Update August 1, 2010 – There will be a federal election in Australian on August 21, 2010. Neither of the major parties has a serious climate change policy. ‘Least-worst climate policy?’ by Jennifer Marohasy at Quadrant Online.
Update June 21, 2010 – I am back publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. First article for a while: ‘Accessing environmental information relating to climate change: a case study under UK freedom of information legislation’, by John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy, Environmental Law and Management, Issue 1, Volume 22 [2010].
Update December 12th, 2009 – Jennifer Marohasy is no longer regularly posting at this weblog. But occasionally posts information from friends at the community thread [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/ ]. Dr Marohasy is still writing for The Land and some of her columns for this and other newspapers can be read at her website [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/articles.php ].
Dr Marohasy was publically documenting discrepancies – including incomplete data sets being used by top UK climate scientists that spuriously support the case for global warming – before the now infamous emails from the Climate Research Centre in the UK were leaked. She gives informative and entertaining talks on global warming and other environmental issues [ http://jennifermarohasy.com/display/speaker.html ].
Update December 1st, 2009 – What a momentous week in Australian federal politics! And this morning, against considerable odds, a so-called climate change sceptics, Tony Abbot, took over as leader of the Opposition. It is now likely that the National and Liberal parties will unite behind Mr Abbot, and those passionate on this issue will fight very hard on the issue of emissions trading and the science of climate change. The mainstream media have always been dismissive of Tony Abbot. They are now going to have to at least report him on these issues and it may be in the context of an early federal election.
It is a great day for democracy in Australia.
The mainstream media has been offensively biased on the issue of man-made global warming. A journalist and friend recently described them as acting as “attack dogs”. Most journalists and editors never thought there was any real opposition in the Liberal party to the ETS, they should reflect on how wrong they were and now try and honestly understand Tony Abbot’s position and give other so-called sceptics a fair hearing.
Update November 24th, 2009 – Today the Australian Parliament is likely to vote for an emissions trading scheme in effect introducing very costly and unnecessary new legislation and regulation on the basis carbon dioxide is a pollutant and the Earth’s climate in crisis.
I recently received a postcard by snail mail with comment that this blog is a “little island of sanity in a mad world”.
I have certainly found it reassuring at times to read some of the comments in support of my blog posts explaining why there is no climate crisis.
But alas it seems the Australian government is going to ignore rational debate and discuss in favour of politics.
And recently I received a copy of a new book by Christopher Booker entitled ‘The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the obsession with climate change turning out to be the mostly costly scientific blunder in history?’ (Continuum 2009) and it begins:
“This book tells the story of what has been, scientifically and politically, one of the strangest episodes of our time. Indeed, as a case study in collective human psychology, it is turning out to have been one of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of our species.”
Feel free to continue to post at this increasingly long thread, though I feel I have probably contributed as much as I can by way of new blog posts to rational discussion on environmental issues including global warming/the climate crisis.
Much thanks and cheers.
October 20th, 2009 – Thanks for the many emails and submissions assuming I will be back soon. But alas I am still wandering. Those wanting to be useful could, instead of sending me something to post, make a financial donation to this blog. There is a little orange button at the right-hand side of this page. It asks for A$50.
PS I am making progress with my book – the dystopian fiction. And the picture of the truck was taken a few days ago in northwestern New South Wales.
October 7th, 2009 – “Walkabout” is a word we use here in Australia to let others in our community know we are going away for a period of time – perhaps to take more time to reflect on life.
I’m off for a bit – going walkabout.
PS I attended a lecture by Professor Bob Carter last night and was reminded that not so long ago the English speaking world believed all Swans to be white. The photograph of the black swans was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in western Victoria, Australia, in October 2007.
Jen,
We’re learning all the time, some more than others and you’re certainly doing your bit to help us.
Did you do any good with photographic gear for birds? Not that you appear to need it but I notice that there are some good value scopes with camera adapters on the web.
With the dry spring we are having, my promised Thornbill photos did not eventuate as they postponed having babies and left the nest until better times arrive. The bigger birds such as kookaburras, currawongs etc. are not nesting either but watching for any small birds young to supplement their limited diets.
It’s a bird eat bird world out there.
Jennifer,
I miss you already. Psychic Larry predicts that you’ll emerge from your Walkabout stronger than ever. BTW, the nearest equivalent for troglodyte males like me is “Cave Time”. And yes, I enjoyed the movie many years ago, but am a little fuzzy on the details. Apparently Wallkabout involves considerably less beer-drinking than Cave Time.
Regards,
Larry
Have a good rest Jennifer,
Perhaps read a little philosophy, as I suspect your central role is that of philosopher. I noted a piece the other day, which seems relevant to your blogsite. If a person says ‘I think X is true’, this can easily become ‘Most people think X is true’, which can quickly become ‘X is true’, which then leads to ‘Anybody who says X is not true is an idiot’. Humans are interesting and exasperating, but I have not given up. Don’t you, either.
Have a nice time and smell the roses Jen. See ya when ya get back.
Have a well deserved break Jennifer – who knows I might stumble across you during my jaunts between Port Hedland, Perth Darwin and Tennant Creek this month.
Have pleasant and happy journey.
Have a great time Jen, but don’t forget to take a couple of pockets full of white pebbles to drop along the way.
We’d be really lost, if you couldn’t find your way back, & poor Luke [Inc], would probably be made redundant.
How long will you be away for, Jen?
Why not form a small committee to run the site in your absence?
A few years back during a visit to Oz, I asked a young lady what she had done on the weekend.
“I did Whup-Whup” she said with a big smile.
She could tell from my odd look that I was “puzzled” so she clarified it by explaining that she had been camping with some mates on the weekend.
Good luck and enjoy your beautiful environment!!!
Hmmm, are those Black Swans indicative of your beverage of choice on walkabout?? ;>)
Fred, I think “woop woop” is the correct spelling, for the term used to indicate “miles from nowhere”. The place next door is pretty good too.
Have a good break Jennifer; see you when you return.
By the power invested in me by my overweaned sense of entitlement (hey it works for Real Climate) – I now declare this thread open.
Ladies and gentlemen, START YOUR KEYBOARDS!
And their off…
My name Janama was given to me by an old aboriginal Sharman called Scotty Birrill from Wyndham. We would sit around may campfire and he would tell me stories about the aboriginal history and mythology.
One story involved the Sharman sending everyone out to find plants which would be combined to create small balls of herb that one would place tucked up inside your mouth between your teeth and lip. Eventually the herbal combination would create a sensation called ‘walkabout’ It would last for days.
LIBERAL backbencher Julian McGauran has become the latest coalition MP to defy Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, saying he will not support an emissions trading scheme under any circumstance.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26183653-12377,00.html
Three cheers for MP McGauran!
I just got an email from a guy named yanammm.
okay… set aside the question is there a real climate change or not… The thing is that obviously the world leaders think there is and are meeting to solve it. I’m sure they know the truth as if they want to find out – they can. So my question is – if the climate change is really a lie… where did it came from? And why are the politicians supporting it? What is their gain in doing so? I honestly don’t see how they could profit from shutting down their industry, so I wonder…
10x!
This is a good question. Besides fame and fortune for Gore – what’s in it for your average green or labor politician?
Being the village idiot, I don’t have ready answers.
James,
The art of modern politics is to identify a problem that does not exist.
Incorrectly diagonise the problem.
Then apply the wrong and most expensive remedy.
All to the combined applause of our dumb Media.
By doing this voters are distracted from other more important issues that the Government are making a mess of anyway.
The Media always have a sensationalist headline. And Governments can do the only thing they are efficient at.
That is continue to create bigger and bigger Bureauracies to manage the problems they and the Media claim we have.
Then jack-up taxes.
Time for voters to wake up.
Pikey.
Walkabout brand chewing tobacco? I bet that would sell.
This kind of runs of a pace with Pikey’s observation.
Via Instapundit – Greens more likely thieves and liars, says shock study.
Psychologists in Canada have revealed new research suggesting that people who become eco-conscious “green consumers” are “more likely to steal and lie” than others.
The new study comes from professor Nina Mazar of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management and her colleague Chen-Bo Zhong.
In line with the halo associated with green consumerism, people act more altruistically after mere exposure to green than conventional products. However, people act less altruistically and are more likely to cheat and steal after purchasing green products as opposed to conventional products… purchasing green products may produce the counterintuitive effect of licensing asocial and unethical behaviors by establishing moral credentials. Thus, green products do not necessarily make us better people.
Keep an eye on them Prius owners.
Very interesting James however re myself that is not true;)!
Another study published yesterday in a peer reviewed psychology journal seems to contradict this?
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3450
But fot info , I do know a few green con artists.
Thanks for the timely warning James.
Perhaps the most important point is the one about Prius buyers.
I note our commonwealth government has bought a heap of them, & plan to buy even more.
Ann, I never imagined you as a conspicuous holy rollin “green products are my salvation” type.
I always figured you as the girl who fixes the odd pelican that turns up with a tooth ache.
What sort of products do you buy specificly due to their eco friendliness?
Hi James,
I must say that I’m extremely disappointed with most NGOs and most part of the green movement, anyway in Sweden.
NGOs have the same policy as multinationals and are selling cheap crap on their homesites etc.
The windpower industry is as well only a commerce….
When I go to the shop and want to buy a magazine , I see all magazines as labeled as ” green issues” ( cough, cough)!
Re animals and nature the animal right movement is so distant from the real environment that they write something like this” to enjoy the real nature come and look at the orca in the tank” etc, etc
I wonder if young people ever take a walk in the forest , etc???
I see as well that Cameron Diaz , has won the award Times Heroes of the Environment! ( Yesterday I saw in the tabloid only that Cameron had slept with most hunks in Hollywood!!!) LOL!
Well, actually I have given up most tries as an activist nowadays, I take care of the neighbourhoods wildlife etc.
What everyone can do is to buy eggs from hens that have been free range , that’s my wish!
The only Cameron Diaz movie I remember seeing was There’s Something About Mary. In its own way, TSAM was as funny as The Brother From Another Planet. But I’m not really interested in her environmental politics or her free-range sex life.
Ann I did the math. These two studies don’t cancel out.
Yours shows that nature lovers are more generous (gullible).
Mine shows that after these nature lovers have been screwed over by climate hucksters, crooked politicians, Gore, GE, free range chicken stores, and cameron diaz magazines, they become resentful and look for a little payback.
These add up to a death spiral, inevitably leading to Obama winning the Nobals peace price.
Andrew Bolt
Friday, October 09, 2009 at 04:41pm
Green activism always struck me as a no-sweat morality, in which you got the moral kudos for demanding that others make the sacrifices. So no surprise here:
I beat Andrew by 5 hours.
Heh!
Well, I did get it from Instapundit .
So where’s my cheer for MP Julian McGauran?
That’s a liberal whose got a pair.
“Fred, I think “woop woop” is the correct spelling, ”
Anyway you spell it, up here in the Great Whit North, when a young lady tells you she Woop-Woop, it makes any red blooded male think of getting naked and pounding back tequila shooters 🙂
Well, I guess the nonsense you published about Briffa was terminally embarrassing. Enjoy.
A Rabbit says:-
Well, I guess the nonsense you published about Briffa was terminally embarrassing. Enjoy.
Charming just charming.
You must be a bundle of laughs at a party.
Luke, SJT, Sod et al. have been conspicuous by their absence since Jennifer went walkabout. Hey … wait a minute … could it be? … are they all actually JENNIFER? I am reminded of Javanese shadow puppet shows, or even Punch and Judy. That’s the way to do it…
back in August the Aussie Senate in it’s infinite wisdom turned down the ETS.
There was a bit of celebration here on the blog.
In the back and forth the Lukester posted a link to midnight oil as the alarmist responce.
Allow me to draw your attention to my reaction.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6127&cp=1#comment-129396
Note Luke’s responce.
About two months later I find this new climate alarmist campaign theme song presented by an amalgam of Australian singers posted to the Youtube.
Join the campaign for climate justice and become a Climate Ally by downloading Beds are Burning for free: http://www.timeforclimateju…
Just coincidence?
Or circumstantial evidence of the deep abiding ties between the Luke Desk at BOM and the media/governmental/industrial complex pushing AGW?
Either way it pisses me off. They stole my shtick !
Green Davey,
I’ve noticed that as well – though Sod and SJT seem to be lingering here – but the Luke’s absence is telling.
It ties in with Jame’s suspicion that we might be dealing with a Statist green industrial complex.
Actually it’s pretty much a repeat of feudalism – the state was then dominated by the Robber Barons and we the serfs had to support them via taxes, AKA involuntary donations. Then we had a parasite class feeding off the workers. Today nothing has changed. Luke and his parasites in government need to tax us to maintain their lifestyles – and they produce nothing as well, apart from the occasional homilies to implore us to be serious about climate change and that if we pay more taxes, this will be mitigated.
The State does have an enormous unfunded superannuation debt remember, and they are financing it with a giant Ponzi scheme.
And we also need to take on board the fact that the UN produces nothing as well, apart from mountains of dense verbiage,
so they need to be financed, probably via a 10% cut in the emissions trading scheme they are trying to engineer.
Louis re. your last post,
it’s bloody scary if you think about it, so many bludgers to support, imagine how well off we would be without all the burden!
Marcus
I spent a fruitful hour or so studying the Australian Fabian Society’s webpage – goodness me – all the politicians we know about in the ALP. Their stated goals are also explicit – http://www.fabian.org.au/1.asp and if you then also study John Maynard Keynes activities, http://www.keynesatharvard.org, then things start to fall in place and become explicable. AGW is the trojan horse by which they hope to socialise us. Devout ALP types tell me the science is not important, but forcing us into a more sustainable lifestyle is the game in play. This lot run the UN, the US, Europe Australia, etc.
Now they are all sincere in their belief in trying to make things more equitable, but their inability to recognise repeated failures of the socialist experiment during the course of history remains the sticking point.
I recall one looney lefty young person lament that the reason socialism hasn’t worked is because of people themselves. It never occurred to her that maybe the socialist philosophy is the problem.
I had not realised that the American Puritan Fathers when they left England for America were died in the wool socialists seeking a utopia – they almost perished from that policy until the penny dropped and private property was reinstated. Economic recovery was rapid until the mercantilists via Hamilton gained control again.
And the ever increasing size of our CO2 bureacracies – another ATO in the making, and how the heck are they going to fund that with the increased obligations for pensions for the bureaucrats – we are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination. Worse is to come.
Or maybe that I might secretly be in love with Jen and only perform/misbehave here for her pleasure/displeasure. Getting all those warning emails and ban warnings is a great chance to talk to her. Maybe I don’t really don’t give a stuff about politics or AGW – this is about romance. So if Jen’s not here why bother posting?
Luke,
“So if Jen’s not here why bother posting?”
Bit of an ego problem have you? We posting here in Jennifer’s absence implies her presence isn’t crucial to our opinions? This is a problem for you?
Must be otherwise you wouldn’t have commented.
Errr nope.
Anyway James on the theme of bad girls another for your Aussie Rock education
How about no.
I can smell the sulfer from here, Luke. All the way in Sacramento.
You cook up your witches brew without me, pal.
Too much too soon ?
Perhaps you could go native James?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMB3b4admzs&feature=related
Davey will point out the salient aspects of fire ecology
Philem McAleer’s advisarial bit of journalism aimed at Al Gore was such a rare treat it’s well on the way to viral.
Been interesting watching the hit count grow since this morning. Some heavy must have linked it because it’s just ballooned over the last three hours.
Oh dear – oratory is not what it used to be
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Jason_Wood
janama,
What the world needs now.
More of those GM Orgasms!
I thought the Luke Desk might have got the boot when his DG patron had to walk the plank? I wonder what the departmental storm troopers will do now that the goon at the top is no longer so eager to persecute farmers that he can’t help acting in contempt of court? Or is the new one just as bad?
Maybe this is just a re-assignment for the government’s “Goombeen Man” of choice? Now lets see, are there any elements of farmer capital involved in the new post that could be confiscated by an ethically challenged asset stripper? Well, yes, of course there are. Wake in fright, farmer folks, “he’s baa-aack”.
Pssst – I have just heard, on the Public Service grapevine, that Luke has a new job as climate modeler for Malcolm Turnbull. They may travel together to Copenhagen at Christmas. Watch out for TV coverage. Note the suited person just behind Turnbull, peering at a lap top screen, and nodding his head sagely when the great man makes a telling point. They are trying to link the republican debate to global warming, and freedom of speech for spies. Rudd is furious.
P.S. Last time I was in Copenhagen at Christmas, the harbour was frozen. I walked out to the Little Mermaid, and gave her a kiss. Pack your long johns, Luke.
I have just spotted the link between republics, global warming, and spies – they all involve large volumes of hot air from the news media.
Don’t be too hard on Luke, Davey, he never forgets a navel.
As I have spent most month now outdoors and in the forest( as a caveman) I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON.
I see that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize. Most people think it was too ealy to be awarded.
Ann – Most people believe the Nobel prizes have become a sham as has Science in general.
Just look at the backlash against the Swineflu vaccine as an example.
“Or is the new one just as bad?” hahahahahahahahahahaha
I keep telling you we’re on your side. You still haven’t worked it out.
I should have retorted “no – just back from knee surgery” after all that time under certain desks.
Sorry Louis, but, I have to disagree with this:
“And we also need to take on board the fact that the UN produces nothing as well, apart from mountains of dense verbiage,”
Actually they are one of the most prolific producers of scandal, waste, and general mismanagement in the world!!!! It is absolutely astounding that the media can even keep a few Leftists believing in it!!
Has anyone a list of things that the UN has done at least acceptably??
I hate to disagree with Louis, Keynes was no bolshevik whatever he may have said to his mother, anymore than his wife Lydia was. Moreover as an economist I know we owe a lot to the Fabians, not just because my earliest publications were for them, but because without the framework of their welfare state both here and in UK we would have had either communism or Nazism (or both), the latter were active here in the 1930s, the former in the 1940s. As for Keynes, here is the reference from the Book of Revelations that graces your anti-Keynes site “And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name” as was the lot of the Jews in Nazi Germany and no doubt in due course for all non CC-believers here.
Thus Keynes himself had this to say about the kind of “science” that the IPCC and its fellow travellers purvey in his 1940 EJ review of a book by Jan Tinbergen: “It becomes like those puzzles for children where you write down your age, multiply [by a number], add this and that, subtract something else, and eventually end up with the number of the Beast in Revelation”, a perfect description of the IPCC.
More on Louis’ bolshevik, Keynes, at p562 of his Tinbergen review, showed himself well aware of the pitfalls of spurious correlation, unlike ALL the authors of Chap. 9 “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, whose conclusion (p.671) that “it is extremely likely”, i.e. there is 95% probability, “that humans have exerted substantial warming influence on climate [via GHG emissions] over that period [the 20th century]” derives 100% from their spurious correlations:
I have now done regressions of temperature on [CO2] at some 40 locations here and in USA, and in all where there appears to be correlation with a reasonable R2 and apparently statistically significant coefficients for [CO2], there is incontrovertible evidence of spurious correlation (Durbin-Watson < 2).
Keynes ended his review noting “the deep confusion of mind [of monetarists] between the demand and supply of money and the demand and supply of savings, and until we rid ourselves of it we cannot think correctly”. That applies in spades to the IPCC and the junk science in Nature etc – they cannot distinguish between emissions of CO2 and additions thereof to the atmosphere, leaving out as they do the ongoing nearly 60% average (over 50 years) uptake of each year’s new emissions by the biosphere, which has thereby already achieved on an on-going basis the stoopid target to be adopted at Copenhagen of reduction by 60% of the 1990 level or whatever.
It is remarkable how the Beast of the Revelations more than ever dominates the corridors of power everywhere, such that our Beasts are to require what is already being achieved. Yet if they succeed in reducing emissions to 40% of the 1990 or 2000 level they will prevent the natural annual absorption of 60% of CO2 emissions, to the tune of over 6 GtC at present (emissions reduced to 40% of 2000 level will be less than 3 GtC). Goodbye to the 70% increase in food production called for by the UN’s WFP today (ever notice the carbon content of your daily wheaties?)
Tim,
Based on memories of stats units (100,200,300) I did long ago, I am a bit worried at people tossing probabilities around like confetti. For example, I believe James Hansen testified before a 1988 US Senate Committee that he was ‘99% certain’ that global warming was underway.
Was this mere rhetorical use of a pseudo-statistic, to impress politicians? Or was it based on a confidence interval, and if so, how was that interval calculated? Or was it based on an hypothesis test, in which the null hypothesis (no global warming due to human emissions) was dismissed at the .01 level (Type I error)? If so, then it shows statistical naivety, since rejection at the .01 level does NOT mean that we can be 99% certain that the alternative hypothesis (global warming due to human emissions) is correct. It ignores the probability of a Type II error, and the probability of a correct decision to accept the null hypothesis. Any comments?
Davey, you were well taught, and are absolutely right. My reply is in three parts because of length limitations on posts here.
#1. Outrageously NONE of the IPCC authors and editors of AR4 has ever considered the nul hypothesis that:
There is NO correlation between rising annual levels of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (aka [CO2]) and Annual Global Mean Temperature
(other GHGs can be safely ignored as [CH4] for example is not even increasing).
I now have more than 40 met stations which do not show any statistically significant correlation between either absolute T there and [CO2] or between annual changes in both T and [CO2] at those locations.
As you know this means only that so far the Nul Hypothesis (that there is NO correlation between [CO2] and Temperature) should not be rejected, but that it is possible that somewhere there is one location where it is rejected. But so far Tasmania, Queensland, Hawaii, and California have not yielded such a location.
Re Davey again, #2
As Davey knows, Type I errors involve wrongly rejecting a true hypothesis, and Type II, failing to reject a false hypothesis.
These can be illustrated with the current debate in USA and OZ on the ETS proposals.
Here the Nul Hypothesis (Ho) is that the ETS (and underlying emission reduction targets) should NOT be introduced because there may be severe net adverse effects), while the Research Hypothesis (H1) is that there will be NO adverse effects and the ETS + targets should be introduced.
There are four possibilities:
1. If our policy makers follow Barnaby Joyce and do not reject Ho because it is true (the ETS will have severe net bad effects), they will make the correct decision and reject ETS, and none of us will suffer the adverse effects.
2. But if like Rudd and Wong (and Obama) they reject Ho when it is true (and thereby fail to reject H1), they will make a Type I error: ETS will be introduced and many will suffer its adverse effects (as happened in real life with thalidomide).
3. However if they do not reject Ho if it is false (i.e. ETS does not have adverse effects), ETS will not be introduced, and its benefits will be lost. This is a Type II error.
4. But if they reject Ho when it’s actually false (and thereby fail to reject H1) they will fortuitously make the right decision, ETS can be adopted and there will be no net adverse effects.
#3 So, Davey, all depends on whether Ho is true or false, and that in turn depends in the ETS case on whether the Nul Hypothesis, that there is NO correlation between rising annual levels of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (aka [CO2]) and Annual Global Mean Temperature, is rejected. So far it has not been, which means that there will be NO benefits from avoided dangerous climate change if an ETS is introduced.
