while staring disconsolately at his now defunct leaf blower; the damn thing just won't work. I look out my barred and armoured window into the steaming black eyes of a pig perched menacingly in the branches of my Illawarra Flame Tree and have no recourse but to keep sticking pins into a wax model of Bob Brown. Damn.

And on TV a bit before 10AM, they showed Gary Gray with his Mum in Whyalla. It was still there.

Rubbish David ... it's the fake moon landing all over again... a flimsy canvas set of Whyalla designed to fool and reassure... while behind the facade the wrecking ball squeezes the living daylights out of this Eden of the South like an armadillo.

And from the frontline - the verdict is in - my rooster has stopped crowing ... an omen obviously of the end of time, sorry End of Time. While other roosters are doing nothing but crowing. There's a pattern if ever I saw one - they know Life will never be the same... they hear the slithering approach of this viperous demolition gear and are afraid - very very afraid.

Or not.