This is where Davey’s confidence limits come in: as Feinstein & Thomas put it, “as good social scientists (unlike those of the IPCC) the aim should be “to make it difficult to reject the nul hypothesis Ho”, in this case that there is no correlation between rising [CO2] and climate change, by requiring 95% confidence that the nul Ho is NOT rejected. With their characteristic unanimous perversity, the IPCC’s authors and editors assert 95% confidence that it is rejected, without specifying any regression results whatsoever in support of this claim. The perversity arises from failure to recognize the adverse consequences from wrongly rejecting Ho when it is correct (i.e. Type I error).
To give just 1 example from my data set, Hilo at the foot of Mauna Loa itself. There we have over 99% certainty that there is NO relationship between increases in [CO2] and changes in temperature there since 1959, as the R2 is minus 0.0037, and the coefficient on d[CO2] is actually NEGATIVE (i.e. more CO2, less warming). The test t-statistic on the coefficient is minus 0.9, so (luckily for IPCC & Copenhagen) below the critical –2 level for 95% confidence that rising [CO2] actually produces cooling! But clearly the nul hypothesis cannot be rejected at the one place where it should be triumphantly rejected, thereby vindicating the IPCC.
Can anybody name just 1 of the IPCC Team who is even half aware of the above?
Ref. Making History Count, Feinstein & Thomas, CUP, 2002.
Thanks Tim,
I will write to my stats prof and thank him for teaching me well – oh, hold on, if still alive he will be about 110 years old. I am just reading some ‘model projections’ of climate from CSIRO. There are no confidence limits mentioned, nor hypothesis testing. But then, David Hume did warn that inductive reasoning is dangerous.
With regard to the IPCC, I believe Dr Pachauri (sp?), who presumably monitors the validity of their output, has a background in diesel mechanics. Interesting question – how does one get a job at the UN?
Davey wrote:
“With regard to the IPCC, I believe Dr Pachauri (sp?), who presumably monitors the validity of their output, has a background in diesel mechanics. Interesting question – how does one get a job at the UN?”
Pachauri has had a varied career. And his academic background is in economics and in industrial engineering. That’s good enough for an administrator. Climate Alarmists are fond of the you-can’t-play-because-you-don’t-have-the-right-piece-of-paper game. I don’t think that we should emulate them.
Problem: Pachauri is supposed to set some sort of moral tone for the IPCC, and there is no moral tone. It’s possible that Pachauri surrounds himself with yes-men who are afraid to tell him anything he doesn’t want to hear. If so, that’s par for the course. To quote the late systems scientist Glenn Burress:
“The purpose of a hierarchy is to prevent information from reaching the top!”
Thanks for the stats refresher course, Tim. You should package that material and send it to Barnaby, in a form that he could place a question on notice to Wong in respect of her proper discharge of he statutrory obligations. It goes to questions of best practice and her duty of care, and will go a long way to get the metre running on the future class action.
Larry, one would have to conclude that the complete lack of a moral tone would be a prerequisite for any gig at the UN, let alone the IPCC.
In fact, Tim, it could also become the main element in a High Court Injunction, demanding that no further implementation of ETS or other climate policy take place until such core analytical tools are applied. Lets see if they can get that completed before Copenhagen.
Pachauri has had a varied career. And his academic background is in economics and in industrial engineering. That’s good enough for an administrator. Climate Alarmists are fond of the you-can’t-play-because-you-don’t-have-the-right-piece-of-paper game. I don’t think that we should emulate them.
Pachauri is an administrator, not a researcher.
SJT: you are wrong, Pachauri does NOT see his role as that of a mere administrator, but rather as both the spearhead of the IPCC’s mission to save the planet from itself, and as the chief spokesman of the 2,500 “scientists” not one whom can do or interpret regressions or any other form of statistical analysis. One of the most strirking features of AR4 is the complete absence of statistics, with its almost total reliance on graphs (and even more fictitious maps), many showing only the means of multiple models none of which individually are consistent with observations. The packages producing the graphs produce relationships that do not exist by their pre-programmed choice of axes and scales. The alleged correlation between [CO2] and GMT is an artifact only of the graphing package and has no support in regression analysis of those variables. If that existed it would have been reported by the IPCC; it does not and is not.
Ian Mott is right, there is a prima facie case for committing Pachauri for trial for propagating false and misleading information over a long period. Polanski found the law can have a very long arm; Pachauri may well discover the same sooner than he imagines – and find himself sharing a cell with that equally lovely (albeit non-vegan) crook, Bernie Madoff. I say this advisedly, and it applies a fortiori to Susan Solomon, chief editor of AR4 who both there and in her own work (PNAS 2009) has used outright fraud to lift the observed annual rate of growth of [CO2] over 50 years from 1959 of 0.41% to at least 1.0% p.a. for this century, just like Bernie.
Further to my last, I have just downloaded the latest (Sept 09) monthly data on [CO2] at Mauna Loa, confirming that the average year on year percentage growth rate Sept 1958 has been 0.406% p.a.
Plotting the year on year annual growth rates, the linear trend is a gratifying upward straight line – but the logarithmic trend curve keeps flattening.
This falsifies Arrhenius who famously claimed that while [CO2] (carbonic acid as he called it) grows “geometrically” (i.e. linearly), global mean temperature will grow only “arithmetically” (i.e. logarithmically).
The truth is that both GMT and [CO2] are growing logarithmically, contrary to AR4, all of whose scary projections for C21 are therefore false, and on a Madoffian scale.
SJT, what have you got to say? – and protect your anonymity otherwise you could join your hero Pachauri in the penitentiary.
I think the climate issue is boring and ranting, but the first snow was falling today in my neighbourhood, mid Sweden. See pic:
http://annimal.bloggsida.se/diverse/the-first-snow
Beautiful photo Ann,
I can almost smell that wonderful clean, brisk, Scandinavian air. And the greenery – must be all that evil, polluting CO2. Is forest area increasing or decreasing in Sweden?
Tim,
I think arithmetic growth is linear, and geometric curved.
@Ann Novek…
It’s a dream here, in Monterrey. 🙁
First snow of the season. We just got 3 and a half inches of rain, first storm of the season.
The end of hurricane season in the Atlantic. Which means a grand total of 2 hurricanes for 2009.
Weird innovation for the National Hurricane Center. They’ve taken to giving tropical depressions proper names. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/index.shtml
What next? Naming fog banks ?
James Mayeau wrote:
“What next? Naming fog banks ?”
You’re right. NOAA should be more parsimonious with names. The real issue that nobody wants to talk about is this: What will NOAA do when they run out of proper names? Recycling old names would be ambiguous. Assigning both a first name and a surname to each hurricane will eventually lead to the same problem. I know, let’s give hurricanes Social Security Numbers!
Thanks Davey, dunno about the forest, gonna do a research, might pop up at the blog.
Dunno as well what Nasef exactly means.
Hi Guys
Have any of you noticed lots of temperature records being broken in the NH?
Look at these
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/14/early-start-to-winter-20-of-usa-is-covered-in-snow-already/#more-11666
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/october.cold.record.2.1247099.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE59D2UK20091014
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/13/daily-mail-joins-bbc-in-writng-about-climate-skepticism/#more-11654
Hey dhmo,
Too much there for me to chew on.
Anyhow I’m sure that once Hansen gets done with adjustments 2009 will be the hottest year ever, or something.
Thought some may be interested in this article on a recent radio poll in Brisbane that showed 69% support for a new state in North Queensland. As centralist policies increase population and decrease quality of life in Brisbane, support is growing for measures that produce a more even spread of ecological impacts. http://ianmott.blogspot.com/2009/09/hopeless-blog-hosting.html
If the link doesn’t work just type it into the window.
Ann,
Beaut photo. I’ve got some of those NH cedar types growing at my place in Qld., Australia in a completely different climate but they do well [if I can keep the borers out]. Planted ’em 20 years ago and they’re ready to build a boat out of.
Had 2 noisy friarbird chicks fledge this morning and as soon as the family moved out a couple of fig birds grabbed the nest. Within minutes!
DHMO,
Certainly looks like a chilly winter coming up in the northern hemisphere. That’s due, of course, to the IPCC, Al Gore, Kevin Rudd, and Luke saving us from CO2 pollution.
Spanglo,
I think that is a spruce tree (Ann?). A few decades ago they were doomed by acid rain, until some careful Norwegian scientists found it actually made them grow faster. About the same time an Austrian (German?) professor compared the present Tyrolean forest with old postcard photos of that forest in the 1800s, and found no difference in the number of dead trees on the skyline. I think the media and politicians lost interest in the ‘acid rain doom story’ at about that point. Am I making this up, Ann? I am a terrible romantic optimist. We must be doomed by acid rain. Should we have a conference about it in Stockholm or Oslo? Will we win the Nobel Prize?
For spangled and other birdwatchers, see
http://www.juliusbergh.com/cocky/
Re Green Davey, who said “Tim, I think arithmetic growth is linear, and geometric curved”.
You are right, I was probably being a bit loose.
Arithmetic/linear means equal absolute increments in a dependent variable with respect to changes in the independent variable(s), as in this standard regression equation:
Y = a + bX
whereas a geometric curve is given by
Y = aX^b
I was referring to the 2nd derivative, ie changes in the rate of growth of the rate of growth of monthly data on [CO2] at Mauna Loa, which appears to be linear but is actually logarithmic, ie growing at a slowing rate.
Tim,
Good stuff. That what life’s all about isn’t it.
Ya just get on with it.
Mind you, another degree of AGW and they’ll cark it.
Hello again Davey and Spangled,
Sorry Davey but S.D is right. Think we call the trees some kind of cypress( NH type). The birds love them and they have red berries.
re the acid rain issue , is it fading away????
Now I’m going out to the cold , just subzero temperatures( brrrr!) and gonna watch the die hards (birds) that are left!…..spangled might post some links so we can see what birds he is talking about?
An Estonian old farmers saying :” When the cranes migrate , cruel weather is here, when the geese go away the frost is coming and when the swans leave , snow is here”!
BTW, there are lots of rowan berries this year, this means a cold winter according to an old farmers tale….
Ian – this is what I reckon should happen
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1//new_state.jpg
janama and motty,
If the feds take over health, do we need the states?
I realise that unemployment would rise by 100% but think of all those green jobs coming up.
Arrr Davey,
I was waiting for Ann’s response on the spruce but all those NH evergreens look alike to me [is it blue enough?] and are generally usefull for boat building if they are straight.
That wouldn’t surprise me about the AR but you will only win the Nobel if you can predict certain doom to us all and then manage at great expense to the ROW to do nothing about it while at the same time alarming all the pregnant mothers and little children.
Tim,
As we used to say in Fort Jameson, palibe kantu Bwana. I was just pointing out your minor slip before the usual suspects did. They seem to be asleep, so best not disturb them.
Spanglo,
I think my version of acid rain history is true. Well, dammit, most people believe my version is true, so it must be true. And further, anybody who denies it is a fool. QED.
Green Davey – I should have known we were blood brothers! did you know the Prentices of Fort Jimmie? I was at school with one (Michaelhouse) and taught another (Peterhouse in Zim) whom I saw in Sydney only 5 years ago or so. One of my Zambian classmates at UCRN in 1957-9 always called me Bwana with heavy irony! – and I still have cousins there, one farming at Mazabuka, and 2 of his sisters are in Lusaka, they comprise much of Zambia’s polo teams like their parents before them. And I agree with you re acid rain – more proof of kinship!
I hope most of you-all had better things to do than watch tonight’s Catalyst on the ABC with its riveting contribution by the ANU’s Will Steffen, a notorious carpet bagger. I have tried to post it at the Catalyst site but doubt it will get past the resident Goebbles.
There are many dubious statements in the contribution by Will Steffen to Catalyst tonight (15 October ’09).
In the time and space available I deal here with only a few.
Steffen said with my comments in CAPs:
“Worst-case scenarios. Three things are happening. One is the increasing efficiency of energy use in the OECD countries started to stall around 2000 and 2002. NOT TRUE FOR all. The second thing that’s happened is China and India indeed have come on the scene. They’re using a lot more energy so they contribute to emissions. TRUE The third thing is the land and the oceans which together actually pull slightly more than half of our emissions back out of the atmosphere. It appears (sic) that the ocean sink is weakening. NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT. So when you add those three things up you get a surge in the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere. NO, YOU DON’T.
FACT: the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere has averaged just 0.41 per cent a year since records began in 1958, as shown by the very latest data from Mauna Loa for September 2009 via a vis September 1958. And for the numerically challenged Steffen, a growth rate of less half of one per cent p.a. over 51 years is not very fast – and it has NOT increased over the last decade.
Not only that, there is no trend whatsoever in the growth rate of the growth of atmospheric CO2, simply because on average the oceans and land continue “to pull slightly more [actually nearly 60%] than half of our emissions back out of the atmosphere”.
Ironically, if Copenhagen gets to agree on anything, it might be to set a target reduction of 60 per cent of emissions from the 2000 level, not the present 2009 level, from which already at present “the oceans and land” already “pull” 60% of current emissions “back out of the atmosphere”.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that if the Copenhagen target is adopted, AND implemented, it will reduce emissions to around 2 billions of carbon, way below the present “pull” of around 6 billion tonnes by the oceans and land, i.e. by the phyto-plankton which is the base feedstock for all marine life including coral reefs, whales and dolphins, and by the photosynthesis which is the basis of ALL land-based plant and animal life. That is a blueprint for the longest suicide note in the history of humanity.
For indeed, what a brave new world awaits us if Will has his way, aided and abetted by Catalyst.
Inde bwana, ndili mzungu, koma dzina langa ndi Mpezeni. I played lugby for Mazabuka. Nuff said.
Yes, I watched Catalyst, and thought some statements by Will Steffen sounded a bit surprising. I may have misheard, but I think he said at one stage that melting icebergs raise the sea level. I sensed public rhetoric rather than science, with Jonica Newby hanging on every word. ANU needs a spring clean. Can we arrange an indefinite sabbatical to the University of Zambia for young Will? He might make the polo team.
Just lines on the map, Janama. No-one in Bundaberg, Roma or Grafton wants any part of being governed by Brisbane. And cross border adjustments of existing states would be a referendum nightmare. Better to break them up into smaller units so that most of a region’s population is within 3 hours of the new capital. That is the only way to ensure that tax money that is drawn into the capital will recirculate back to the whole region.
I don’t have a problem with states unloading health care to the feds, Spangles, but actually abolishing all states is another referendum impossibility. Better to bust the existing ones up (essentially abolishing the existing units) and create more smaller regional entities with the same powers of a state.
Many communities do not want to amalgamate their local government but, curiously, the ACT has merged state and local functions and some new states might do so as well. But that should be each regions decision, it is not for metropolitan voters to be deciding how NQ or the Pilbara should organise themselves.
The people who want to abolish all states in favour of enlarged local government do not seem to understand that the existing state powers would have to go somewhere, either to the feds or larger local government. Yet no-one believes that a canberra bureaucrat would do a better job than a Sydney, Melbourne, or Brisbane one so if the powers of a state are to be transferred to a regional government then why not just call it a smaller state?
The other interesting point is the total lack of interest in urban Australia for any plan to bust up Sydney into 8 seperate self governing entities with half million populations, or Melbourne into 6. The city states can only function as a single unit so they should be left as the rump of the existing states while regions go their own way. They essentially operate as defacto city states already.
Tim Curtin..If you have the time can you put together some more notes correcting Stiff Willis nonsense on Catalyst last night. For instance he also said that OHC and temperature is accelerating..when there is no evidence for that at all…etc
I wonder what it takes to be a Professor of anything these days there so much hype and b/s being peddled by these ego driven and political active academics.
Malcolm, thanks will do. I was right, the Goebbels of the ABC spiked my comment in favour of gushing support.
Apologies to ABC, my original comments on Steffen did finally make it, if slightly garbled.
Green Davey: the Mazabuka mafia are everywhere, even in Canberra, where Mrs Burton (mother of Gill who was at UCR when I was teaching there in 1964-66) is alive and well at 90+; her husband was Resident Magistrate there in 1939, and she became Deputy Price Controller in Lusaka during the war.
Alas, Will Steffen would be lucky to get into the donkey derby, about 5 years ago I watched Mazabuka playing a Lusaka team, a tough game, with my cousin Sally in the Lusaka men’s 1st team, and her husband to be in the 2nds. Splendid afternoon at Mazabuka’s beautiful ground with curry dinner to die for .
I can’t match your Bemba (?) – I’s a japie with Taalbond Afrikaans and a shamefully small smattering of Zulu, later padded out with Swahili.
And Zambia way’s too good for Steffie, not least because Pres. Rupiah Banda is an old friend of mine, Will belongs at the wreck that U Zimbabwe has become.
Hi Janama,
Missed your comment to me , thanks! Indeed the Nobel Prizes are watering out. As it is now the whole spectacular is about the Princesses dresses .
BTW, in the pic in my paper, Obama did not look especially happy. Can’t understand why they don’t give the Prize to some real peace worker in the field?
Agh, Tim man,
It was Chinyanja, but not to worry heh? Glad your comment to Cadalyst finally got through. Are any figures on Zambian (or Zimbabwean) rainfall available? I suspect they might show a negative relationship with West Australian rain. I have the Indian Ocean Dipole in mind.
I expect most readers will have some knowledge of the IOD, but here is an up-to-date report from UNSW.
http://www.science.unsw.edu.au/news/indian-ocean-drought/
This seems very important to me, but I have not seen it mentioned on Cadalyst, or elsewhere on ABC or SBS. Nor have I seen or heard Dr Caroline Ummenhofer interviewed.
“This seems very important to me, but I have not seen it mentioned on Cadalyst, or elsewhere on ABC or SBS. Nor have I seen or heard Dr Caroline Ummenhofer interviewed.”
Davey,
Mainly because it’s a logical explanation of the real world, not like the alarmist honey that drips from Will Steffan’s lips:
OHC is UUHHPP!
MSL is UUHHPP!
Sea ice is melllllting!
Copenhagen, here we come!
He’s really on top of it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/15/global-sst-trend-down-near-zero-trend-since-2002-also-down/#more-11731
Spanglo,
By courtesy of Bob Beale of UNSW I have now got hold of the full paper if you are interested. It is:
Ummenhofer, C.C. et al. (2009) What causes southeast Australia’s worst droughts? Geophysical Research Letters, Vol.36, L04706.
I note she only briefly mentions AGW, once in paragraph 1, and again in paragraph 13. Maybe she had to put this sprig of political parsley on top to get it past the referees, or joint authors. I would think, if skies were clear, then day temperatures would obviously be higher, but night ones lower. Anyone looked at the data for this?
It seems Reuters were advised, and articles appeared in New Scientist, The Australian, The Age, and some French and German news outlets. Not, as far as I can see, on ABC or SBS. Odd that, given it’s major implications for Australia. Where were you Kerry? Cadalyst?
Green Davey – of course, your Mazabuka stint misled me, Fort Jimmie is echt Chinyanja, basically Zulu. They did their best to sort that loveable but idiotic Nyerere back in the 60s, eg my friend John Malecela, lucky to escape with his head.
Re Steffen, The Times and the Oz on Arctic sea ice, Anthony Watts has done a wonderful debunking today:
Watts Up With That, 15 October 2009
That Ummenhofer paper has Michael England of UNSW as co-author. Can he be trusted? (See Deltoid).
Link to watts on Arctice again:
Green Davey,
Thanks for that. It is interesting that since it was written the IOD has moved into its negative phase [no doubt, much to your relief in the West] but since that occurred, as predicted we have had a very dry period in that eastern area.
It would do Luke good to read it.
Listen to the the rope-a-dopes having a little “intellectual” tete-a-tete. You’re lauding an AGW outfit dudes. In fact IOD’s just a little tickle on. STR is the main game and the first AGW drought was WWII era. But you’re denialist scum so why bother informing you.
I barfed at Mottsa’s little philosophical rant. Pure bunk from a Briso urban dweller. Any apparent hypocrisy? If he loves it so much move to Ingham.
Luke, we know that is not a candy bar you left in the kiddie pool. Now we have to drain the pool and put in fresh water.
“It would do Luke good to read it.”
You have to read between the lines with Luke.
He doesn’t always say what’s on his mind.
No it’s just you’re slow Spanglers – as usual you lot have found something yourself which you think suits your case while leaving out the main story (which is quite interesting actually)
Tim,
In my previous outburst of Chinyanja, I said that my name is Mpezeni. That is what the locals called me. Mpezeni was a chief of the Angoni, one of Chaka’s impis which failed in its mission north of the Zambesi, so wisely decided not to return to Zululand. They married (ahem) Chewa women, and the children grew up speaking ChiChewa (Chinyanja). However, the elder men continued to speak ChiNgoni (SeZulu).
A new theory, from the Zimbabwe Climate Bureau, is that the Angoni did not return to Zululand because the IOD was in a negative phase, and the maize crop failed. There was a missionary at the time, called Luke, who said it was due to human sin. The Zulus were not impressed. He disappeared, and there were loud burps from the Zulus, which could be heard at Fort Jameson.
History provides a rich matrix within which science can function, don’t you think?
Davey,
I think I heard something of that missionary.
Was he the one who got them to kill all their cattle as a sacrificial solution?
Tim maybe this is the WUWT link you were looking for?
Catlin Arctic ice survey can’t be trusted
Here’s something a bit strange. I made a comment in support of Tim as the Catalyst Copenhagen story.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2715030.htm#comments
It went through ok yesterday.
Today I can’t access the comment section.
Perhaps they have tossed me into the heretic bin?
Can any of you get the page to load?
James,
No luck either.
They sure need some comments to point out the crap in Steffen’s little homily.
And his interviewer, “Dr” Jonica Newby! Talk about Dorothy Dix!
James
Looks like you broke the page with your comment!.
Nahh, I think it’s just a glitch or they closed the comments.
Spanglo,
No, that’s a furphy. Further modeling by the Zimbabwe Climate Bureau (formerly Zimbabwe Statistics Bureau) shows that nearly all the cattle died of tsetse bites – due to Global Warming. Those that didn’t were eaten by starving villagers – due to Global Warming. Those Zimbabweans who did not die of famine, died of cholera – due to Global Warming. I have heard that this scientific evidence from the world renowned ZCB, is about to be endorsed by the IPCC. If that happens, President Mugabe will be seeking 11.34 billion dollars in compensation from the rich nations, to be paid into a bank account in the Maldives. Go for it, Robert, say I.
Hi guys, I just watched said catalyst clip and noted a couple of things in particular.
1.”125000 years ago average global temperature was one and a half degrees warmer that today.”
2.” sea levels were 4 to 6 meters higher.”
Isn’t point 1. an admission that the current temp is not unprecedented?
Isn’t the correlation between 1. and 2. at odds with modeling projections for future sea level rise?
Did they just shoot themselves in the foot?
Did any one else get the impression of something strange with the staging of that catalyst?
I got the impression that the interviewer, & the interviewee were in different places, & were tapped at different times.
That is, I believe the interview never happened. I think the answers were tapped, perhaps as a speech, & then the questions were fabricated, & tapped to give the impression of an interview.
Is “OUR” ABC a little less than honest?
Hasbeen,
That could explain those mindless questions.
The ABC’s idea of spicing up a tedious and inaccurate discourse while remaining true to the code of AGW evangelism.
Luke Oct 17th 10am
“suits your case”
You and SJT have this AGW case. SJT says we don’t understand the case for AGW,but admits he’s a little unsure of his case.
Me a total sceptic am sure I don’t need a case, but in case you are wondering, the AGW case looks more to me like a crankcase.
The simpler explanation Mack Truck is that you are thick. Like most denialist scum.
I agree – the quality of the interviewer was different from Dr Steffen – that could be because they only had one camera and shot the questions later, very typical procedure.
I used their contact page to express my dissatisfaction with the interview and how Steffen made a whole series of unchallenged statements that were clearly false. I then told them I have lost all confidence in the ABC Science department on TV and on Radio.
But even “denialiist scum” like Cohenite would say we don’t have a case to answer and that your case should be dismissed.
Why didn’t you say so Mack – in that case I give in – such compelling evidence. You can trust lawyers as you know. They’d never make construct a sophistic argument.
Com’on Luckey Luke – let’s see you spin this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/iq-test-which-of-these-is-not-upside-down/#more-11784
I assume we all accept Geophysical Research Letters as a reasonable, even if not infallible, source of information. In a recent paper (Lean & Rind 2009), the authors predict a mean temperature rise of .18C over the next decade (2009 to 2019). They take into account both human influence and a cooling sun. They then add that ‘on time scales of 10 to 50 years (and longer) decadal climate forecasts are difficult to make with general circulation models due to their many uncertainties [IPCC 2007].’ They go on to suggest that analysis of Sea Surface Temperatures may be a better approach. The interesting Indian Ocean Dipole work (Ummenhofer et al. 2009) supports that suggestion. Lean and Rind also mention the cooling influence of land volcanic eruptions, and the influence of ENSO events (causes unknown?).
Does this mean that the science is uncertain, that is to say, not settled?
Refs:
Lean, J.L. and Rind, D.H. (2009) How will Earth’s surface temperature change in future decades? Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 36, L15708.
Ummenhofer et al. (2009) What causes Southeast Australia’s worst droughts? Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 36, L04706.
The titles of both papers end in a question mark. It’s nice to see that the authors obviously have open minds. Now that’s science.
Well Sellout Brown Davey – trust a denialist to only read 30% of the story.
Missed the Lean & Rind flipside. Missed most of the contemporary Australian climate research. Ho hum. Of course the science isn’t settled. Why don’t you wait till it is. haahahahahahaha
What’s that Jabbawock – yet another half-arsed semi-story from a denialist scumbo – pullease. At least Davey is quoting something reasonable.
“Ho hum. Of course the science isn’t settled. Why don’t you wait till it is.”
Luke,
With the unknown unknowns becoming known unknowns at the rate of about one per day, you’re good at stating the bleedin’ obvious.
We don’t need to wait till it is, just a little more certainty would do before we all rush over the cliff.
It’s a relief to hear you say so though, now is SJT listening?
“The titles of both papers end in a question mark. It’s nice to see that the authors obviously have open minds. Now that’s science.”
Green Davey,
Ya mean they might be head scratchingly sceptical?
Interesting stuff, Mpezeni (aka GD), especially as papers like these and all those Luke has linked to of late never mention CO2. The pollies gathering soon at Copengagen have not noticed yet, nor will they ever, at least not until our scientists come up with some new bogey, eg that hydrogen dioxygenase is a dangerous pollutant. Intriguing also that the focus (eg Nature 30 April 2009) is now (eg Ken Caldeira et al) more on pumping SO2 (well known non-pollutant relative to CO2) into the atmosphere than on reducing CO2 emissions, the latter being in the too-hard basket.
Meantime I have begun to find that while rises in [CO2]’s “radiative forcing” have no demonstrable correlation with changes in temperature anywhere, a regression of dT on dCO2 AND changes in solar radiation SR does produce a statistically significant coefficient on SR, while CO2 remains nowhere. (flat line).
I will gladly send my papers now out in Energy & Environment to any who are interested, mail me at tcurtin@bigblue.net.au. They should also be up on my website soon if not already.
The Catalyst Copenhagen comments are back up, without mine. Ah well.
I put the machine on tilt for a day. That’s something!
Have you been following Glen Morton’s The Migrant Mind?
His latest post is on Greenland sinking into the sea.
http://themigrantmind.blogspot.com/2009/10/prevarications-about-greenland.html
Greenland, the whole island, is suffering from subsidence of 9.2 ± 2.7 mm/yr.
Glen points out that while Scandinavia and Scotland are rising up due to isostatic rebound
Greenland is going the otherway. And there’s only one reason for it. Greenland is putting on weight.
Back to the lying sack of dung, Prof. Will Steffen:
“I think the thing that alarms me the most is the combination of what’s happening in the ocean and what’s happening in the ice sheets. Ice sheets are probably moving more rapidly than we thought was conceivable five or ten years ago. You see large blocks of ice are splitting off the outlet glaciers, they slide into the sea and the water level raises instantly..
From page 252 of Heaven and Earth I find out that glaciers at the margins of ice sheets creep out from under the icecaps as the snow piles up in the middle of the sheet. They are literally squeezed out by the increased weight of the new snows, like toothpaste squeezed out of a tube.
It has nothing NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with warming, everything to do with more snow, precip, ice forming: hence cooling.
James,
I think slight warming would, in fact, lead to more snow, both in Greenland and Antactica. I don’t know if this is the case – I thought most of Antarctica was getting colder, so less snow. Any ideas?
In the lying stakes Luke,how would you stack up a lawyer (Cohenite) with a politician (Al Gore)?
Uppermost in your consideration would be the motivation (such as recognition and fame to be achieved by lying) and the financial gain to be made by both individuals.
I’m inclined to believe the lawyer.. aren’t you? Especially a lawyer with an excellent knowledge of the science.
Luke,
I did read the whole paper (Lean and Rind 2009). They seem like reasonable people to me, even if some of their speculations are, to my mind, debatable. Despite childish abuse from you (Brown Davey etc.) the truth will, eventually, appear. I am sure I have not read as much climate literature as you, because my main interests are elsewhere. I am presently working through Montesquieu’s ‘Spirit of the Laws’, which took him twenty years to write.
However, in the climate field, I suspect that the hydrosphere has, up to now, been much neglected in comparison with the atmosphere. The magnetosphere and ascenosphere have hardly rated a mention. Potential elephants both. Duhem-Quine Thesis?
Have you any useful comments, or shall I, regretfully, write you off as an empty vessel making a lot of noise? That would be a pity, because I have enjoyed most of our banter in the past.
Mack – how about neither !
Come on Davey – kitchy koo. Don’t get all ornery now.
Davey against my best instincts but if you want some reasonable discussion – try reading:
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/publications/researchletters/CAWCR_Research_Letters2.pdf
http://www.bom.gov.au/events/9icshmo/manuscripts/TH1515_Nicholls.pdf
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/LATEST%20program_SEA_workshop.pdf
The on-going drought is explained by the strengthening of the STR
(80% of the rainfall signal reproduced by the STR-I anomalies)
The STR is responding to global temperature of the planet
(two periods of warming during the 20th century as well as one of stabilisation)
(not by chance since it is reproduced by a fully coupled GCM –ensemble-)
Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification
(as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations:
regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)
The WWII drought is the first protracted drought in SEA partly due to G.W.
(albeit only 30% can be explained by the STR-I linked to G.W.)
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
Cause of the widening of the tropical belt since 1958
Jian Lu,1,2,3 Clara Deser,1 and Thomas Reichler4
Received 22 September 2008; revised 9 December 2008; accepted 30 December 2008; published 5 February 2009.
[1] Previous studies have shown that the width of the
tropical belt has been increasing since at least the late 1970s
based on a variety of metrics. One such metric, the
frequency of occurrence of a high-altitude tropopause
characteristic of the tropics, is used here to show that the
observed widening of the tropics can be accurately
replicated by an atmospheric general circulation model
forced by the observed evolution of global SST and sea ice
distributions as well as the direct radiative effects from both
natural and anthropogenic sources. Contrasting this
simulation with one forced by the observed SST and sea
ice distributions alone reveals that the widening trend can be
attributed entirely to direct radiative forcing, in particular
those related to greenhouse gases and stratospheric ozone
depletion. SST forcing causes no significant change in the
width of the tropics, and even a contraction in some
seasons. Citation: Lu, J., C. Deser, and T. Reichler (2009),
Cause of the widening of the tropical belt since 1958, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 36, L03803, doi:10.1029/2008GL036076.
Any curiosity Davey?
Yes James
Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
Hamish D. Pritchard1, Robert J. Arthern1, David G. Vaughan1 & Laura A. Edwards2
doi:10.1038/nature08471
Many glaciers along the margins of the Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets are accelerating and, for this reason, contribute increasingly
to global sea-level rise1–7. Globally, ice losses contribute
1.8mmyr21 (ref. 8), but this could increase if the retreat of ice
shelves and tidewater glaciers further enhances the loss of
grounded ice9 or initiates the large-scale collapse of vulnerable
parts of the ice sheets10. Ice loss as a result of accelerated flow,
known as dynamic thinning, is so poorly understood that its
potential contribution to sea level over the twenty-first century
remains unpredictable11. Thinning on the ice-sheet scale has been
monitored by using repeat satellite altimetry observations to track
small changes in surface elevation, but previous sensors could not
resolve most fast-flowing coastal glaciers12. Here we report the use
of high-resolution ICESat (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite)
laser altimetry to map change along the entire grounded margins
of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. To isolate the dynamic
signal, we compare rates of elevation change from both fastflowing
and slow-flowing ice with those expected from surface
mass-balance fluctuations. We find that dynamic thinning of glaciers
now reaches all latitudes in Greenland, has intensified on key
Antarctic grounding lines, has endured for decades after ice-shelf
collapse, penetrates far into the interior of each ice sheet and is
spreading as ice shelves thin by ocean-driven melt. In Greenland,
glaciers flowing faster than 100myr21 thinned at an average rate
of 0.84myr21, and in the Amundsen Sea embayment of
Antarctica, thinning exceeded 9.0myr21 for some glaciers. Our
results show that the most profound changes in the ice sheets
currently result from glacier dynamics at ocean margins.
Spatial and temporal evolution of Pine Island Glacier thinning,
1995–2006
D. J. Wingham,1 D. W. Wallis,1 and A. Shepherd2,3
Received 12 May 2009; revised 24 July 2009; accepted 5 August 2009; published 9 September 2009.
[1] We use ERS-2 and ENVISAT satellite radar altimetry
to examine spatial and temporal changes in the rate of
thinning of the Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica, during
the period 1995 to 2006. We show that the pattern of
thinning has both accelerated and spread inland to
encompass tributaries flowing into the central trunk of the
glacier. Within the 5,400 km2 central trunk, the average rate
of volume loss quadrupled from 2.6 ± 0.3 km3 yr1 in 1995
to 10.1 ± 0.3 km3 yr1 in 2006. The region of lightly
grounded ice at the glacier terminus is extending upstream,
and the changes inland are consistent with the effects of a
prolonged disturbance to the ice flow, such as the effects of
ocean-driven melting. If the acceleration continues at its
present rate, the main trunk of PIG will be afloat within
some 100 years, six times sooner than anticipated.
Citation: Wingham, D. J., D. W. Wallis, and A. Shepherd
(2009), Spatial and temporal evolution of Pine Island Glacier
thinning, 1995 – 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17501,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039126.
Mack-” how about neither!” Aha Luke ,so they both are lying (talking bs) and we should believe neither.
It’s good to hear you at last confess that Al Gore is lying about a scientific theory that in essence belongs to him. A theory that hardly anybody had even heard of until 1980 when Big AL came along and started his preaching.
Cohenite won’t mind about us calling him a liar will he.. in fact under the circumstances he might even be delighted. You give him enough flack anyhow. He understands that his credibility is just a small sacrifice to make in our quest to get the big liar… Big AL.
Well waddaya know ..a little scepticism from Luke!
I’m inclined to believe the lawyer.. aren’t you? Especially a lawyer with an excellent knowledge of the science.
That rules out cohenite, then. He thinks his equations mean something.
What is it with Luke? His last cites a preposterous paper Wingham et al which claims “If (sic) the acceleration continues at its present rate, the main trunk of PIG will be afloat within
some 100 years, six times sooner than anticipated” [by whom? only jerks like Wingham et al].
Yet again Luke’s assiduity only produces papers with no mention of [CO2] while he himself like Wong & Rudd demands we return to Neanderthal living standards to avoid emitting CO2 (as if we could – Luke when are you going to get Nitschke to help you stop emitting CO2?). Please refrain from further comments until from that other place you have ceased emitting.
Just looking at Tim’s exposition of Type 1 and 2 errors; anything to do with proposals to deal with or solve AGW must automatically involve both error Types; apart from Steffen’s rather bizarre attempts to justify AGW the usual attempt by AGW supporters to overcome the vindication of the 2 Null Hypotheses [ie that is no correlation between CO2 and temp and that AGW is wrong] is by explaining any contrary temp response to CO2 by noting that natural forcings tempararily overcome the underlying AGW trend; hence the latest manifestation by Lean and Rind with notable previous efforts by Keenlyside et al and Easterling; the Lean and Rind effort is particularly brave predicting over the next 5 years rates of warming of 0.3C PD; this is odd because since 1998 the only years with warming trends have been 1999 and 2000.
The whole issue of AGW masking doesn’t take into account accentuation of the putative AGW trend in natural warming phases such as between 1976-1998 especially as there is compelling evidence that the warming of this period was due to a step;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
As Figure 1(a) shows the post WW2 temp trend is in fact a PDO phase shift based step with no measurable AGW imput; the usual CO2/temp linear relationship is shown by the green line; the step is statistically preferred; in short there is no masking because the AGW ‘effect’ is non-existent; predictions of future AGW trends are therefore bound to be type 1 & 2 errors.
Didn’t say lying Mack – simply partisan ! Mack I never heard of Al Gore and AGW till the 00’s. You really must have a simple view of things eh?
Really tediously stupid comments Tim – sounds like you’ve become alarmist and hysterical in your scepticism. Frankly your entire philosophical position is utter ranting drivel. Publish or ping orf (and that’s not E&E). We note your difficulties in this process.
Try not to pretend that you and Stockwell have a “real” publication. So tedious. And so wrong. You fringe dwellers have no effect on the research effort. Just some loose change.
And like dogs returning to their vomit – Cohers actually believes in Jack’s beanstalk – just like Tim believes CO2 is magic pixie dust (forget agronomy and genetics – forget other limiting factors). So Cohers finds PDO keeps building temperature over 150 years – hahahahahahahaha
Yes Cohers – back to the campaign eh? Did anyone remember to ring up Malcolm?
I see even Beattie’s going nuclear. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26221356-11949,00.html
Luke – the ongoing drought is the exact opposite to the forecasts.
The drought is in Queensland and the rain is in the SE – the puters predicted the opposite.
“Dogs vomit”; how visceral of you luke! Let’s really stir up your bile;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
And who cares about Malcolm, the man is in the wrong party, he is part of the urban green elite who enjoy all the benefits of this great society without any insight into how those those benefits are produced or maintained; they think a few windmills on Sydney Heads will keep the lap-tops churning over and the latte flowing; in short they are wankers. Obviously Beattie is a bit shrewder than Malcolm.
Sorry Cohers – don’t bother reading the sophistry of landscape these days. So pretentious – and anything to avoid serious peer review. Tsk tsk.
Janama – what are you talking about – a seasonal forecast system? And what has computer prediction go to do with the price of eggs? Try thinking about what I’m saying for once – I know it’s hard.
Golly galoshes!
Just got up and found the wires have been buzzing. Going back a few yards, yes Luke, I will read the papers you offer, when Baron Montesquieu gives me time. By the way, can you remember the name of the public servant in the British Raj who delved into reasons for the failure of the Indian monsoon. Didn’t he use SSTs? Given his name I can look him up on Wiki.
Sir Gilbert Walker (no relation) – documented the almost global Walker circulation of the atmosphere – it’s strength as measured by the SOI.
Some perspective about the tropics moving to the poles due to AGW as shown by the historical records of tree-line shifts;
http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/Holocene_v12a.pdf
A slightly better use of trees than Briffa has made of them; and an alternative view to the hysteria about Greenland and Antarctica;
http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/ollier_etc.pdf
But that won’t stop luke regugitating the Pritchard piece declaiming a 1.8mm per year increase due to melting glaciers, a bizarre conclusion given this;
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html
Which shows the satellite corrected measure of sea-level increase is just 1mm per year since 2005. I’m not surprised you don’t read anything at Niche luke, the mental dischordancy would sent you shrieking to…well, where ever you go.
Thanks to Luke for the reference to Sir Gilbert Walker, a pioneer of climate studies in the Indian Ocean, and elsewhere. However, it was Tim Curtin who gave me the key name of H.F. Blanford, who suggested, in the 1880s, a relationship between the amount of snow on the Himalaya and the strength of the Indian monsoon. That seems still to be a matter of debate, some saying Blanford was right, others saying not (e.g. Zhao and Moore 2004). It seems the science is not settled. The following website is a start for anyone interested in the history of climate studies.
http://www.tropmet.res.in/~kolli/mol/Forecasting/frameindex.html
Cohers – denialists will deny anything. The now avalanche of evidence is rankly overwhelming. I look forward to the judgement of history of the reaction of vested interests when presented with the facts.
All you guys are now doing is reacting. Not creating. Your agenda has been usurped by reality.
” the tropics moving to the poles due to AGW” – how can you fabricate stuff like this ? Every piece is a try-on.
cohenite,
Good links!
One thing it shows is how much climate changes without any help from anthros. How long does it take the warmers to get it.
I’ll bet ol’ “one tree Keith” knew the story behind those Yamal tree lines but had a more important agenda.
And those T/P/Jason-tide gauge comparisons are a window to the real world that experts in high places like Will Steffen never seem to see.
You wonder why they choose to devalue their own currency.
“The now avalanche of evidence is rankly overwhelming.”
I will agree that the only thing overwhelming about this evidence is its rankness.
And that’s mainly because of where it is found.
As if you’d know Spanglers – you don’t read anything except denialist porn. Against a huge array of evidence denialist scum can only deny. Of course I forgot – denialists can’t read past grade 4.
Ah luke, what a Freudian slip; “rankly overwhelming”; perhaps there’s hope for you yet.
Yes we can read past Grade 4. I am reading Montesquieu. I must admit he is a bit boring, although he did have some novel eighteenth century views on climate. What say, Sigmund Lukesquieu?
What does anyone really know Davey? It’s all pointless.
SJT,
Try Kierkegaard and Sartre. When the philosophy of ‘global warmism’ collapses for all to see, you could start up ‘climate existentialism’, or ‘post modern climatism’. I am sure Michel Foucault would be a great help in your project. Don’t forget to bring in Alan Sokal. You may be aware that since the rather obvious failure of Marxism, we still have ‘existential Marxism’ (Honderich 1995). You might get funding from the Zimbabwe Climate Bureau. Ask Tim Curtin for contacts.
Davey – God is dead. There is no philosophy or politics. Only good or bad Fortran.
Sigmund,
Wear a hard hat when outdoors, in case of thunderbolts.
SJT,
Try Kierkegaard and Sartre. When the philosophy of ‘global warmism’ collapses for all to see, you could start up ‘climate existentialism’, or ‘post modern climatism’. I am sure Michel Foucault would be a great help in your project. Don’t forget to bring in Alan Sokal. You may be aware that since the rather obvious failure of Marxism, we still have ‘existential Marxism’ (Honderich 1995). You might get funding from the Zimbabwe Climate Bureau. Ask Tim Curtin for contacts.
You just meander around the science, Davey, asking pointless questions. Does it intimidate you?
Green Davey they need to read Freud and discover why they disgorge crazy crap all the time. Probably because they are paid to. Anyhow you should leave here and look at WUWT, the Copenhagen conference is far more important. “Not Evil Just Wrong” is worth a look. Climate audit has further discredited the hockey stick. So leave religious zealots behind they are insignificant gnats.
Agreed DHMO,
At least Sigmund Lukesquieu understands what I am talking about, even if he doesn’t agree. SJT? Well, as Confucius allegedly said, it is useless to play classical music in a cow shed.
I suspect it is going to be very cold in Copenhagen in December. The TV cameras should have a field day with blue noses, fur hats etc. If they go to the zoo, they might see snow on the elephants’ backs, and the polar bear will be so happy.
Anyway Davey – how’s the STR going?
Luke says to me Oct 18 th 10.31 pm…
” You really must have a simple view of things eh ?
Not half as simple as the simpletons proposing the AGW theory. The CO2 molecule absorbs heat. There are more of them in the atmosphere Therefore the world is warming up.
errr – yep? so you think the world has no greenhouse effect at all then
Yep, Luke, there is no measurable greenhouse effect, least of all by you, and I am one of the few, perhaps the only one, to attempt to spot it with regression analysis, and I have yet to find a single location on the globe where it has a statistically significant relationship with dT/t. None of your favourite scribblers has ever found such a location, and certainly not the IPCC, if they had it would be on their front over.
MORE TROUBLE FOR Luke and SJT who can’t do regressions
BBC News, 19 October 2009
The growth of British trees appears to follow a cosmic pattern, with trees growing faster when high levels of cosmic radiation arrive from space.
Researchers made the discovery studying how growth rings of spruce trees have varied over the past half a century.
As yet, they cannot explain the pattern, but variation in cosmic rays impacted tree growth more than changes in temperature or precipitation.
The study is published in the scientific journal New Phytologist.
“We were originally interested in a different topic, the climatological factors influencing forest growth,” says Ms Sigrid Dengel a postgraduate researcher at the Institute of Atmospheric and Environmental Science at the University of Edinburgh.
To do this, Ms Dengel and University of Edinburgh colleagues Mr Dominik Aeby and Professor John Grace obtained slices of spruce tree trunks.
These had been freshly-felled from the Forest of Ae in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, by Forest Research, the research branch of the UK’s Forestry Commission. The trees had been planted in 1953 and felled in 2006. The researchers froze the trunk slices, to prevent the wood shrinking, then scanned them on to a computer and used software to count the number and width of the growth rings. As the trees aged, they showed a usual decline in growth.
However, during a number of years, the trees’ growth also particularly slowed. These years correlated with periods when a relatively low level of cosmic rays reached the Earth’s surface.
When the intensity of cosmic rays reaching the Earth’s surface was higher, the rate of tree growth was faster.
The effect is not large, but it is statistically significant.
The intensity of cosmic rays also correlates better with the changes in tree growth than any other climatological factor, such as varying levels of temperature or precipitation over the years.
“The correlation between growth and cosmic rays was moderately high, but the correlation with the climatological variables was barely visible,” Ms Dengel told the BBC.
Here comes the Sun – and George Harrison
Cosmic rays are actually energetic particles, mainly protons, as well as electrons and the nuclei of helium atoms, that stream through space before hitting the Earth’s atmosphere.
The levels of cosmic rays reaching the Earth go up and down according to the activity of the Sun, which follows an 11-year cycle. Every 11 years or so, the Sun becomes more active, producing a peak of sunspots. These sunspots carry a magnetic field that blocks and slows the path of energetic particles. When the researchers looked at their data, they found that tree growth was highest during periods of low sunspot activity, when most cosmic rays reached Earth. But growth slowed during the four periods of cosmic ray-blocking high sunspot activity, which have occurred between 1965 and 2005.
“We tried to correlate the width of the rings, i.e. the growth rate, to climatological factors like temperature. We also thought it would be interesting to look for patterns related to solar activity, as a few people previously have suggested such a link,” explains Ms Dengel.
“We found them. And the relation of the rings to the solar cycle was much stronger than it was to any of the climatological factors we had looked at. We were quite hesitant at first, as solar cycles have been a controversial topic in climatology.”
…Ms Dengel’s team proposes two main hypotheses as to how cosmic ray particles could influence the growth of trees. The first idea is that cosmic rays ionise gases in the atmosphere, creating molecules around which clouds condense, therefore increasing cloud over. This mechanism is hotly debated among scientists, and evidence for it is weak. But if it does occur, then an increase in cloud cover and haze would diffuse the amount of solar radiation reaching the trees.
As diffuse radiation penetrates forest canopies better than direct light, it would increase the amount of radiation that plants capture, and increase photosynthesis by trees, boosting growth.
…”We want to repeat this work for larger data sets, and understand the mechanism better, before we speculate,” says Ms Dengel.
ht: Peiser, Benny at CC Net
That should read…..
Therefore the world must be warming up.
No Luke I don’t believe there is any greenhouse effect and that cloud cover at night has been fooling everyone.
Tim Curtin,
just a quick post – the Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists have made a comprehensive rebuttal of the AGW in their Reservoir monthly magazine. The articles seem to confirm the notion that there isn’t a greenhouse effect on Earth. The whole idea is bizarre – that a gas like CO2 at a lower temperature than the Earth underneath it, can, by radiation of IR, warm not only the Earth beneath it, but also the air under it. Backradiation surely exists, but it can’t warm anything except the the over excited neurons of the AGW crowd with nonsense.
Luke and his mates are not liars but simply stupid, and hence their well trained reactions here are indicative of the ease by which entities of limited intelligence can be trained to produce predictable outcomes.
Have not had a chance to check the Keynes thing as well 🙂
AIG News will be republishing some of Reservoir’s climate articles, by the way but I have copies of all of them and could forward PDF extracts if you would like them. Get to me by the usual method.
Louis
Tim Curtin,
just a quick post – the Canadian Association of Petroleum Geologists have made a comprehensive rebuttal of the AGW in their Reservoir monthly magazine. The articles seem to confirm the notion that there isn’t a greenhouse effect on Earth. The whole idea is bizarre – that a gas like CO2 at a lower temperature than the Earth underneath it, can, by radiation of IR, warm not only the Earth beneath it, but also the air under it. Backradiation surely exists, but it can’t warm anything except the the over excited neurons of the AGW crowd with nonsense.
Luke and his mates are not liars but simply stupid, and hence their well trained reactions here are indicative of the ease by which entities of limited intelligence can be trained to produce predictable outcomes.
Have not had a chance to check the Keynes thing as well 🙂
AIG News will be republishing some of Reservoir’s climate articles, by the way but I have copies of all of them and could forward PDF extracts if you would like them. Get to me by the usual method.
Louis
Woo-hoo – so this blog pronounces there is no greenhouse effect. hahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahsahahahahahashashashahahahahaha ….. ooo it hurts ….
quick Timmy RUSH to Nature – a Nobel prize awaits
Louis denies net radiation and that furnace shields work – hahahahahahahaha
Un-bloody real dudes !
Not even Spencer would back you on this.
Timmy – your problem is that your love of linear regression has turned you into a correlation moron. Not good at regressing forcings, not good at multiple regression, not good at cause and effect, not good at PCA, and certainly not good at systems analysis. Piss weak Tim. Stick to economics. Still confusing CO2 fert with agronomy are we? hahahahahahahahaha
Poor Timmy – summarily ignored by the science community TOTALLY.
Boo hoo.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=79&&n=61 – hahahahahahahahaha
Luke – F**K off – Go Away!!……. you are Sh**…….. You are a pain in my arse!! ……….. you mean NOTHING!
Whistle away……..
Hi Luke, I assume I have your permission to quote you verbatim in my upcoming paper using the regression analysis that is beyond you to show zilch correlation between dT/t and d[CO2]/t, but plenty with dSR/t, dSOI/t and dCR/t (i.e. Cosmic Rays). You could become famous!
I fear I cannot extend that courtesy to the grossly deceptive offering by John Cook that you linked to, as in each case his right hand axis refers to the price of nylon stockings or whatever, eg CPI, in New York since 1900. In any case his Figs 1 and 2 reveal no correlation at all, and his Fig.3 (wrongly labeld by him as Fig.2) equally reveals no statistically significant relationship between any of his mish mash of variables.
All the same, you Luke and John Cook are worthy representatives of the Australian Public Service both here in Canberra and across all the states and territories, not one of whom from Martin Parkinson to Ken Henry has ever shown ANY aptitude for doing or understanding regression analysis. If you or they would like to learn about it I am prepared to offer an introductory course pro bono.
More for my Dummy’s Guide to AGW for Luke, I omitted to add that his John Cook’s Figs 2 and 3 have on their left hand vertical axis “forcings” in W/sq. metre ranging from no less than 3 to minus 3 (in Fig.3) , blissfuly unaware of the NOAA data that in a place like Fresno (Ca) solar radiation ranged from 2106 WattHours/sq.m. in Jan 1960 to 8090 Wh/sq.m. in June 1960, and in 1990 the Jan. figure was 2328 Wh/sq.m, and in June 1990 was 8657 Wh/sq.m.
No doubt Luke like the equally if not more credulous IPCC believes that anthropogenic GHG explains those rises in solar radiation! Hallelulujah! The second coming is nigh.
Apologies for a further afterthought, but knowing that Luke and his colleagues like aforesaid Parkinson and a fortiori their ministers like Wong & Rudd) are arithmetically challenged, I think I should explain that Fresno’s receipt of solar radiation of 8657 Wh/sq.metre in June 1990 equates to 12.02 Watts, i.e FOUR times more than the maximum displayed in Luke’s John Cook’s Figs. 2 & 3, yet he asks us to believe that the change in the RF of CO2 at say Fresno (which is the same everywhere else on earth) outweighs that in SR at each and every location. But if it does, why do the regressions show SR as being the stat.sig. causative factor, and not RF?
SJT wrote:
“What does anyone really know Davey? It’s all pointless.”
That was the entire posting. Whaddayaknow? SJT has outed himself as a Postmodernist pseudo-intellectual. Let’s remember that as His SJTness continues to hold forth on scientific matters that are beyond his ken.
Nah – ya can’t have it both ways Timmy.
And you mean your paper that you will not get published anywhere other than E&E – hohohohohohoho – come on !!!
Poor Janama – when confronted with some facts has a breakdown. You poor widdle fella. Off you go now – off to your bedroom for a little cry.
Just think denialists – this is the “illuminati” that history will associate you with. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/
Shame shame shame. The climate creeps who desertified the sub-tropics.
a great read about the REAL climate crooks.
Hey Timmy “which is the same everywhere else on earth” – hahahahahahahahaha – you silly billy – what a goof.
Luke the reason for my dummy spit is that I’m sick to death of your arrogance, your denial of the facts and your your crass rudeness.
The Realclimate washover you just posted is all BS, and what’s more, no one can call them on it as they’ll just be censored out.
It’s not right wing funding that is bringing their gravy train to a halt, it’s publicly funded people like Dr Roy Spencer, Prof Richard Lindzen of MIT, retired professors like Syun-Ichi Akasofu, and people with a beef about accuracy like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts.
And who funds RealClimate eh mate? RealClimate who attempt to scare the f**k out of our children – who deceive my friends into believing the polar bears are heading for extinction and the planet is doomed.
They are the “Illuminati” that history will archive under global hoaxes.
I reckon….. if sanity prevails….. the illuminati will be hunting for those who have deliberately lied or exagerated.
Who Luke, has more to fear from that do you think?
RC would like to shut down people who do not agree with them would they? Something we seem to be hearing increasingly more of from an increasingly desperate crowd of warmers. There is no doubt that the funding is massively in favour of AGW and there is very obvious self interest involved. And yet RC feels it neccersary to attack any institute , media outlet or blog that is prepared to debate the issue or just argue the other side.
It is abundantly clear that on both sides of the argument there are well meaning and capable individuals. …so why the difference of opinion? BECAUSE THE SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED.
This issue is not black and white and yet so many would have us believe this was the case.
The article you link to with RC is something I think they should be embarassed about and speaks very poorly of them.
Putrid comments Janama – frankly I’m sick of your arrogance. And your 100% content free stupid contributions. Who funds realclimate – it’s simply their opinions – their research is already funded. You have made NO comment on the many serious papers I have tabled above. As usual you have retreated to the comfort zone of denialist scoundrels – polar bears. Haven’t seen any scared children running the streets? What utter tripe. Do you have any kids?
Who has most to fear Toby – the denialist scum who conduct willful disinformation campaigns. Professors who write books full of fibs. AGW is risk management issue of some considerable seriousness. Indeed mankind is already predisposed to poor climatic conditions. Want some more? That’s what any fair analysis of the science looks like. If you think the astroturf mobs RC have linked to are lily white nice guys – well you must have come down in the last shower.
Toby do you fail to see the evidence stacking up every day? Or does you brain run a disbelief filter. And come on about RC being on the offensive – that’s just sooooo precious. RC have been abused and slandered from hill to dale. Glass jaw tactics Toby.
And as for “desperate warmers” Toby – ROTFL – the research is accelerating. Wake up and stop reading blog bilge.
Luke – Fenton communications via Environmental Media Services fund and host Real Climate.
You don’t seriously believe that the contributors fund the data costs out of their own pockets?
but you already knew that.
The RC illuminata link uses eli as a source; talk about the Worm Ouroboros.
Positive Indian Ocean Dipole events precondition southeast Australia bushfires
W. Cai
Wealth from Oceans Flagship, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
T. Cowan
Wealth from Oceans Flagship, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
M. Raupach
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Canberra, ACT, Australia
The devastating “Black Saturday” bushfire inferno in the southeast Australian state of Victoria in early February 2009 and the “Ash Wednesday” bushfires in February 1983 were both preceded by a positive Indian Ocean Dipole (pIOD) event. Is there a systematic pIOD linkage beyond these two natural disasters? We show that out of 21 significant bushfires seasons since 1950, 11 were preceded by a pIOD. During Victoria’s wet season, particularly spring, a pIOD contributes to lower rainfall and higher temperatures exacerbating the dry conditions and increasing the fuel load leading into summer. Consequently, pIODs are effective in preconditioning Victoria for bushfires, more so than El Niño events, as seen in the impact on soil moisture on interannual time scales and in multi-decadal changes since the 1950s. Given that the recent increase in pIOD occurrences is consistent with what is expected from global warming, an increased bushfire risk in the future is likely across southeast Australia.
Received 6 July 2009; accepted 11 August 2009; published 9 October 2009.
Citation: Cai, W., T. Cowan, and M. Raupach (2009), Positive Indian Ocean Dipole events precondition southeast Australia bushfires, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19710, doi:10.1029/2009GL039902.
IOD; http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/Ummenhofer.etal_2009_SEA.pdf QED
Sigh and yawn – not even close to QED Cohers
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L11705, doi:10.1029/2009GL037604, 2009
Recent unprecedented skewness towards positive Indian Ocean Dipole occurrences and its impact on Australian rainfall
W. Cai, T. Cowan, and A. Sullivan
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
Abstract
[1] Is the recent high frequency of positive Indian Ocean Dipole (pIOD) events a consequence of global warming? Using available observations and reanalyses, we show that the pIOD occurrences increase from about four per 30 years early in the 20th century to about 10 over the last 30 years; by contrast, the number of negative Indian Ocean Dipole (nIOD) events decreases from about 10 to two over the same periods, respectively. A skewness measure, defined as the difference in occurrences of pIODs and nIODs, illustrates a systematic trend in this parameter commencing early in the 20th century. After 1950, there are more pIODs than nIODs, with consistent mean circulation changes in the pIOD-prevalent seasons. Over southeastern Australia (SEA), these changes potentially account for much of the observed austral winter and spring rainfall reduction since 1950. These features are consistent with projected future climate change and hence with what is expected from global warming.
But
Nicholls http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/LATEST%20program_SEA_workshop.pdf
“Causes” of decline in rainfall
Immediate cause:
– Fewer and/or drier rain events
Proximate cause:
– Increased pressure; STR intensity/latitude
– Shift in storm tracks
Intermediate cause (circulation “modes”):
– Tropical SSTs
– ENSO, SAM, IOD
Ultimate cause
– Natural (PDO/IOD)
– Greenhouse/ozone depletion
– Aerosols
Local
Northern Hemisphere
March-August southern
Australian rainfall decline:
Reflects increased local pressures
Cannot be explained by trend in SSTs
around northern Australia (trend is wrong
sign)
Cannot be explained by trend in NINO3
(trend is too weak)
Cannot be explained by trend in IOD
(western pole of IOD is unrelated to
rainfall; eastern pole trend is wrong sign)
May be explained by trend in SAM (but
doubts about data and strength of trend
and physical link)
AND so onto Timbal ! Op cit.
The on-going drought is explained by the strengthening of the STR
(80% of the rainfall signal reproduced by the STR-I anomalies)
The STR is responding to global temperature of the planet
(two periods of warming during the 20th century as well as one of stabilisation)
(not by chance since it is reproduced by a fully coupled GCM –ensemble-)
Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification
(as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations:
regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)
The WWII drought is the first protracted drought in SEA partly due to G.W.
(albeit only 30% can be explained by the STR-I linked to G.W.)
The big differences between WWII and now:WWII was an Australia-wide drought, now: Australia-wide wet period … are we still the driest inhabited continent on earth? (Ian Smith was right!!!!!!!!)
Tropical SSTs (natural variability) was the largest contributor -even in SWEA-
Currently, tropical SSTs have help reduced the magnitude of our drought (small)
It’s AGW – QED !
Interesting, i have for the first time this morning made a post at real climate…it sat for 4 hours waiting to be moderated ( fair enough), but has now been scrapped.
I suggested maybe they could look at rosenthals rats and also that the science is not black and white and shutting down debate or suggesting the debate be shut down is anti science and speaks poorly of RC.
No abuse, no names. Maybe I should not have asked these questions.
“Does anybody really think without new technology that we will reduce emissions on a global basis?” and
history is riddled with examples of negative feedbacks but where are the examples of positive feedback that the models rely on for the projections?
Luke’s clots including the ineffable Mike Raupach of CSIRO “show that out of 21 significant bushfires seasons since 1950, 11 were preceded by a pIOD”. Wow! Ever played 2-up? That statement perfectly exemplifies CSIRO’s shoddiness on AGW – but they are giving a better gloss to harlotry, which does at least provide a social service.
Come to think of it but AGW is much like proposing that an ice-cube could emit IR to raise the temperature of a nearby glass of water. Ie a IR radiation from a cooler volume matter is supposed to be capable of elevating the temperature of a hotter volume of matter.
Louis,
Science, schmience what do the warmenistas care about science, it’s all about raking in the dosh.
Look at this little earner
http://eco-anxiety.blogspot.com/
Luke, I agree, the sceptics are dumb, they see no way to profit from this scam while the other side is
laughing all the way to the bank.
Either as fully employed “scientist” spivs or scare merchants.
Marcus
True but given the earnestness of these people, I think they actually believe their science to be correct – Glikson had an “interesting” thing published by CCnet yesterday – and if they actually believe all this stuff – then we have a very serious problem in science. I never thought I would live to see a scientific Dark Age but looks like I am wrong.
The loonies are in charge again.
Louis
“I never thought I would live to see a scientific Dark Age but looks like I am wrong.”
I said it many times, most people think technological advances equate advanced human intelligence.
Nothing can be further from the truth, a stone age man was just as, if not more intelligent as we are today.
If he had not been, we would not be here today, or would not have the standard of living we enjoy.
So, be not surprised by seeing an other “scientific Dark Age ” coming.
We are capable achieving greatness and also great stupidity.
Yes Luke this is a sceptics site and there are people here who don’t subscribe to the greenhouse effect .
I think cloud cover at night, keeping things warm, gives a compelling illusion that the atmosphere acts as a blanket over the entire earth, even if you were to have absolutely no water in it at all.
But if you were to eliminate water from the equation (out of the atmosphere),what have you got left to keep the heat in? Think other planets.
On the sceptics side of the fence – the sceptic scientists say that water vapour “accounts for about 94,95,96% of the greenhouse effect” It seems quite an imprecise figure bandied about-; in such a way that it gives me the impression that they are either giving the warming scientists a 4,5,6% leeway or that there is a 4,5,6% doubt in their minds.
If they were to come out and say that water is 99.99% the cause of all heat retention then that would be tantamount to admitting they shouldn’t have used the words “greenhouse effect” in their statements in the first place.
But we all know where the words “greenhouse” came from back in the ’80s –out of the mouths of Gore and his sidekicks..a cursed lie which is going to be around with us for a little while yet.
Mack – do you seriously believe the load of utter nonsense and stupid rot you just penned? OMIGOD ! What a case. Yea – whatever mate ….
Meanwhile melt rates are up
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland
and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE
I. Velicogna1,2
Received 28 July 2009; revised 26 August 2009; accepted 3 September 2009; published 13 October 2009.
[1] We use monthly measurements of time-variable gravity
from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate
Experiment) satellite gravity mission to determine the ice
mass-loss for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets during
the period between April 2002 and February 2009. We find
that during this time period the mass loss of the ice sheets
is not a constant, but accelerating with time, i.e., that the
GRACE observations are better represented by a quadratic
trend than by a linear one, implying that the ice sheets
contribution to sea level becomes larger with time. In
Greenland, the mass loss increased from 137 Gt/yr in
2002–2003 to 286 Gt/yr in 2007–2009, i.e., an acceleration
of _30 ± 11 Gt/yr2 in 2002–2009. In Antarctica the mass
loss increased from 104 Gt/yr in 2002–2006 to 246 Gt/yr
in 2006–2009, i.e., an acceleration of _26 ± 14 Gt/yr2 in
2002–2009. The observed acceleration in ice sheet mass
loss helps reconcile GRACE ice mass estimates obtained
for different time periods. Citation: Velicogna, I. (2009),
Increasing rates of ice mass loss from the Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets revealed by GRACE, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19503,
doi:10.1029/2009GL040222.
And oh look El Nino has changed … Japanese Al Gores – golly they’re everywhere
El Niño Modoki and its possible teleconnection
Karumuri Ashok
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Swadhin K. Behera
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Suryachandra A. Rao
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Hengyi Weng
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Toshio Yamagata
Frontier Research Center for Global Change/JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan
Department of Earth and Planetary Science, Graduate School of Science, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
Using observed data sets mainly for the period 1979–2005, we find that anomalous warming events different from conventional El Niño events occur in the central equatorial Pacific. This unique warming in the central equatorial Pacific associated with a horseshoe pattern is flanked by a colder sea surface temperature anomaly (SSTA) on both sides along the equator. empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of monthly tropical Pacific SSTA shows that these events are represented by the second mode that explains 12% of the variance. Since a majority of such events are not part of El Niño evolution, the phenomenon is named as El Niño Modoki (pseudo-El Niño) (“Modoki” is a classical Japanese word, which means “a similar but different thing”). The El Niño Modoki involves ocean-atmosphere coupled processes which include a unique tripolar sea level pressure pattern during the evolution, analogous to the Southern Oscillation in the case of El Niño. Hence the total entity is named as El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Modoki. The ENSO Modoki events significantly influence the temperature and precipitation over many parts of the globe. Depending on the season, the impacts over regions such as the Far East including Japan, New Zealand, western coast of United States, etc., are opposite to those of the conventional ENSO. The difference maps between the two periods of 1979–2004 and 1958–1978 for various oceanic/atmospheric variables suggest that the recent weakening of equatorial easterlies related to weakened zonal sea surface temperature gradient led to more flattening of the thermocline. This appears to be a cause of more frequent and persistent occurrence of the ENSO Modoki event during recent decades.
Received 4 July 2006; accepted 13 June 2007; published 8 November 2007.
Citation: Ashok, K., S. K. Behera, S. A. Rao, H. Weng, and T. Yamagata (2007), El Niño Modoki and its possible teleconnection, J. Geophys. Res., 112, C11007, doi:10.1029/2006JC003798.
And so much for OHC groupies – just a matter of time
A new perspective on warming of the global oceans
M. D. Palmer, S. A. Good, K. Haines, N. A. Rayner and P. A. Stott-
Submitted to Geophysical Research Letters – Revised August 2009
Abstract
Changes in ocean circulation associated with internal climate variability have a
major influence on upper ocean temperatures, particularly in regions such as the
North Atlantic, which are relatively well-observed and therefore over-represented in
the observational record. As a result, global estimates of upper ocean heat content
can give misleading estimates of the roles of natural and anthropogenic factors in
causing oceanic warming. We present a method to quantify ocean warming that
filters out the natural internal variability from both observations and climate
simulations and better isolates externally forced air-sea heat flux changes. We
obtain a much clearer picture of the drivers of oceanic temperature changes, being
able to detect the effects of both anthropogenic and volcanic influences
simultaneously in the observed record. Our results show that climate models are
capable of capturing in remarkable detail the externally forced component of ocean
temperature evolution over the last five decades.
And poor Cohers – PDO doesn’t really exist. Red noise. hahahahahaha
Tropical origins of North and South Pacific decadal variability
Jeremy D. Shakun
Department of Geosciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Jeffrey Shaman
College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
The origin of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the leading mode of sea surface temperature variability for the North Pacific, is a matter of considerable debate. One paradigm views the PDO as an independent mode centered in the North Pacific, while another regards it as a largely reddened response to El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) forcing from the tropics. We calculate the Southern Hemisphere equivalent of the PDO index based on the leading mode of sea surface temperature variability for the South Pacific and find that it adequately explains the spatial structure of the PDO in the North Pacific. A first-order autoregressive model forced by ENSO is used to reproduce the observed PDO indices in the North and South Pacific. These results highlight the strong similarity in Pacific decadal variability on either side of the equator and suggest it may best be viewed as a reddened response to ENSO.
So if ENSO changes … well you know where I’m going don’t you Cohers. The others can pick their noses and talk about Al Gore.
Lukebaby !
ie nothing.
BTW we’re still having our asses frozen down here.
AAhahahhahahahhahaha.
PDO and red noise;
http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Red_noise_paper_v3_with_figures.pdf
luke, what is a reddened response?
SST is declining;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-SST-thru-10-14-09.jpg
Luke is much like a librarian, knows all the references etc and nothing about the contents of those references but, unlike a librarian, is rude, crude and vulgar.
Pretty well on par for a Queenslander working for the Long Paddock department.
OHC is declining;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ocean_heat_spike.png
And when the 2002-2003 transition artifact is removed the idea that OHC is the hidey-hole of AGW becomes untenable; David Stockwell will be doing an analysis of the removal of the artifact which is responsible for almost 1/2 of OHC increase over the AGW relevant period.
The OHC and PDO are inextricably linked;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/evidence-that-ocean-net-heat-flow-is-connected-with-climate-shifts-co2-not-correlated/#more-10022
And that is verified by the increase in TOA OLR;
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
In this Lindzen analysis of ERBE data TOA OLR is shown to be increasing in contradiction of every computer model [p 17]; the increase in TOA OLR is consistent with the PDO OHC coupling and requires no AGW imput, in fact contradicts AGW imput.
Which brings us to sea level and melting Greenland and Antartica; the quadratic trend is used to indicate an acceleration; this is clearly not happening because the rate of sea level increase is declining; where is the water going? Have I missed anything; Modoki; there is nothing new about the El Nino Modoki;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/07/there-is-nothing-new-about-el-nino.html
Luke, you are being delirious,
Some of us might not post a plethora of links, but we DO read about the subject matter, and may I add, from both sides.
How can you state, with a straight face, that ice losses are “increasing” according to some, yet fail to mention the actual, indisputable empirical evidence, that they are not!
There are two sides to every issue and you Sir are only looking at one side.
And to top if off you have the nerve to call us “deniers”, you would make me laugh if you meant it as a joke, but you are serious, which makes it worse.
Stupid comment Sinkers. And belies the fact that you are unable to address anything but your eccentric ideas. This is an evidence based blog matey – not where you get to sprout personal kookery as hard science. Engage – don’t be shy when confronted with reality !
I know the cognitive dissonance is crushing.
OHC is wrong ! hahahahahaha
mate the big science machine is just steamrolling over you. Give it away !
Don’t be so utterly stupid Marcus – GRACE is empirical data. Like the two remote sensing papers on ice further up. Why don’t you stop being so utterly stupid and start reading. Stop being part of the predictable denialist scum and start thinking.
We’re now seeing paper after paper on these impacts. We’re seeing massive changes in atmospheric processes and you’re picking your nose. You clown.
Here’s some more – sudden change in the monsoons (too hard for Sinkers of course – he’ll only hand wave)
Summer monsoon moisture variability over China and
Mongolia during the past four centuries
Jinbao Li,1,2 Edward R. Cook,1 Fahu Chen,2 Nicole Davi,1 Rosanne D’Arrigo,1
Xiaohua Gou,2 Wiliam E. Wright,1 Keyan Fang,2 Liya Jin,2 Jiangfeng Shi,3 and Tao
Yang,2
1Tree-Ring Laboratory, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University,
Palisades, New York, USA.
2Center for Arid Environment and Paleoclimate Research, MOE Key Laboratory of West
China’s Environmental System, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
3School of Geographic and Oceanographic Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
1
Abstract
A great impediment of Asian monsoon (AM) climate studies is the general lack of longterm
observations of large-scale monsoon variability. Here we present a well-verified
reconstruction of temporal changes in the dominant summer moisture pattern over China
and Mongolia (CM), based on a network of tree-ring chronologies (1600-1991). The
reconstruction reveals significant changes in the large-scale AM over the past four centuries,
which coincide with dramatic episodes in Chinese history over the period of record. These
episodes include the fall of the Ming Dynasty (AD 1644) and the catastrophic famine during
China’s Great Leap Forward (1958-1961). Overall, the reconstructed AM strength
corresponds well with Northern Hemisphere temperature proxies over the past four centuries.
Yet, this relationship has broken down in recent decades, raising the possibility that the
major driving force of monsoon dynamics has shifted from natural to anthropogenic in
nature.
Just think guys – all these effects are “just happening” ….hahahahahahahahaha
Luke: those articles you cite are invaluable, as they all refute the notion that GHG have anything at all to do with any of the phenomena they discuss, whether it be ENSO or a game of 2-up (Raupach et al).Many thanks, you have earned your citation in my next, which will not be in E&E.
“as they all refute the notion that GHG have anything at all to do with any of the phenomena they discuss” Gee Timmy how’s that? Everyone else sees the opposite.
Gee – are you going to publish somewhere serious? Might have to start calling your Sir.
And more bad news for solar devotees
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040142, 2009
Total solar irradiance during the Holocene
F. Steinhilber and J. Beer
Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology,
Dübendorf, Switzerland
C. Fröhlich
Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos, World Radiation Center,
Davos Dorf, Switzerland
Abstract
[1] For the first time a record of total solar irradiance covering 9300 years is presented, which covers almost the entire Holocene. This reconstruction is based on a recently observationally derived relationship between total solar irradiance and the open solar magnetic field. Here we show that the open solar magnetic field can be obtained from the cosmogenic radionuclide 10Be measured in ice cores. Thus, 10Be allows to reconstruct total solar irradiance much further back than the existing record of the sunspot number which is usually used to reconstruct total solar irradiance. The resulting increase in solar-cycle averaged TSI from the Maunder Minimum to the present amounts to (0.9 ± 0.4) Wm−2. In combination with climate models, our reconstruction offers the possibility to test the claimed links between climate and TSI forcing.
Received 20 July 2009; accepted 11 August 2009; published 2 October 2009.
Keeping up here Sinkers?
Luke
Have it your way, you are a rude and uncouth human being, can’t be bothered with you.
As to your last post re. “GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L19704”
Keep your eyes and ear open, although I’m sure you won’t advertise the responses.
Loopey Luke: just cut and paste here each and every reference to [CO2] in the papers you have cited here today. And while you are at it let’s see your own stellar list of publications (lapidary and ignored Briefs to your even thicker masters do not count).
Your Steinhilber & Beer have as their names suggest spent too much time boozing in Munich, as they have not noticed there is more variation in the NOAA stats on SR since 1960 than in their fatuous data.
The solar paper looks interesting luke but there is an apparent rebuttal here;
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=1396
This article is supported by the Monahan and Dai and Sun and Yu papers on ENSO accumulation;
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
Which is to say there is a ready mechanism explained to describe the recent warming in the 2nd 1/2 of the 20thC despite a flat sun.
Looks like Marcus has tossed in the towel. Bad luck old chap but don’t the nana when you’re beat. Off to your bedroom for a little cry now.
Poor old Timmy reduced to hand waving desperately.
Cohers – there’s always a rebuttal, but at what point does the penny drop with you lot. Simplest explanation is that its complex but underneath AGW is ON ! Where will the bouncing ball lead next.
All this talk about AGW being dead is just denialists humping each other. The research is proliferating and much falling into place.
I notice all here have avoided the STR like the plague. hohohohoho
luke says: “Don’t be so utterly stupid Marcus – GRACE is empirical data”; bad empirical data;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/antarctic_ice_loss_overestimated/
And what exotic meaning do you have for STR luke?
With our hostess away, the Luke seems to be getting rather hysterical.
I hope the ensemble does not start feeding on itself, or possibly beating itself up.
Luke- all of you- the only thing falling into place is how much nothing AGW is, was, and will be.
If I was in your position – that of an exposed ass- I would be hand waving hysterically as well.
Keep up the gesticulating. It keeps things lively while Jennifer is out.
Nonsense Cohers – those measurements themselves are far from conclusive. Wake up.
In any case the rebound does only take some off the top – doesn’t explain the acceleration.
In any case I rather preferred
Wingham, D. J., D. W. Wallis, and A. Shepherd
(2009), Spatial and temporal evolution of Pine Island Glacier
thinning, 1995 – 2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L17501,
doi:10.1029/2009GL039126.
Extensive dynamic thinning on the margins of the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
Hamish D. Pritchard1, Robert J. Arthern1, David G. Vaughan1 & Laura A. Edwards2
doi:10.1038/nature08471
Hunter – gee what science laden comments (not)
“exotic meaning” – you mean defining moment.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
It’s over Cohers – you can all go home now for a sook.
Just as Luke & co exemplify a debased public “service”, so also Harry Clarke for economics as being taught at Australian universities if he is representative. Here is part of his “critique” of the new movie “Not Evil Just Wrong” at his Blog:
“Another insidious use of the media to twist public opinion is the film ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’ which I was unfortunate enough to see today – a promo is here. Endorsed by the libertarian loonies – it is a hideous instance of the big lie. Distortion built on distortion with illogic everywhere. It is a particularly nasty piece of propaganda. The junk science in the movie is demolished here.”
That link leads to the following “science” as endorsed by Harry:
“1. ‘They want to raise our taxes’ [allegedly quoting the movie] No, that’s pure, uncomposted bovine excrement.
2. They want to close our factories.’ That’s more effluent from the anus of male bovines.”
So head for Melbourne and Monash for more sophisticated economic analysis of the ETS. The truth that is beyond Harry is that the ETS is in the nature of an excise tax on the source of about 90% of Australia’s energy, as that is its purpose, to tax that source out of business in favour of “clean” energy sources. As Richard Dennis of the AI has cogently shown, “clean” energy on the scale required at a price to the consumer that is the same as current sources is a pipe dream, and simply assumed by the Treasury to be available by 2030. Absent “clean” energy available at today’s prices of electricity and petrol, the fact is that many industries in this country will close or relocate offshore, e.g. many of those at Gladstone such as alumina and aluminium. That is why, as has evidently escaped the notice of the Clarkes and Quiggins, the Rudd government has (1) drastically cut its actual target for emissions reduction to just 5% by 2020 and (2) is enormously increasing its exemptions for EITE industries and power generators, especially those in Labor seats of course.
Sure, the movie used the very same techniques – so beloved by Clarke when displayed by Michael Moore and Al Gore – to make its points, including the letter delivery to the Gore cottage complete with its black butler, but why not? sauce for the Gore goose… US steelworkers will indeed feel the pinch of an ETS, except of course that Obama will allow even larger exemptions than contemplated here.
Richard Tol (who will be present by video link at the IPA fest in Melbourne on 10th November) famously said at JQ’s blog in 2007 that he like Stern is not fit to teach economics, the same applies a fortiori to Clarke with his acceptance that to say ETS is like a tax is “pure, uncomposted bovine excrement”.
If you can’t do the science, and live for linear regression and polo (!?) – try hand waving as Timmy shows. More denialist alarmism.
“However, any sudden increase in the rate of ice
loss will be resolved unambiguously by GRACE
since the mass rates associated with PGR (postglacial rebound) do not
change significantly over several years.”
sigh – as you see Cohers.
Lukey boy is claiming that the:
1) air temp increase is accelerating
2) arctic, antarctica, greenland, and glacier melt is accelerating
3) OHC is accelerating
4) sea level rise is accelerating
Let this dumb not even farmboy take a guess. Lukey baby, turn the charts so they are right side up. That’s a good boy!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
As I reminded Nicky boy at another thread, trends are not data. All the data is DOWN for alarmists!!!
Where did I say that exactly? As usual – never trust a wiggle watching denialist to represent anything.
STR; saw Stewie Franks today; he has just had a paper on the STR and IOD accepted for publication in GPR; proves the dominance of the natural cycle; should be interesting.
Luke,
No not keeping up at all – I’ve always ignored your Lynsekoism and treat the AGW for what it is. My anecdote concerning the ice-cube summarises it.
I have a real job to do, not your taxpayer funded climate creche supervisory role.
Hi Folks – still at it I see. I recalled reading about satelite experiments to measure the rebound of the earth’s surface since the last ice age a few years ago – it was an experment to see if the techniqe worked, so I was intriuged by of Luke’s post about the GRACE and it’s ability to measre the rate of change of glaciers – seemed a bit far fetched so I had a look at the GRACE Mission Statement:-
“The gravity field of the Earth is variable in both space and time, and is an integral constraint on the mean and time variable mass distribution in the Earth. The science data from GRACE mission will be used to estimate global models for the mean and time variable Earth gravity field approximately every 30 days for the 5 year lifetime of the mission. The science data from GRACE mission consists of the inter-satellite range change measurements, and the accelerometer, GPS and attitude measurements from each satellite.”
No much there about climate change ….
Although “A secondary experiment that GRACE will perform is to examine how the atmosphere affects signals from the Global Positioning System (GPS).
“The GRACE mission combined with other existing sources of data will greatly improve our understanding of:
* Geodesy
* Glaciology
* Hydrology
* Oceanography
* Solid Earth Sciences ”
With Russian, Australian and UK antarctic researchers (the last two seemingly grudgingly) admitting that the Antarctic continent has not warmed but rather has has cooled slightly and ice increased this century; and average southern hemisphere sea ice extent gradually, steadilly increasing for 30 yrs – see eg. Uni of Illinois Cryosphere web, maybe the experimantal GRACE needs to get her gravitometer recalibrated
SJT is right,
I am intimidated by science. If it’s green, it’s biology; if it stinks, it’s chemistry; if it’s frightening, it’s physics; if it breaks down, it’s technology; if it involves prejudice, it’s Lukology. Where does Voltaire come into this? Something about ‘prejudice is the reason of fools?’. That will puzzle SJT. It won’t puzzle Luke – he knows it is true. He probably knows his Candice. Then again, maybe not. I am so glad I attended Brussels University.
Oh mon Dieu, zat should be Candide.
WOW, Cohenite had a confirmed sighting of Stewie Franks ” he has just had a paper on the STR and IOD accepted for publication in GPR; proves the dominance of the natural cycle;”. Sorry , no , it proves the dominance of beliefs and simple regressions, but mechanism and evidence -based science is unmoved.
Here’s an article in tonights paper about people who think along the same lines as you Lukebaby…
PET DOGS ” BAD FOR GLOBAL WARMING ”
The eco-footprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6 Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.
Professors Brenda and Robert Vale, who specialise in sustainable living at Victoria University,say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat,such as chickens or rabbits,in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog : The Real Guide to Sustainable Living.
The couple have compared the carbon emissions created by popular pets, based on pet food ingredients and land use,with those of other lifestyle choices.
“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having alsatians….(but) the environmental impact of those two things is comparable.” Brenda Vale said.
The couple found that cats have an eco-footprint slightly less than that of a Volkswagon Golf,and that a pair of hamsters is equivalent to owning a plasma television.
Mrs Vale said the book’s title was meant to shock,but the couple,who do not own a cat or dog, believe that the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help to slow global warming.
“Though we are not advocating eating anyones pet cat or dog,there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs,we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment” Mrs Vale said.
She took her message to the Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not palatable options. (even the paper loves it!)
Kelly Jeffery , a german sheperd breeder from Paraparaumu, said eliminating traditional pets would be “over the top”.
Ahahaha Where do these people come from?!!!!!
Lukebaby! you better rush out and buy their book for more ideas on saving the planet!
I hope these people are not doing this on taxpayer’s time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ahahahahahahahahahahaha..AAAhahahahahahaha
Boring Cohers – no mechanisms as Bazza said. Stats not worth a bumper. Get modelling or perish without insight. Fringe dwelling statisticians who think they know something about climate. Stewie is gonna have to run to keep up now. The CAWCR boys have gone to another level.
Mack – yawn – didn’t even read it.
Spare us the bulldust Davey – where’s your reading up to?
Roger – does sea ice extent imply more or less more icepack ? Have a ponder.
Louis – excuses, excuses.
Jesus Davey, it’s “Candide”. I have even seen the musical.
Well done SJT, now read the book, with particular attention to Dr Pangloss.
Luke, Having tolerated your bulldust for years, I don’t see why I should spare you from mine. At least my bulldust has a rich classical patina. Yours is just grey cat vomit. I tried clicking on one of the SRT websites you recommended, and my computer froze. Is this symbolic of the state of AGW ‘science’?
I am off to Amazon.com to see if they have any more books by Voltaire, or Garth Paltridge. Good luck with your Fortran.
Greenland and WAP glacier decline is really at the forefront of the AGW alarmism; the Grace data is wrong; here is the summation:
“The WAGN boffins say they are sure that recent figures for ice loss calculated from GRACE readings have been overestimated, but they are not yet sure by how much. However, they say that there is no dispute about the fact that ice is disappearing from the antarctic sheet – this process has been underway for 20,000 years, since the thickness peaked during the last “glacial maximum”.
For “20,000 years” sort of pre-dates AGW; in any event the ice record at WAP is not as simple as AGW states;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529.shtml
AND sea level increase is declining:
http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/6/31/2009/osd-6-31-2009.html
I’ve defended drunks who were more credible than AGW science.
Sigh – from the ACTUAL paper
“However, any sudden increase in the rate of ice
loss will be resolved unambiguously by GRACE
since the mass rates associated with PGR (postglacial rebound) do not
change significantly over several years.”
Which it has done regardless of long term PGR !!! QED !
Wouldn’t employ you as a lawyer then. No research on the brief.
And what a bit of classic stupid wiggle watching denialism – sea level has decreased since 2005. WOW !
ROTFL. See the history of sea level rise – does the trend wiggle around against a background of continuous rise – YES
So desperate Cohers. So desperate.
NEXT !
So Luke,
Thinking of the Arctic, (whose see ice extent is roaring (well perhaps not roaring) back with multi-year ice building), “does sea ice extent imply more or less more icepack ? Have a ponder.”
Lukers,
“ROTFL. See the history of sea level rise – does the trend wiggle around against a background of continuous rise – YES”
Yup, a rise of about 1.4mm/yr!!
Too bad Gubmint types are too slow to catch up. We’ll leave you a message in the next century Lukers!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yes KookyKat but alas anthropogenic forcing is the dominant reason
Jevrejeva, S., A. Grinsted, and J. C. Moore
Anthropogenic forcing dominates sea level rise since 1850
Geophys. Res. Lett., doi:10.1029/2009GL040216, in press.
HHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well done SJT, now read the book, with particular attention to Dr Pangloss.
If it’s all the same with you, I’d rather pay particular attention to Candice.
Once again, it’s dodging the science, isn’t it Davey?
Is the Luke’s tax payer funded job to troll and make an ass of themselves at public expense, or are they simply yet more over employed bureaucrats pretending to work?
Citing self-referential crap is not winning arguments, you guys.
But it is a typical tactic of AGW extremists to simply try and bury discussions by filling up the threads with spam.
Well done, the Luke.
14 short days since Jen deserted, and less than a response an hour since, and she has to get to 40 days in the desert to test her faith that the free market can solve all. But alas, already she has succumbed to temptation and asked that same market for funds. “There is a little orange button at the right-hand side of this page. It asks for A$50. ” Whither pride?Maybe the desert is growing.? Maybe Jen is disenchanted with the desert of ideas and the crap from the sceptic camp after she has seen afresh the dystopia of the AGW sceptics.? Only Cohenite attempts some mock-prissy pretence of an evidence based approach, but as lawyers do it is not about truth and justice , it is about his client and his fee, and it is no match for the might of the one or two who still and stoically defend what was an overwhelming weight of evidence even two decades ago.
Bazza – one hopes it is not a James Morrison in the desert experience. Windows of perception.
Or perhaps it’s an AGW induced desert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yPqYl6DJJs&feature=related
Or perhaps Jen’s in search of the real Australia but can’t forget it anywhere? (because of AGW) Remember Jen you can’t take a holiday from yourself.
bazza,
Pointing out the lack of evidence for AGW requires only showing that there is no evidence for AGW.
We do not have to come up with evidence. The only thing to show is that nothing of signifcane or unusual nature has occurred – it has not- and that in every case, bad data, bad techniques, and trimming the process to fit the deisred outcome, has taken place – and it has.
Your side’s evidence, as Luke demonstrates, is the evidentiary equivalent of a corpulent naked emperor strutting around.
I will bet you a donation to Jen’s site that her novel, and her pov, will only confirm what more and more people know: that AGW is bunk.
I suspect Jen has had a gutfull of the trolls on this site. – I know I have.
I also bet none of the trolls have hit the orange button even though this site appears to be their only purpose in life.
Hey Luke – why don’t you go over to the Greens site and have a lovefest with Clive Hamilton – I’m sure you two would get along nicely.
Monckton for 1 hr on Canadian TV for a week ago – well worth watching – 5 parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zaPCYgovg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH_tD2E1qXU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cCxdT6Trko
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glMu6A3Uync
“It asks for A$50. ” Whither pride?Maybe the desert is growing.?”
Well Bazza, you should be grateful for blogs like this where you are allowed to state opinions like yours that disagree with the bias of the blog.
Real Climate a poster boy of you believers, would not allow you to make a bitchy post like your nasty one about Jen asking for money. It won t even allow you to make a post that doubts the subject matter. They sensor posts heavily and expect respect. They are yet another example of why we should be sceptical.
Janama – well it’s simple – you should stop being a troll and contribute meaningfully to the debate.
But I guess you’d like a nice redneck backslapping content free old boy site wouldn’t you – where your lack of insight and moronic drivel isn’t confronted !
I’ve contributed to the orange button long ago – but have you? So don’t verbal me denialist scum.
I’m not here to contribute to the debate Luke – I’m not a scientist. I come from the performing arts.
I’m just your regular punter who is interested in the subject and has been for some time and so far you and your uncouth diatribe hasn’t convinced me of anything meaningful as far as your case is concerned. You are basically a joke.
I object to being called denialist scum – if you slung the abuse you sling here on any other website, blog or forum, including my own, you’d have been banned ages ago.
I’m not a redneck and in any other field apart from climate change I’d be considered a full on lefty, possibly even left of you!
I don’t hear you complaining about robust comments from others so as far as I’m concerned you’re a total hypocrite. BTW I object to being termed an alarmist and many other comments levelled by a good number of commentators.
So have you contributed to Jen’s tip jar lately while you’re speaking out of your hat ?
You see unlike other commentators who seem to care who you are, where you live, what you do, how you vote etc – I don’t care. It’s simply the AGW debate. What is good fun of course is indulging all The Luke inc stuff. Shows how unobjective and suggestible they are. hahahahaha. A mile out. So much for any logical analysis.
Lukers sings;
“Yes KookyKat but alas anthropogenic forcing is the dominant reason”
And he prove it by,
wait for it
STATING IT IS SO!!!!!!
Come on Lukeless say it. I want you to make a formal statement that you believe that is an excellent paper in terms of scientific procedure, data, honesty, and intent. That it expresses the best in modern Scientific endeavour!! And you CAN’T LAUGH!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukeless, I thought I came up with some sketchy papers. You beat me hands down every post!!!
The robust comments of others I find to be just that – robust – yours are arrogant abuse – totally different animal.
Yes – I contributed to the tip jar when I first arrived at this site as I’m fully aware of the cost of data these days.
And yes I did contribute to Jen’s walkabout, twice. She’s worth it, as those modern women say.
Lukeless harumphs,
“Janama – well it’s simple – you should stop being a troll and contribute meaningfully to the debate.”
You mean like you and SJT and OLD Sod and sweet Nicky do???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hi janama,
Thankyou for the Lord Monckton clips.,
Part 2 was the most reassuring thing I’ve seen. A little bit of hand waving (over the head) from the sceptics you might want to take notice of Luke.
It’s called simple science. The simple answer for the simpletons of AGW.
I can empathise with Jennifer’s walkabout after suffering years of these fear mongering trolls. Listening long enough to their bs can get to you eventually.
Steve Mc has a good solution those old alarmist blues;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7502
yeah – Listening long enough to their bs can get to you eventually.
I understand she’s out in the NW of NSW
as John Williamson put it:
No a bushman can’t survive on city lights
Opera rock and roll and height of heights
His moon shines on the silver brigalow
Shimmers down the inland river flow
Out there where the yellow belly bites
janama,
Thanks for the video links. Honest and true stuff.
Pity the alarmist creeps wouldn’t watch but I suppose it would upset them more than Superfreakonomics.
Sounds like Jen has gone adriving ‘Back a Bourke’ – once a useful euphemism for beyond the semi-arid and into the arid, well in most years anyway, and more so when El Nino visited. Pity that with climate change ‘Back a Bourke’ has now moved a 100km or more to ‘Front a Bourke.’
Luke,
Excuses? No your moron – when are you going to wake up to the fact that scientific truths are not determined by by debate but from the compulsion of experimental fact!
Science is not about consensus nor debate – but it is clear that this is what you and your fellow morons believe it to be.
Except is isn’t science but politics dressed up in scientific jargon, and debate is surely applicable to issues concerning politics.
Mack – you’re such a mug – try James Annan or Chris Colose for some inside into Monckton’s try-ons. Gullible and suggestible our Mack is.
“True and honest stuff” – what a bunch of rope-a-dopes – hahahahahaha – I’m amazed how much you mugs swallow this rot without the slightest bit of counter research. Drongo for sure.
As Colose said – it’s what Lindzen doesn’t tell you that’s the issue.
True Bazza – but I reckon Jen’s photo was 7.8km south of Bellata. And that would be now the El Nino Modoki frontier.
P.S. Janama – Take the partisan blinkers off matey !
More excuses Sinkers. You’re like the energiser bunny aren’t you.
Come on mate – give it away. Let’s hear some science instead of your tiresome pseudo-cold war claptrap. Boooorrring.
Which way has climate changed for Back of Bourke to become Front of Bourke bazza?
Is that front to back or back to front?
So Luke why would Monckton be just trying us all on? What is his motivation for doing so?
In fact what is the motivation of most sceptics to dispute this science which you declare is settled?
An opinionated aristocrat lamenting the lack of limelight after the good old Maggie days.
He has the time and the money. He’s playing to win but winning isn’t necessarily the truth.
Who knows what motivates sceptics. Reasons vary.
Mack why are there moon land sceptics, creation science advocates and so on …
Luke,
Your quoting crap studies is not science. My pointing out they are crap is completely sufficient, along with the complete lack of cooperation of the climate with your bogus predictions.
“My pointing out they are crap is completely sufficient” Hunter – how utterly quaint.
What a comment from (a) someone who doesn’t read any literature (b) doesn’t understand it anyway (c) never makes a science comment. That’s rich.
Hunter we don’t burn ladies at the stake anymore. Nor believe in rabbits’ feet as charms. Well you might in your county.
As I said previous – a old boys club of backslappers carrying on in echo chamber might have some reassuring values – but isn’t evidence.
Carrying on like a redneck lynch mob or 5th columnists I’m afraid is not science. And you mate are a scientific ignoramus.
Notice how the verballing subtly drifts in – from Mack – “this science which you declare is settled”
Did I say that?
From Huntsbo – “with your bogus predictions” err – which were ?
You guys are now serial liars without even knowing you’re doing it. You’ve lost all perspective.
Anyway of more importance – this is what the risks are:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/24/2723137.htm
Do the Chinese know something we don’t
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/23/AR2009102304075.html
And how is that monsoon going?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;322/5903/940
Just in case nobody else has noticed, this thread has descended into the undead category. At the moment, it’s dominated by trolling, by troll-bashing, and by trolls recovering from their mortal wounds and returning to nosh on the brains of their would-be slayers. I hope that Jennifer returns soon. In the interim, I’ll be spending a little more time at Anthony’s blog.
yes they do Luke.
On October 22, an accord was signed by Xie Zhenhua, China’s vice minister at the National Development and Reform Commission, and Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, in New Delhi. The memorandum provides an alternative framework to counter pressure from America and Europe to adopt mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in a new UN treaty. The two Asian powers will collaborate on the development of renewable power projects and improved energy efficiency programs, while rejecting any outside mandates that would slow economic growth.
Xiao Ziniu, director general of the Beijing Climate Centre, told the British Guardian newspaper recently that “There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous….Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects….In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today.” He disputed the disaster warnings of the UNIPCC, saying, “The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/chinaindia_accord_to_scuttle_u.html#
Luke – Colose is a joke – read the comments
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/re-visiting-cff/
Janama – what’s issue with Colose??
As for China – try to separate the rhetoric from
“Nonetheless, the government has set ambitious targets for renewable energy, which is supposed to account for 15 percent of the country’s fuel mix by 2020, and for tree planting, to boost forest cover to 20 percent of China’s land mass by the end of next year. China plans to quadruple its nuclear power; by the end of next year, it may have 18 nuclear energy plants under construction, half of the world’s total under construction.”
Luke the issue with Colose is that he doesn’t address Lindzen’s paper which is the paper Monckton addresses. Lindzen’s paper is a published peer reviewed paper, Colose is a blogger – now what have you always said about this factor in the past Luke? Please be consistent.
As for China – your quote is the rhetoric Luke – this is the fact
An article published in China’s Science Times on September 7 cited a study done by Ding Zhongli, vice president of the Science Academy of China. It argued that there is no solid scientific evidence to strictly correlate global temperature rise and CO2 concentrations. Professor Ding noted that some geologists believe that global temperature is related to solar activities and glacial periods, meaning human activity is only one factor that can cause climate change. “Up to now not a single scientist has figured out the weight ratio of each factor on global temperature change,” he wrote.
The author of the Science Times article, Wang Jin, used Ding’s study as part of his larger argument that, “the massive propaganda ‘human activity induced the global temperature increase’ has been accepted by the majority of the society in some countries, and it has become a political and diplomatic issue. Why do the developed countries put an arguable scientific problem on the international negotiation table? The real intention is not for the global temperature increase, but for the restriction of the economic development of the developing countries.” The problem for Beijing is, according to Wang, “How can China fight for its right to emit while continuing to develop its economy?
The answer is to confront the issue head on. At a UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) meeting in Thailand Oct. 5, China and the Group of 77 developing nations reiterated their opposition to any binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from “poor” countries and countries with “economies in transition.” They were prepared to walk out of the climate talks if there was any language in the drafts leading to Copenhagen that would limit their actions. As a result, the two weeks of talks in Bangkok ended “without a consensus” on how to proceed.
and India, Russia and Brazil (BRIC) agree. Sortta leaves the US and Europe out in the cold so to speak.
Oh pullease Janama – Colose is a climate scientist.
The blog content is highly technical. At least get on a relevant thread too eh?
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/
As for China – well what they say – with such vested interests and a on party state.
So this makes good sense doesn’t it.
“Nonetheless, the government has set ambitious targets for renewable energy, which is supposed to account for 15 percent of the country’s fuel mix by 2020, and for tree planting, to boost forest cover to 20 percent of China’s land mass by the end of next year. China plans to quadruple its nuclear power; by the end of next year, it may have 18 nuclear energy plants under construction, half of the world’s total under construction.”
It’s called watch what I do – not watch what I say !
So Janama – as for China this is the fact !
Ray Ladbury says:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/climate-cover-up-a-brief-review/comment-page-4/
First, it is rare that you wind up with an outright refutation of a published paper in the scientific literature. Rather, what usually happens is that questions are raised about the data or methodology of the paper. Such is the case with Lindzen’s use of ERBE data. The published work is an improvement [edit] It is still not clear if he is using the most correct version of the ERBE data, particularly since things look very different from Wong et al.
Gavin and James Annan have raised questions about why Lindzen is comparing to AMIP rather than CMIP simulations, which would be the more appropriate comparison. No response from Lindzen. See:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/quick-comment-on-lindzen-and-choi.html
And Chris Colose has done an excellent post that bears on why Lindzen is certainly wrong:
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/re-visiting-cff/
Finally, you asked for confidence levels. I commend to you:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
This details most of the independent lines of evidence–all of which favor a climate sensitivity of 3 degrees per doubling–and none of which support a sensitivity as low as 2 degrees per doubling with any confidence.
“Colose is a climate scientist.”
Not according to Wiki. I can’t even find his bio on the net or on his wordpress blog. Does he hold any academic position or is he just as I said – a blogger?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_scientist
Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.- now that’s serious.
as for China you can’t spin what I posted mate!
Lindzen is a contrarian who can’t be trusted like Spencer. The dispute speaks for itself.
As for his position – ho hum. Can easily produce a larger alternative list – who cares. It’s the facts of the matter.
Ding is yet another unhappy geologist – so who cares. What would you expect.
as for China you can’t spin what I posted – mate !
“Nonetheless, the government has set ambitious targets for renewable energy, which is supposed to account for 15 percent of the country’s fuel mix by 2020, and for tree planting, to boost forest cover to 20 percent of China’s land mass by the end of next year. China plans to quadruple its nuclear power; by the end of next year, it may have 18 nuclear energy plants under construction, half of the world’s total under construction.”
You’re shameless luke; the Colose thread on Lindzen and Wong was a ‘colosal’ beat up; before his comments on Watts Lindzen had written a paper aknowledging the Wong adjustments; I refer that paper here at number 3;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/more-worst-agw-papers/
You can request the paper from Lindzen direct, it is no longer linked. The point about the Wong adjustments is that they still showed a TOA negative feedback; that is indisputable; Lindzen’s subsequent peer-reviewed paper;
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
clearly shows that negative feedback in an unambiguous fashion; this is contrary to all the model predictions which in conformity with AGW theory predicted a reduction in TOA OLR to reflect a high sensitivity. The article by Colose you link to doesn’t address this at all; it is a rehash of AGW theory; once again we have theory and virtual reality preferred to empirical fact by the AGW acolytes; show me one part of Colose’s thread which rebuts the ERBE data.
“and for tree planting, to boost forest cover to 20 percent of China’s land mass by the end of next year”
It’s spin Luke
20% forest cover promised
Zhao Huanxin
2006-02-28 05:41
A fifth of China’s land area will have forest cover by 2010, the State Forestry Administration vowed yesterday.
Over the past five years, the percentage of China’s land area covered by forests has risen from 16.6 per cent to 18.2 per cent, Jia Zhibang, chief of the forestry agency, told a press conference held by the State Council Information Office yesterday in Beijing.
“By 2010, the country will strive to raise the rate to 20 per cent.”
“China plans to quadruple its nuclear power”
from 1.1% of total energy to 4.4% of total energy output.
spin again.
When the United States’ top energy and commerce officials arrive in China on Tuesday, they will land in the middle of a building storm over China’s protectionist tactics to become the world’s leader in renewable energy.
Calling renewable energy a strategic industry, China is trying hard to make sure that its companies dominate globally. Just as Japan and South Korea made it hard for Detroit automakers to compete in those countries — giving their own automakers time to amass economies of scale in sheltered domestic markets — China is shielding its clean energy sector while it grows to a point where it can take on the world….
China has built the world’s largest solar panel manufacturing industry by exporting over 95 percent of its output to the United States and Europe. But when China authorized its first solar power plant this spring, it required that at least 80 percent of the equipment be made in China.
When the Chinese government took bids this spring for 25 large contracts to supply wind turbines, every contract was won by one of seven domestic companies. All six multinationals that submitted bids were disqualified on various technical grounds, like not providing sufficiently detailed data.
This spring, the Chinese government banned virtually any installation of wind turbines with a capacity of less than 1,000 kilowatts — excluding 850-kilowatt designs, a popular size for European manufacturers….
This year, China passed the United States as the world’s largest market for wind energy. It is now building six wind farms with a capacity of 10,000 to 20,000 megawatts apiece, using extensive low-interest loans from state-owned banks….
European wind turbine makers have stopped even bidding for some Chinese contracts after concluding that their bids would not be seriously considered, said Jörg Wuttke, the president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China.
European turbine manufacturers are especially disappointed because they built factories in China in order to comply with the country’s requirement that turbines contain 70 percent local content, Mr. Wuttke said. Yet all the multinational manufacturers were disqualified on technical grounds within three days of bidding for wind farm contracts this spring, even as Chinese companies that had never built a turbine were approved, he said.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/14/energy-and-global-warming-news-serious-nuclear-reactor-failure-in-germany-carelessness-and-mismanagement-china-protectionist-tactics-renewable-energy-solar-wind/#
Shameless?!
What says a lawyer/political activist and a bunch of known denialists. hahahahahahaha
Your most indiscriminate turdesque moments illustrating the point “worst AGW papers” – brought to you from denialist political action central – hahahahahahahahaha – pullease
Just more cherry picking of data sets Cohers.
Go back to El Nino building heat over centuries by statistical voodoo – at least it was funny.
That’s spin is it Janama? mate you’re laughable
Sounds like aggressively strategic at all levels
Funny how the high priests of AGW theory in Australian academe simply cannot cope with data analysis. Here’s part of an attempted post of mine at Harry Clarke’s, responding to his statement that he is “too busy” to debate the science with me or anybody else, where in fact I do not debate the science, but merely seek to test the data on which that “science” depends. After 24 hours no sign of it, and indeed he’s closed down that thread, which rarely for his Blog has had as many as 17 or so posts, while his current top thread has attracted not a single comment, which is of course the way the priesthood likes things to be.
I said “….A pity Andrew Worthington in your latest issue of Economic Papers has not applied his evident excellent stats skills to rebutting the paper on the same UHI phenomenon [I had raised] (which is much more prevalent than previously admitted) by McKitrick and Michaels, in yes, the peer reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research 2007 (how does its impact rate with Ec Papers’?), “Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded climate data” . Andrew’s paper instead pursued the preposterous hypothesis that windspeed et al could have something to do with stock prices in Sydney. Good god, they don’t! – and I had thought it was worldwide strong winds in 2007 that had caused the GFC.
But then I forgot, only climate scientists are allowed – here and elsewhere – to use data to test their hypotheses, they never do of course, there is not a single table reporting regressions ANYWHERE in AR4, and especially not where they should be in Karoly’s Chap 9 (Attribution) in WG1, but that is why nobody else should be allowed to. So you and Worthington should take care, even contemplating doing so could expose you, if not to dismissal, certainly to removal from ARC’s approved list for its next handouts”.
Tame enough surely, apart from a mild sting in the tail! But too much for our La Trobe economics prof. to tolerate!
Luke – the Chinese have stated they don’t believe in AGW!! – my Post – the creation of a renewable energy program – your post – is spin for people like you who want to drive this country to buy up Chinese made windmills and solar panels.
Yes it’s aggressively strategic but not for the reasons you believe.
check out the German experience:
http://www.rwi-essen.de/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/PUBLIKATIONEN/GUTACHTEN/P_RENEWABLE+ENERGY+REPORT+RWI+FORMAT.PDF
“is spin for people like you who want to drive this country to buy up Chinese made windmills and solar panels.” more verballing Janama – I’m for new nuclear (ever think to ask)
Tim – perhaps it’s from previous experience that debate become disingenuous. They can’t be bothered checking you. Best you get published in GRL or J Climate and use that as evidence 🙂
“I’m for new nuclear”
so who’s going to sell us that?
Comments from Luke 24th 11.10 pm.
“who knows what motivates sceptics. Reasons vary.”
Ever thought for a moment Luke, why there’s all these people (scientists, bloggers etc.) who are banging the table saying the science is crap? They’re doing so just because they know the science IS crap. They don’t like crap science and they don’t like science covered in political crap.
Ever thought Mack that a great body of scientists are banging the table saying stop watering down the implications of AGW and the time to act is now.
There are very few scientists – Spencer and Lindzen of any substance on this issue as worthy contrarians. The rest are inevitably flim-flams or simply political activists.
You’re very gullible Mack. And not widely read. So in this HUGE field – all the science is crap.
Really ! A vast global conspiracy eh? Doesn’t sound a bit nutty Mack?
Janama – no major party yet – but simply a matter of time.
Luke: I have repeatedly challenged you to cite (and site) a single met. station anywhere in the world where there is any correlation between changes in Mean Min. Temp and changes in [CO2]. Notice that I specify Mean Min temps, as that is when changes in [CO2] should have their greatest effect, in the absence of the sun at night when Min temps occur and [CO2] has its best chance of overturning the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Can you name a single climate scientist who is even aware of this factor? You never will because that is mission impossible, the FACTs are against you, as all the authors you have recently cited secretly admit.
Funny how the high priests of AGW theory in Australian academe simply cannot cope with data analysis.
If you ever come up with some data analysis, they’ll cope with it.
Luke, thanks for the link to the ABC article on population, I’m quite concerned about that issue. By the way, my house runs totally on solar with a backup generator in winter and I plan on supplementing it with a wind turbine in the near future. I love being independent of Big Power. I’m also a fan of new nuclear so there you go Luke, some common ground.
You mean the great body of scientists on the govt payroll who seem to be fairly quiet lately Luke.
No global conspiracy Luke just a big lie started by AL back in 1980,perpetuated by a gullible media, popular to environmentalists, and kept going by politicians much in the same way as for example half the German race was deluded by Hitler.
You know that everything that comes out of the States is big Luke.
Well this is a whopper. and it comes with fries (we fry)
Thanks Derek.
Mack – ” just a big lie started by Al back in 1980″ – mate – do you really believe that? Wow ! STop hanging around on street corners eh? Did you know the moon landing were fabricated too Mack? And Elvis is still alive. It’s all a BIG conspiracy Mack.
As for Hitler etc – hmmmm now wasn’t that a police state. Come on Mack don’t use stupid comparisons.
Tim – yes Mauna Loa was a good example. You got the case study and you just hand waved. Haven’t been bothered with your dross since.
Timmy – don’t tell me – go publish !
“You mean the great body of scientists on the govt payroll who seem to be fairly quiet lately Luke.’
hahahahaha – are you actually mental Mack. Go see the volume of literature from research being produced !! You really are a moron.
The interesting thing in coming here only occasionally the last week or so is that the true believers seem to know they have lost.
The Lukes make no pretense at reason, and only offers self-referential offal dressed up as studies, and shrieking liking a baboon (which no one else seems to be able to accomplish) .
The fact that the climate is doing nothing particularly interesting is driving our true believers crazy. Although for the Lukes, it is an admittedly short drive.
Derek Smith,
“By the way, my house runs totally on solar with a backup generator in winter and I plan on supplementing it with a wind turbine in the near future. ”
Just wondering what that backup generator runs on, wood chips or some other renewable like Denmark??
How will you replace parts after the Alarmists like Luke, SJT, SOD… destroy the filthy factories and the economy and no longer allow shipping due to its large Carbon Footprint??
Are you praying to Gore you will be dead before then??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hunter – One day you might attempt to make a relevant climate science comment. Until then – yawn. So boring.
KookyKat – tries it both ways – so you get the denialist line – BUT the earth has survived all manner of upheavals so let it rip – but on the other hand on mitigation – any changes will be devastating causing immediate world-wide collapse. It will be the end of the world. You hypocrite. It’s the olde alarmist denialism.
KookyKat – why are the factories so filthy – is this one of your sleazy investments in Eastern Europe with sub-standard conditions. Knowing denialist scum ethics it probably is.
Well luke, that last rejoinder to kuhnkat is a bit contradictory even by your standards; why is scepticism [denialism in your lexicon] now associated with sub-standard conditions in former communist industrial sites; I believe I have answered this misrepresentation here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/ten-worst-man-made-disasters/
And speaking of ‘conditions’, some fellow travellers of your’s luke;
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/kill_and_chill/
Just another brick in the wall…
Ice core evidence for significant 100-year regional warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
E. R. Thomas
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
P. F. Dennis
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
T. J. Bracegirdle
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
C. Franzke
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
We present a new 150-year, high-resolution, stable isotope record (δ 18O) from the Gomez ice core, drilled on the data sparse south western Antarctic Peninsula, revealing a ∼2.7°C rise in surface temperatures since the 1950s. The record is highly correlated with satellite-derived temperature reconstructions and instrumental records from Faraday station on the north west coast, thus making it a robust proxy for local and regional temperatures since the 1850s. We conclude that the exceptional 50-year warming, previously only observed in the northern Peninsula, is not just a local phenomena but part of a statistically significant 100-year regional warming trend that began around 1900. A suite of coupled climate models are employed to demonstrate that the 50 and 100 year temperature trends are outside of the expected range of variability from pre-industrial control runs, indicating that the warming is likely the result of external climate forcing.
Received 16 July 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 24 October 2009.
Citation: Thomas, E. R., P. F. Dennis, T. J. Bracegirdle, and C. Franzke (2009), Ice core evidence for significant 100-year regional warming on the Antarctic Peninsula, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L20704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040104.
Luke – of course you’d expect an outcome as the British Arctic Survey report – how else do you think they can finance them swanning around the antarctic in the summer whilst the UK freezes! Good jaunt if you can get it.
So what do they suggest is the external climate forcing? – no – don’t tell me.
Every day scientists sink lower and lower in the rankings – they are now below used car salesmen, soon they ‘ll be lower than musicians.
WAP;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/295/5554/476
Anatarctic temperature;
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/temp19.jpg
BoM;
http://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/soe/display_indicator.cfm?soe_id=1
WAP compared east Antarctic;
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/320/5880/1152
Speaking of temperature trends in the Antarctic, what ever happened to Steig?
Loopy Luke, this from your latest biblical commentary: “A suite of coupled climate models are employed to demonstrate that the 50 and 100 year temperature trends are outside of the expected range of variability from pre-industrial control runs, indicating that the warming is likely the result of external climate forcing” shows an inability (1) to get agreement between nouns and verbs that casts doubt on these “scholars” statistical competence, and (2) offer any suggestions for the cause of the “external climate forcing”.
It is certainly not d[CO2]/dt as there is no correlation between the latter and temperature anywhere on earth, and least of all at the Antarctic Peninsula, if there was they would have shown it. There is not and they do not, but they suppress the truth that despite their best efforts they can find no such correlation. Remember [CO2] is measured in Antarctica, and they must have access to that record, as you do. So why no mention?
Now having demolished your and their implied theory, it is for you to show first there is no correlation between (1) the temperature content of the sea currents around the peninsula and the warming they claim to have found, and (2) between the former and the energy usage in all the world’s coastal cities that feeds into said currents.
Secondly, and probably more significant, you and they must show there is no correlation between their warming and solar radiation at the peninsula. But their paper shows they are not up to regression analysis, just like you.
Pace them and you and the IPCC, solar radiation is NOT a constant, and even small changes in it have a much larger impact on radiative forcing than the essentially trivial increases in [CO2]. Recall that the RF of increases in [CO2] from 1750 to 2005 is 1.66 w/sq.metre p.a., (AR4, WG1, 141). The solar radiation at Pt Barrow in Alaska for 15 daylight hours was no less than 258 W/sq.metre in June 2005. Only the clueless Solomons, Karolys and Harry Clarkes et ad infinitum could imagine that the annual increase in the IPCC’s RF of about 0.01 W/sq.metre has a bigger impact on temperature than the fall in Barrow’s SR of 258 in June 2005 from its 291 W/sq.m in June 2004 or the rise from its 260 in June 1990.
Loopy, run away and play in the yard, you are out of your depth when you try to converse with grown-ups.
Oh dear Timmy hands waves attempting a diversion. Your comments are such tripe. So poor discussion on here. My kingdom for an intelligent comment.
As an indication of Curtin’s utter amateurish silliness. It would take someone with a basic knowledge of climate processes in the region to understand why differential warming would occur. And we have this clown trying to do LINEAR REGRESSION on a non-forcing – utterly utterly incredible. Beyond all belief. I am seriously gobstopped. Again all you have to do is write the rebuttal comment to GRL – then tell us WHY it was inevitably be rejected as stupid.
You have a good answer on Mauna Loa and all you did was handwave. Disgraceful.
Loopy Luke: you did not have a single factual comment in your responses. So the sun is non-forcing, tell that to George Harrison.
Talking of GRL, what’s wrong with JGR, which published McKitrick & Michaels’ truly brilliant paper “Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data” (pub. 14 Dec. 2007). My own regressions are entirely consistent with their much more sophisticated stuff. Why have you not submitted your own amazing rebuttal to JGR, or GRL? I am sure they would love to have it.
Back to the slides and swings, you are out of your depth.
As for Mauna Loa, I showed in detail what b/s your papers were, full of typos and faked data.
Nice pics of Cape Grim’s Angus cattle in Saturday’s and today’s Oz, frolicking in the [CO2] just a few yards from the measuring station. Just like Mauna Loa, Cape Grim’s temp record shows no correlation with RF from its [CO2] or changes therein. The reverse, the log linear temp growth there is NEGATIVE (minus 0.052% p,a) , and there is of course ZERO correlation with its very own CO2 record which is much the same as ML’s.
Can I mail you some tiddlywinks, they seem to be the summit of your analytic capability.
Tim I’m not wasting my time trawling through your eccentric rat dirt.
On Mauna Loa rebuttal – sorry you did nothing of the sort – just more nonsense hand waving and libelous accusations.
But gets better
Science 4 September 2009:
Vol. 325. no. 5945, pp. 1236 – 1239
DOI: 10.1126/science.1173983
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
Darrell S. Kaufman,1,* David P. Schneider,2 Nicholas P. McKay,3 Caspar M. Ammann,2 Raymond S. Bradley,4 Keith R. Briffa,5 Gifford H. Miller,6 Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Jonathan T. Overpeck,3 Bo M. Vinther,7 Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members{dagger}
The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.
And keeps going – evidence just piles up
Recent changes in a remote Arctic lake are unique within the past 200,000 years
1. Yarrow Axforda,1,
2. Jason P. Brinerb,
3. Colin A. Cookec,
4. Donna R. Francisd,
5. Neal Micheluttie,
6. Gifford H. Millera,f,
7. John P. Smole,
8. Elizabeth K. Thomasb,
9. Cheryl R. Wilsone and
10. Alexander P. Wolfec
+ Author Affiliations
1.
aInstitute of Arctic and Alpine Research and
2.
fDepartment of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309;
3.
bGeology Department, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260;
4.
cDepartment of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E3;
5.
dDepartment of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003; and
6.
ePaleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory, Department of Biology, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6
1.
Edited by Mark Brenner, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, and accepted by the Editorial Board September 1, 2009 (received for review June 25, 2009)
Abstract
The Arctic is currently undergoing dramatic environmental transformations, but it remains largely unknown how these changes compare with long-term natural variability. Here we present a lake sediment sequence from the Canadian Arctic that records warm periods of the past 200,000 years, including the 20th century. This record provides a perspective on recent changes in the Arctic and predates by approximately 80,000 years the oldest stratigraphically intact ice core recovered from the Greenland Ice Sheet. The early Holocene and the warmest part of the Last Interglacial (Marine Isotope Stage or MIS 5e) were the only periods of the past 200,000 years with summer temperatures comparable to or exceeding today’s at this site. Paleoecological and geochemical data indicate that the past three interglacial periods were characterized by similar trajectories in temperature, lake biology, and lakewater pH, all of which tracked orbitally-driven solar insolation. In recent decades, however, the study site has deviated from this recurring natural pattern and has entered an environmental regime that is unique within the past 200 millennia.
Published online before print October 19, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0907094106
Luketard whines;
“KookyKat – why are the factories so filthy – is this one of your sleazy investments in Eastern Europe with sub-standard conditions. Knowing denialist scum ethics it probably is.”
As usual, you are simply too ignorant to enter into discussions.
Filthy factories does NOT refer to south east Asia or Africa or ex-iron curtain countries… It refers to the attitude of yourself and other AGW freaks who think they are destroying the world and we need to go back to the stone age so poor Gaia can recover!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Thanks for letting me win the bet!! You already are posting that ridiculous “Unique within the last 200,000 Years” fantasy.
Keep us laughing Luketard!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You DO realise that phrase is MEANINGLESS don’t you??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“The question today is – why is Yamal the belle of the ball and Polar Urals a wallflower? Is it because of Yamal’s “inner beauty” (temperature correlation, replication, rolling variance, that sort of thing) or because of its more obvious physical attributes exemplified in the diagram below? Today, we’ll compare the “inner beauty” of both debutantes, starting first with the graphic below, showing their “superficial” attributes.”
Luke,
We’d like to believe you but your problem is that your team’s got too much form.
someone else has been checking aussie temps
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/gistemp-aussy-fair-go-and-far-gone/
luke, you’re relying on Kaufman; this Kaufman;
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932#comments
Seriously?
KookyKat – so how long have you had your mental condition? Unable to cope with some humour you poor dour bastard.
Poor denialist scum – evidence just keeps washing up. Week after week. And every week the denialist scum have to spin their way out of it !
How do you keep lying to yourselves ?
of course you always “publish” – hahahahahahahahaa
janama,
I’ve got some beaut “walking irises” that can move about over a period of time but I’ve never come across “walking thermometers” before.
What with them and UHI, which is downplayed to absurdity by IPCC [witness 5c difference in 10k between city and suburbs occurring], AGW is on autopilot.
However, even with all that assistance, the best they can come with is about +0.2c in 130 years.
Also, despite spending 100 billion of taxpayer’s money, Luke and his mates have yet to measure the human signal.
This signal is so small that it is lost in the natural variation.
Yes Luke….
” just a big lie started by Al back in 1980.”
Where were you back in 1980 Luke? You need to catch up. Do a little research yourself about that time on the genesis of your AGW scam.
What you Luke et al are trying to convince us is that a group of concerned scientists (Hansen being one of them) GOT TOGETHER (ponder that for a moment) and acting purely out of concern for the future of mankind, decided to alert a politician friend (Al Gore) to enable their concern to be conveyed to the public.
This you lot would have us believe is the normal behaviour and course of action of -let me repeat- a GROUP of scientists.
Swallowing this scenerio would make you the gullible moronic AGW believer and me perhaps a monkey’s uncle.
Yes Mack if it makes you happy I’m sure that’s right. Did you know the moon landing were a hoax Mack. And have you noticed that van outside your house lately? Yes indeed you probably are a monkey’s uncle. Makes sense.
No spanglers – it’s PC1 – do you not remember ANYTHING !
Parker et al. You tell me what you think of his work given you know so much? Threshold test.
Kuhnkat, “Just wondering what that backup generator runs on, wood chips or some other renewable like Denmark??
How will you replace parts after the Alarmists like Luke, SJT, SOD… destroy the filthy factories and the economy and no longer allow shipping due to its large Carbon Footprint??
Are you praying to Gore you will be dead before then??”
What’s with the hysterical over the top response? My genny runs on petrol of course but when I get my wind turbine, I won’t need it anymore. Do you have a problem with people using alternative technologies for power?
If you really want to have a go at me, I actually have a negative carbon footprint!
Luke,
Pielke Snr can do it better than I can.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/reply-by-pielke-et-al-to-the-comment-by-parker-et-al-on-our-2007-jgr-paper-unresolved-issues-with-the-assessment-of-multi-decadal-global-land-surface-temperature-trends/
Derek,
That’s very good. Are you free of the grid? What sort of capacity are you managing with?
I have found with wind chargers that you will still need your back-up for heavy use even if you live in a windy area with a big bank of batteries.
No you don’t Derek – what do you cook with – what runs your refrigeration, where does your hot water come from, do you run a normal TV or a Plasma?
What drives AGW sceptics.? Check out most of the above offerings. The desperate diatribes from the pretend AGW pseudo sceptics have a common driver. When you start confusing your thoughts with the facts and you keep wanting to find suspicious explanations for all sorts of stuff, you are on the road to paranoia, or you have arrived, but you cant be sure can you?. Dont despair, CBT can help, but then you would be suspicious of that too.
Spangled Drongo, yes I’m about a km from the nearest stobie pole so I didn’t have much of a choice ($70K-100K to get connected) but I wouldn’t have it any other way. We have 24 panels producing 1660 watts max. We are currently running 2 fridges, 2 TV’s (not plasma), 3 computers and a front loader w/m. It’s not full summer yet but I didn’t have to run the genny tonight, mid summer the batteries go to sleep mode by about 11.00 a.m. so we have power to burn.
We plan on getting a 1KW wind turbine which should suppliment our winter power use most of the time.
Janama, when we bought our 64 acre property 12 years ago there were 25 old trees on it. We have been re-vegetating since then and now have several hundred trees and understory, so I think that we are actually carbon negative.
Bazza,
I find most sceptics would be prepared to accept your AGW hypothesis if you could show that it’s true, as is required for any hypothesis, but you really aren’t able to.
People believe in many religions and they always desire to convert everyone else.
And why doesn’t that happen?
So we remain sceptical.
As reason [and Huxley] says we must.
QE effing D
Derek,
They say that good teaching demands “walking the walk”.
That’s great! Good on yer!
I once lived for a while on a very windy, remote, coastline where we were able to exist on a single small turbine but there aren’t many places as windy as that.
Why is everyone so desperately critical of Derek’s energy lifestyle? Is he ramming it down your necks. No – so give it a rest eh?
Spanglers – did you actually read what you provided. Hardly matters. What’s new.
BTW Spanglers – wrong paper anyway ! LOL !
Parker, D., C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
And Spanglers – “I find most sceptics would be prepared to accept your AGW hypothesis if you could show that it’s true, as is required for any hypothesis, but you really aren’t able to.”
why doesn’t it happen. Coz you don’t read the literature. That simple.
One problem Spanglers – you can live without religion but you can’t live with climate adversity. So it’s a risk analysis.
Oh, I forgot to mention that we live totally on rainwater as well. This means employing water saving strategies that the average person would laugh at. Makes you appreciate resources more when they are finite.
Let’s make it a simple threshold test for you spanglers – let’s say you are in charge of coming up with a water allocation formula for the Murray-Darling system. Just suppose. So you have this serious body of work from CSIRO saying there’s some AGW influence at play. And you have 120 years of rainfall records. So how are you going to make your recommendation spanglers. Irrigators want as much water as they can get. Public wants a viable river system.
Watcha gonna do?
There is no “don’t care” answer here. It is a matter of serious policy debate.
Luke,
You confuse your posts, that are the equivalent of arguments about angels dancing on heads of pins, with science.
You all should never, ever, leave civil service.
“Why is everyone so desperately critical of Derek’s energy lifestyle?”
who is critical? We are just ignoring you.
I’m just getting it in perspective – I’ve also lived on solar power.
Derek on a full sunny day will produce a max of 9,960watts. (based on 38 lat and 6hrs/day) which stored in a 24V battery will give him 415 amps provided everything works at 100% efficiency.. he would need at least x5 storage – 12 x 2V – 2000 amp hour batteries.
That’s a good power supply.
If we all had it how many tons of lead and sulphuric acid would we need?
The new demand for electric cars will no doubt change the battery design, maybe we will share the house batteries with the car batteries etc.
We need a major breakthrough in battery design – if only we could redirect the useless AGW research funds…..
Ok luke, lets talk about Parker and PCA, the statistical weapon of choice of the IPCC/AGW throng; why is PCA inadequate for modeling obstensibly stationary or natural and periodic temperature factors?
Dear Loopy Lukey. Can you read? here’s the key statement in your heros Parket Folland et al 2007: ‘ As models have difficulty [you dont say!] in simulating the recent
increase in the NAO they also have difficulty in simulating
the recent surface climate change around the Atlantic basin.
Scaife et al. [2005] noted that the area mean temperature
trend from an atmospheric model in which all well-known
greenhouse gas and natural forcings, including observed
SST, were included was still only around 30% of the
observed warming over northern Europe between 1965
and 1995.’
Not only that, as the Pielkes and McKitrick&Michaels have shown, there is in fact NO observed warming other than where non-CO2 human influences are at work. Parker et al are anyway known to be incapable of regression analysis.
Meantime EM Smith has documenetd how ALL AGW is an artifact of relocating approved met records from North to South in NH and South to North in SH. Poor old Tassie’s approved stations have been cut first to just 10 and now a mere 4 by BoM and GISS, while the top end has increased its share.
As he says: ‘My “eyeball scan” of the LAT field looks like more than half with a latitude above the midline of Australia, but as usual, a graph and real coordinates on a map would be
more accurate than me staring at my 12 inch globe 😉 In any case, it looks to me like Australia is being “cooked” by having many of its thermometers moved toward the Equator’.
Jim Hansen and Phil Jones are similarly busy replacing cold stations in the north to the south of the NH. Have you noticed how Gistemp like Hadley has dumped all UK stations bar 2 (Bournemouth & Waddington) for their insufficient warming? Central England’s unbroken record from c 1660 has likewise been dumped. Loopy, you consort with liars and thieves, in my Somerset village we knew what to do with people like you, off to the stocks, so we could practice our throws to the wicked keeper.
Sorry, Loopy, by endorsing such perversions of raw data you are guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours. Wotchit!
Cohers
“the statistical weapon of choice of the IPCC/AGW throng;” – errr nope – you ropa-dope – just you biting too heavy where you shouldn’t
“why is PCA inadequate for modeling obstensibly stationary or natural and periodic temperature factors” – who says it’s modelling – again silly Cohers – simply stupid – it’s only telling you the data show. Regressions – the refuge of scoundrels.
Curtin – don’t you threaten me mate – the typical response by the denialists trying to censor debate. You’re in Australia matey not some distant polo playing Raj for ponces. And don’t verbal me either. You don’t fabricate who I may or may not consort with. Typical verballing denialist scum. I notice your import of Parker et al missed all the relevant message. Predictable.
EM Smith obviously another member of the denialist club which Parker’s paper summarily dispenses by ignoring the entire data set – so NEXT. You wouldn’t trust any of these try-ons without publication. Who knows what they’ve done in terms of areal weighting.
But just sit back Timmy and Cohers – just think how you having ZERO influence on anything. Unpublished Aussie whingers. As the world and the science changes around you. How fitting. Just sit there and squirm.
“there is in fact NO observed warming other than where non-CO2 human influences are at work”
– aha – hahahahahahahahaha – classic ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
where non-approved influences are at work – hahahahahahahahahaha ROTFL
Comment from: Luke October 27th, 2009 at 3:04 am
EM Smith obviously another member of the denialist club which Parker’s paper summarily dispenses by ignoring the entire data set – so NEXT. You wouldn’t trust any of these try-ons without publication. Who knows what they’ve done in terms of areal weighting.
Well, not a member of any club. And M. Parker does not in any way dismiss anything I’m doing. Why? Because all I am doing is looking at the GHCN data, the USHCN data, and GIStemp directly and describing what I find. Completely public, completely visible. Anyone and everyone can reproduce it. No hiding methods nor losing the data like Hadley and a bunch of the rest of the AGW true believers. Oh, and nobody between me, the public, and the truth.
As per “publication”: I’ve considered it. I’ve got a half dozen folks with Ph.D.s telling me I ought to publish what I’ve found. But frankly, given all the tripe that had made it past “peer review” and all the errors caught by “public review” I’m not seeing a lot of benefit from “peer review” other than boosting one’s ego (and I have no need of ego massage). So I do a different thing: I publish all the methods and how to download the data directly from the sources. I provide source code to anyone who wants it (much of it already on the web pages) so that any person anywhere in the world who would like to replicate anything I’ve done is able to do so. But you do have to get off your butt, stop whining, and actually do some work.
And as for “weighting”: I do NONE.
In fact, the purpose is to find the “accidental weighting” that comes from the instrument bias of moving the thermometers around.
What I’ve done is simply count how many thermometer records are located in each band of latitude in the GHCN data set as downloaded directly from NOAA. Anyone can do it, it isn’t hard. When you do that, you find that the thermometer records start out with 1 in Tasmania, then over time are added to the north, and later the southern ones start to be deleted from the data set.
No weighting.
No modeling.
No slight of hand.
Simple, direct, and clear characterization of what happens inside the “raw” input data to GIStemp and any climate model that uses the GHCN dataset or GIStemp products.
In fact, it is so simple, direct, open, and public an investigation that even you could do it.
BTW, the total of thermometers used in GHCN for the year 2008 in California is FOUR. One in San Francisco, and three down in southern California near the beach. For those unfamiliar with the state, the “cold bits” are the mountains that fill with snow each winter for skiing. They include the top chunk of the state and a long stripe down the interface to Nevada. It is simply not possible to have a representative sample of California from a beach in Los Angeles… So that “115 year hot record anomaly” for California is entirely an artifact of dropping ALL the cold thermometers from the record in 2007. Basically, GHCN tells lies.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
Now the Australian effect is not quite as strong (yet…) but the pattern of deletions of thermometers from GHCN data base is similar in that the Aussie thermometers do get dropped in cold places and added in hot places. This does contaminate the temperature history and does introduce a strong “instrument bias” into the record that grids, boxes, and zones just can not remove in GIStemp. (In fact, it some cases such as islands, GIStemp enhances the instrument bias rather than attenuating it).
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/gistemp-aussy-fair-go-and-far-gone/
A similar thing happens in Brazil (link on the chiefio site), but it does NOT happen in Argentina. There thermometers stay more consistently placed. And they show little significant temperature trend in their data.
So you may now resume your ranting and attacking the messenger, but just remember that it isn’t about me, and it isn’t about you. It is only about the data and what they say, if you ask them nicely then quietly listen. Just don’t torture them like GIStemp does; they will tell you anything you want to hear if you torture the data enough…
I’m headed back to my work now. I’m thinking of looking at the Asian and African thermometer migrations next. Ought to be interesting… But while I’m working, you can contemplate that “ZERO influence” that such public scrutiny has had. In the USA the support for the notion that AGW is real is eroding at a pretty good clip. IIRC the last survey showed it at 30 something percent, down from near 45% and dropping fast. So just remember that those non-peer reviewed do it yourself voters control the purse strings and who gets elected in the next round.
Sidebar: My personal desire is to have 25 or so acres “off the grid” with an Earthship home on it. Wind turbine, solar cells, self collected water, home grown vegetables, the works. I’ve built small scale methane digesters and I’ve dug a well for water. My bias it toward minimal impact on the planet and self sufficiency.
Of course you’re a member of the denialists – your tone says it all – don’t be shy now. As a practicing denialist you have missed the separate high quality Australian analysis and furthermore Parker et al get the same story of global warming without any land series data from two data sets – err the entire point. And isn’t it strange that the “dreadful error” prone land series data has the same pattern as the satellite data. And isn’t it strange that the biology that doesn’t know anything about GISS or CRU and is responding. That Nature paper. And isn’t it interesting that you haven’t published what the overall impact is of your “findings”. As usual for denialists it’s what they leave out and don’t tell you. Failure to publish simply means you can indulge your eccentric nonsense without fear of any serious formal analysis. Remember – your impact on the science effort ZERO POINT ZERO.
Just all the usual denialist scum tactics.
P.S. As for your 25 acres off the grid – how lovely – look forward to sharing it with a few million Asian climate refugees.
luke, the black knight, says;
“why is PCA inadequate for modeling obstensibly stationary or natural and periodic temperature factors” – who says it’s modelling – again silly Cohers – simply stupid – it’s only telling you the data show”
It might be helpful to look at what PCA is;
“Principal component analysis (PCA) involves a mathematical procedure that transforms a number of possibly correlated variables into a smaller number of uncorrelated variables called principal components”
That is modeling.
The problem for the AGW proponents is as EM Smith and many others show the PCA analysis is based on inappropriate weighting of the data which is modeled into the principal components; we saw this with Mann’s hockeysticks, Steig’s Antarctica ‘warming’, Kaufman’s Arctic’s findings and the Parker paper etc. This is one reason why PCA distorts the variable priority or even creates variables, ie AGW, where they don’t necessarily exist. Which brings me back to PCA’s inability to model stationary data; any real thoughts luke or are you going to blather as usual?
Hey Y’all,
Did you get any of that rain last night? I only got 16 mm [about 30 for the month] but there were some good falls in SEQ and NENSW.
I had to switch off as the power went off twice in the storms.
Derek would have been OK.
More to come, hopefully.
Luke,
I [like most country people] been living with with climate adversity all my life.
To the point where, if I cross a gully that’s wet, I take a photo.
I would hate the job of having to draft up a water budget for the M-D system but if I had to I could only go by past records and adjust accordingly.
No doubt the MDBA will use GCMs.
Yup 53mm spangled drongo. Just what we needed.
“If we all had it how many tons of lead and sulphuric acid would we need?”
janama,
That’s the killer! How many laptop batteries [and how long will they last] to run a car even if we had IFRs and unlimited and unmetered power?
You got a good drop!
Derek Smith,
“If you really want to have a go at me, I actually have a negative carbon footprint!”
Stealing the breath from the Biosphere are you?? YOU ANIMAL!!! YOU ARE KILLING GAIA!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No Derek, I have no problem with people acting in ways that DO NOT hurt others. But my previous post is serious. Where are you going to get the parts to repair all your high tech energy production equipment after the CALL TO ACTION destroys economies and the production is in India and China???
What is Australia and the US going to be able to export to pay for these MANUFACTURED items after farming and manufacturing is radically limited to meet Carbon caps, water rationing, and land use limits?? (the water has been cut in half to California’s San Joaquin Valley to save a small fish. GOOGLE IT!! This is the most productive farming area of the US!!! Boy, I wonder why California’s debt is going up???)
Oh yeah, does your NEGATIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT include the rather large amounts of CO2 produced in the mining, transport, refining, production, more shipping, assembly, and maintenance of those energy producing items you are using?? Even if you use the wind turbine until it falls apart 30 years from now I strongly doubt you will make it to NEGATIVE!!!! I am not as familiar with the production of solar cells, but, you should check into them before claiming NEGATIVE. Are you riding a bicycle?? Growing all your own food?? Using home grown cotton or wool for clothing?? Have you included all the Carbon produced in every manufactured article you deal with all year??
If it is important to you, you should make absolutely sure you are really doing it right!!
Personally I wish we were producing more CO2. I would like to see us hit 1000ppm in 20 years.
Oh, by the way Derek, did you stop breathing, cause carbon credits are pure BS!!!! Either you DON’T produce the CO2 in the first place or you are cheating. In other words, Carbon Negative is a false claim for a LIVING organism that produces CO2.
Luketard,
“Poor denialist scum – evidence just keeps washing up. Week after week. And every week the denialist scum have to spin their way out of it !”
Washing UP?? Is that how Alarmists do science, beach combing for discarded papers??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OK Spanglers “I would hate the job of having to draft up a water budget for the M-D system but if I had to I could only go by past records and adjust accordingly.” yes nasty problem what? The sort of real climate job that sceptics dread. (No plan B you see). No point in asking Cohers – he’ll just give you slick lawyer spin.
Presumably you’ve totally disregarded BoM’s and CSIRO’s science advice if you’re true to form.
– so you would “adjust accordingly” – what does that mean Spangly ?
What we have here – is a failure to communicate !
It’s not modelling (2 ls in Australia you hillbilly lawyer). Simply describing principal data patterns. As Folland would say – “it’s the simplest analysis”. Only a morally bankrupt lawyer would think was modelling. (lls)
No spin luke, but if you think what Parker et al are doing is simply describing principal data you need a bex and a good lie down; then try boning up on “initialising”; this may help;
http://www.wcc3.org/wcc3docs/pdf/WS9_WP_capability.doc
Luke ,
Back at my comments Oct 26 th 5.43pm ….. I said..to you,.
” Swallowing this scenerio would make you the gullible moronic AGW believer and me perhaps a monkeys uncle”
Should read just “naive gullible AGW believer”
And yes, I would be a monkeys uncle if the collective intelligence of your ensemble were to swallow that scenerio.
You realise that’s a compliment to you Luke but damn!! it was only accidental.
Aha ha. ha
“The sort of real climate job that sceptics dread. (No plan B you see).”
Luke,
I thought that planning by using known data from past results WAS “Plan B”.
And “adjust accordingly” by being as conservative as you could live with knowing the country’s natural historical inclination to warm and aridify.
But using that CSIRO GCM “noise” for “Plan A” type decisions is GIGO.
It’s like this sort of crap on the news tonight.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/27/2725726.htm
There is not one coastal city that has adjusted its MSL due to rising sea levels and severe storms are at an all time low.
Coastal erosion in Australia 40 years ago was much worse than it is today and our much more limited resources of that era coped very well and put in place protection that has stood the test of time.
When will our pathetic MSM ever ask the pertinent questions instead of just rolling over for this AGW garbage.
Kuhnkat, OK, you caught me out. I don’t actually know my carbon footprint, I just threw that in to get a response although I did think it was probably negative. The truth is I don’t really care about carbon footprints, I just happen to have a better one than a lot of people because of my situation. I do however concede your points as probably true.
I am semi passionate about the environment though, and would like to see some less polluting technologies gain prominence. None of this related to “climate change”
From my limited understanding of climate history and paleoclimate I’m stuck on the idea that the rush to reduce CO2 concentrations is a bad move and if you read some of the intended “fixes”, potentially disastrous, although that assumes that CO2 is indeed a driver of climate change.
“It’s like this sort of crap on the news tonight.”. I rest my case , spangled drongo. Paranoia is about excess suspicion and therefore being flooded by evidence where none exists by any rational view.
“And “adjust accordingly” by being as conservative as you could live with knowing the country’s natural historical inclination to warm and aridify.”
But why does it keep getting warmer and warmer then?
but irrigators don’t want you to hold back Spangly – they want more and more.
Your rules are so convserative to what they want.
“But using that CSIRO GCM “noise” for “Plan A” type decisions is GIGO.”
But we’re not talking GCM noise at all. we’re talking observation. Observation of an intensified STR, a changed SAM, perhaps a changed IOD, a Modoki’ed El Nino, more El Ninos, and a warming trend that strangely has no relationship to solar measurements.
All the GCMs are doing is explaining why !
What are you gonna do Spanglers – the irrigators want to know why you’re holding back on allocations. They’re angry at you Spangly – they’re talking like a lynch mob now.
“What’s this natural tendency to warm and aridify” – sounds like bullshit they say.
The problem with coastal erosion story as Peter Helman reminds us – the PDO/IPO seems to inject a major decadal signal into these patterns. With an underlying slow continual rise. So erosion periods are likely to be episodic.
http://www.coastalconference.com/2007/papers2007/Peter%20Helman.doc
Derek,
I’ve got a bit of dirt and I, too have planted hundreds of trees over the years and farm only wild animals [too many ferals though] and these days I tell myself I’m essentially a minimalist.
I find it is much more satisfying to fix something than throw it away.
Having a naturally tight-arsed nature helps no end.
Bazza,
Your “being flooded by evidence” may be your idea of a pun but it is really very sad because it is exactly this evidence that is missing.
Over 40 years ago during the 60s and 70s I put in many volunteer hours trying to save beachfront houses from being washed away, often in vain and we have not experienced anything like that since.
I also built seafront structures nearly 50 years ago where the highest tides of the year still come to the same bolt holes.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Just been watching the Goebbels show, aka SBS News, with its engulfing sea level rise along the Gold Coast etc, with their 60 floor high rises, but local governments incapable of building sea walls of the 57 cm. height the IPCC predicts for sealevel rise by 2100. Make that 5 metres, it is still do-able, if not by Australians, so bring in some Ming from China, they knew how to build walls. Also check out the north-west coast of Somerset, where seawalls of about 4 metres keep out the biggest and fastest incoming tides in the world at Burnham and Weston super Mare.
Loopy Luke, can I have right of first offer for your own seafront property?
“What’s this natural tendency to warm and aridify”
Luke,
With that natural charm of yours you simply tell ’em that though the world “average” is not changing, unfortunately Australia is moving northwards [like the thermometers] and the old Gondwanaland RFs are disappearing and there’s not much you can do about it.
luke, that Helman paper is one of my favourites especially figure 2; Helman of course is one of the main doom and gloom agitators at Byron Bay, which is fairly hypocritical of him. Carter has done a good paper on Australian sea level;
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC%20-%20aspects%20of%20sea-level%20rise%20in%20southern%20Australia%20Z.pdf
And of course the logest measured sea level at Port Arthur shows either an increase of 13cms or 2-3cms since 1841, depending on which source you can believe; and from this the knuckleheads are projecting a 90cm increase by 2100. Combet, of course, the assistant minister to the Wong, has recently bought in East Newcastle; on the sea. There is no justice.
Spangled,
I know just where you’re coming from, nothing beats living on a slice of land away from the big smoke. I need some of those wild animals though to keep the grasses down, mostly it’s just me and my walk-behind slasher.
I have a dream of one day building a feral proof fence and making a native animal sanctuary. Probably never happen though.
“What’s this natural tendency to warm and aridify”
Paleoclimate stuff I’ve read suggests that more often than not, warmer means wetter with a corresponding increase in plant biomass. I think that the drought we are currently in is skewing the impression that “global warming”has caused this perceived aridity.
So Spanglers you’re saying you really have no idea. Thanks for playing. Very helpful. (not)
All the same and despite the major sentiment in comments here on AGW, I bet it’s a nasty situation developing in the aftermath of that report on our coastal problems. Seems Mal Washer the Lib MP saw fit to jump the gun on this with his comments on ABC national radio yesterday.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/27/2725726.htm
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/member.asp?id=84F
Beware; I only wandered in again on the blog to gloat over the pathetic reactions of this tiny rear guard after giving up some time ago with my recommendations about making simple beach observations that don’t require a degree in anything including law. The big question up front however is the actual value of our coastal in the short term as authorities squabble over their responsibility.
I reckon Jen went further bush just in time to get away from it all.
In that ABC article you posted Gavin there is a bloke from Kingscliff rabbiting on about the beach erosion. He then states he’s only been there for 6 years!
I lived on the beach front north of Byron Bay throughout the 90s and the sea came in a took away the sand leaving 3m high walls along the dunes – within 6 – 9 months the sand was back again and the sea breezes had blown the sand back to form the typical dune face we are used to.
this proceedure has been going on for centuries, what’s happening today is no different. All the sand is constantly moving up the coast to eventually end up at Fraser island.
Janama; perhaps it’s a pity we can’t move all new costal development to Fraser Is as the old canal estates ooze away hey.
IMO they were over rated from day one, about the time some realised they had no mandatory retaining walls and decided to employ a few sun seekers like me on holidays up north to dig their new footings between tides, a mugs game with hand tools!
As I said in old posts, it’s bound to ooze value sooner than later.
gavin,
When I first got involved with canal estates the developers were going broke and they were flogging them door to door in capital cities for less than $1,000 for a canal-front, sandy beach block.
I don’t think you could buy those same blocks today for under 3/4 million and I believe Gerry Harvey has just bought three adjoining for around 10 million.
Those beachfronts that I tried to save along Hedges Av. these days sell for obscene multi-millions.
They are much more secure now than they were then.
check out these blocks spangled – http://www.sovereignisland.com.au/
the houses start at around 3 mil. I know one house has an indoor tennis court. If you’ve got google earth check out the mansion being built at the northern end.
A friend who works on the houses says at around 6pm if you stand in the streets all you can hear is everyone screaming at each other 🙂
Derek,
I’ve thought many times about feral proof fences and I think they would work with very sedentary wildlife like scrub mullet and small native mice etc. but not with our bigger nomads.
Let the scrub and the undergrowth thicken up, that terrible lantana is a great resource, bracken, native grasses like wild sorghum, native rubis prickle berry bushes, plenty of wattle etc. and this tanglewood becomes great habitat.
A sheet here and there of old rusty iron on the ground covered in leaf litter makes a great protected home for lots of small animals too.
I have many sheets of iron covering recycled lumber which is in turn covered by thick lantana. I can access this lumber anytime and it is a thriving wildlife habitat all the time. [look out for snakes]
The beauty of it is, as long as you can keep fires limited to cool burns, the less you interfere, the better it gets for the wildlife.
Luke,
It was your idea to play this game. One that I know nothing about. But I do know that it has to be based on reality, not virtual reality.
Janama, re Kingscliffe, a good example of a community that is really worried. Sure the big events were the La NIna years in the 1970s, but superimpose even less frequent perhaps more severe La Nina episodes on risng seal level is not good news for a community that has already interfered with the sand flow with a sea wall and the Bowling Clubs wall that protects the club at the expense of the caravan park. But they have some magic cabins right on the foredune, enjoy them while we can.
janama,
I sailed my little wooden dinghy past that structure on the north end of Sovereign Is. the other day and I thought it must have been a hospital.
I think they are trying for the biggest house in Australia.
I’d just been camping up the bay for a few days and I was trying to work out who was crazier, him or me.
It’s huge isn’t it. It’s reputed to cost $33 million – you can get the block next door for 5 mil.
Spangled,
Thanks for the advice, how good is your system at keeping out foxes and feral cats? what species do you have in those havens of yours?
Derek,
I can’t keep the dogs, foxes and cats out but the scrub ticks mostly kill wild feral cats. [domestic feral cats go home each morning to get “frontlined” and stay healthy so you can only try to catch them in a cage].
You can trap for dogs and foxes which I have done quite successfully but it is labour intensive and a bit indiscriminate [I can break bandicoot’s and turkey’s legs etc.] so these days I just try to have as much natural protection as possible.
I have some fire trails which I keep mowed and I have a few bare monitoring pads of plain dirt on these which I check most mornings and then rake over with a light grass rake. This tells me what’s going on by the tracks thereon.
Sometimes, if you’re lucky your local authority will carry out 1080 baiting which is very target specific but in more populous areas they are becoming reluctant.
Here we have pademelons [2 types] wallabies [3 types] occasional echidnas, a few koalas, mountain brushtails, gliders, skinks, goannas, snakes, rails, quail and various other grass birds, native rats and antechinus, maybe a quoll plus about 50 species of the usual birds.
I try to keep records but of course they aren’t perfect.
Spangled,
Sounds great, we don’t have wild dogs over here(yet) and I haven’t seen any feral cats around but we do have foxes.
My property is bang in the middle of sheep and cattle grazing country and was a River Red gum/grassland system with very few trees and no understory. By sheer coincidence, the people who bought the 2 properties next to mine just after I got mine are also into re-vegetation but that still leaves only about 150 acres of potential habitat surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of grazing land. Fortunately we have a substantial common creek that can act as a wildlife corridor but at this stage I don’t know where the little fury guys would come from.
We have snakes of course, various lizards and lots of birds and we get the occasional small group of Eastern Greys passing through but none of the wee critters at this point in time.
Rainfall is 450 ml/annum ave so it’s probably drier here than where you are.
Derek,
If you’re surrounded by grazing country you may be able to get “Foxoff” baits which contain 1080 or get involved in a local baiting program.
Make yourself popular with the local graziers.
Foxes are beautiful animals but absolute killing machines when it comes to native wildlife [as well as sheep] and they’ll use your oasis as a great base for their foraging.
Sounds like a lovely spot and with that corridor and your improving habitat you’ll be surprised how the wildlife will build up.
Yes, we’re in [what should be] a moister area of around 1,000 mm p/a in SEQ.
Spangled,
We don’t see many foxes around but I’m a bit reluctant to bait only because we do have a lot of rabbits and at this time, the foxes are the only thing that may be controlling them.
The creek is beautiful, with a 70 foot cliff about half way along it and lots of shrubs, new gums and sheokes as well as a proliferation of grass trees(Xantheria). Heaps of veg has come back since we took sheep off but there is also a loy of woody weeds now and a prickly pear the size of a house.
Looks like everyone’s chucked it in for the night (or moved over to Realclimate)…..oh well, I might just ramble for a bit.
One of the things that impresses me about some of the people on this blog is the rapid response time incorporating detailed information, not just opinion. Lukey boy is particularly good at it, I sometimes read his responses and think WTF has he got a giant pinup board on the wall behind his computer with every bit of relevant info on it or has he got like 5 monitors there primed and ready to find what he needs? Tim and Cohenite are a bit the same and I wonder if all you guys keep this stuf floating around in your heads waiting for the right time to call it up.
Some of the opinions on this blog seem very polarised, a bit like Ford vs Holden or the democrats who think Obama’s sphincter is an emerging protostar as apposed to those republicans who believed that G.W. could do no wrong.
I don’t believe for a second that Luke SJT etc. think that a 2 degree rise in temp will result in a handful of humans living at the poles while the rest of the planet burns, likewise I doubt that anyone on the other side denies that a continued increase in global temp will result in sea level rise and that will engulf real estate.
There have been a lot of really good arguments here over the weeks that I’ve been browsing but there have also been a few silly accusations and counter accusations and ad hom attacks from both sides that don’t make a positive contribution to what I regard as an excellent site.
In the end I guess there has to be a bit of cut and thrust to maintain rigor in arguments.
May the Schwartz be with you all, goodnight.
Derek – it’s pretty easy – you just need to get up to speed. Cohers and Tim spend the most time as they are the idle rich. Probably old money – gold money. I’ve just moved up from a laptop to a desktop.
Derek – it’s not the actual temperature rise. It’s what happens to the extremes of the distribution. How fast the changes are for humanity and ecosystems to cope with. Coping with 6 billion humans going to 9 billion. Food security pressures. And a major worry of a drying sub-tropics and more drought. It’s also a risk management exercise with imperfect data.
“– it’s not the actual temperature rise.”
No it’s ocean heat – ……wait – we’ve done this before.
Luke – “extremes of distribution” and “ecosystems coping”
you’re in Brisbane – sub tropics – normal rainfall – drongo and I are south of you – sub tropics above average rainfall.
the imperfect data are the ramblings in your head.
Luke,
I’m on the same page with the whole population thing. If nothing else actually changed, I still think that getting up to 9 billion people will have devastating effects. I’ve seen a graph showing that the amount of water taken out of the murray/darling system by human activity is something like 80% of ave inflows. Even in “normal” conditions, that’s bad for the river. I don’t think it will get any better so how can the pollies be talking up population growth?
Mike Hulme, head of the Tyndall Center, has a book out.
“Why We Disagree About Climate Change”
One important point he makes is in regards to the matter of how important he believes honesty and truth are in the climate wars.
Here is what he says about the role of truth in the AGW community:
Because the idea of climate change is so plastic, it can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our psychological, ethical, and spiritual needs.
…….
We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.
…….
These myths transcend the scientific categories of ‘true’ and ‘false’
And of course our own AGW true believing trolls exemplify this perfectly.
Derek, you are being too much spellbound by Loopy Luke. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have read that even 9 billion people could fit comfortably into NSW at Sydney’s present density, leaving the RoW empty, which is clearly the aim of the Tamil Tigers.
Tim,
you could probably fit 9 billion people in the Simpson desert but that’s not the point. A lot of sane people think that 25 million is our upper limit as far as water is concerned but of course you can’t have ecconomic growth without population growth can you.
Janama,
With all due respect, in the last 10K years warmer often means wetter but there were times when warmer meant drier.
regardless of whether AGW is true or not, there is nothing certain about the effects of global increases in temp. I like to THINK positively about it but I don’t think the time for flippancy is here just yet.
Derek Smith,
” A lot of sane people think that 25 million is our upper limit as far as water is concerned but of course you can’t have ecconomic growth without population growth can you.”
Yup, and how does limiting energy production help the situation???
We have technologies that can desalinate and recycle water. They are currently energy intensive and expensive to build. Why break economies so that we can not pursue these solutions and improve them?
Keep the economies running and build the plants to provide water without sucking the natural watersheds and water tables dry!!!
What I see is that people who become well off become less likely to have large families. Keeping populations in poverty BREEDS in all respects.
More dumb bum stuff from Janama – what’s the rainfall of Brisbane got to do with the price of eggs. Dumber and dumber.
Just add in Argentina, Murray, China, Kenya, California – you know the drill be now !
But if you want to go there – yes how many years on water restrictions in our glittering first world Bris-Vegas where you were banned from watering your garden or washing your car. 3 min showers, No filling up pools. Water usage police. Cause worst on record drought in the catchment. How many billions now spent on a water grid. Millions spent on de-sal for low yield, high cost and still not bloody working.
hahahahahahahahahahaha
worst on record drought eh? You don’t think it’s the 1000 people moving into the area every week.
Brisbane has recorded the highest percentage rate of population growth of all state capital cities every year since 1990.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/briswater/
Brisbane’s catchment has had average rainfall over the past 36 months
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/httpdata_r/images/climate/clim_rain_decile_qld_36mth.gif
IMO the blog is still worth a read despite the anti AGW junk. For example Derek and Spangles make reasonable contributions along the way in our search for wisdom on the issues. For their sake I will add some thoughts on the measurement side.
For starters I’m going to be a flat earth guru and say we need to focus on the horizontal, not the vertical when watching coastlines, SL etc and it also applies to communications, ie phone cell diameters and so on. What becomes most apparent then are any abrupt changes in our 2D plans like sudden erosion at the base of the frontal dune system. Frequency analysis becomes a most useful tool; it also renders observations of short term oscillations at that famous mark on the rocks at Port Arthur somewhat redundant in our erosion arguments. Let’s add too, there are issues related to deep water versus shallow seas when it comes to measuring the swell.
Frequent flights over Bass Strait and our coastlines round the Southern Ocean can prove several things, we live on a very flat disc for all intents and purposes here, breaking waves can bee seen from a great height also our big beaches completely disappear at high tide. Add to this horizontal picture, all the disappearing glaciers and we don’t need any other data to see our climate changing in real life.
This obsession with measurement precision that we see in amateur posts on a few like blogs is just another trick in denial operations. Cosy as the seem on the surface, they don’t rate with veteran practitioners like me skilled as I am in the art of faking a good finish on anything worth restoring for any purpose. In the end all measurements are a fudge governed only by the artist and their art form. However we are quite dependent on their structure as we are with freshly sharpened tools and antiques. What’s the bet? Granddad’s hand saw still works with several teeth missing and others weathered away.
For Luke; when I left this lot yesterday I played an album for the first time, piano music by Fiona Joy Hawkins “Angel Above My Piano” quote- “come with me on a journey, to visit places and experience landscapes and to feel emotions”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiona_Joy_Hawkins
It was the Southern Ocean and more at a familiar frequency
More trivia we’ve been 100 times before.
Janama – mate don’t pick a fight on favourite topics. Calculated inflows into the catchment were worst on record – even worse than Federation drought. It was off the meter even though Brisbane itself was not as bad. Wivenhoe Dam catchment being behind the D’Aguilar Range and up the Brisbane Valley. Of course the much smaller Moogerah dam near the border ranges was also as bad in level – not sure about inflows though.
The population growth is the ADDITIONAL sting in the tail and gives less buffer. But lowest on recorded inflows are simply lowest on record inflows. What more do you want !
As for recent rains – thank heavens. It was after a VERY long time.
None of any AGW theory says “oh it will never rain again”. What it does say is that “drought will be more frequent or prolonged”.
Was the Brisbane Valley drought AGW – who knows. It’s not clear. May be natural. But there various theories on blocking mechanisms etc. (SAM, STR revisited).
So now we’ve covered 0.00000% of the sub-tropics. Wow !
Is the Murray Valley drought AGW – science says 80% yes.
P.S. Can’t find the exact graphic – but see Fig 4 here – http://www.climatechange.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/22262/ClimateScienceReport_WEB.pdf – there is a better one on inflows
Tim Curtin
You are absolutely correct the population of the world living at the density of Singapore or London would fit into NSW and Victoria.
Mind you hyocrites like Greg Combet would have to give up his newly bought beach house in Newcastle, because it would be under water, before much longer,according to his rants in Parliament of late.
In general, as the population goes up, CO2 goes up, Tasmanian rock lobster catches go down and so on.
http://abc.gov.au/news/tag/fishing-aquaculture/
Facts for the pedantic from easy to find reliable sources – everywhere
What we know and are concerned about
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbytitle/53DA36DD9E7B3FD2CA2575D80081F4FE?OpenDocument
http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/climate-impact
Released today-
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1307.6Main+Features14Sep+2009
Last but not least, environment –
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1307.6Main%20Features14Sep%202009?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1307.6&issue=Sep%202009&num=&view=
“Calculated inflows into the catchment were worst on record – even worse than Federation drought. ”
you just spout BS all day don’t you.
Wivenhoe Inflows
Average 1901 – 1916 (Federation Drought 400 GL/yr)
Average 1943 – 1956 (418 GL/yr)
Average 1990 – 2006 (507 GL/yr)
http://www.irrigation.org.au/assets/pages/75D4C8BD-1708-51EB-A6816CD6992AC045/38%20-%20Thortensen%20-%20Paper.pdf
all the dams were above 80% in June this year Luke.
http://www.seqwater.com.au/public/dam-levels
Derek Smith,
My garden has a wall/ fence against cats so they don’t eat my birds!
Janama – you’re such a reactive lil’ hillbilly. Are you really serious – what a rope-a-dope.
NINETEEN NINETY – hahahahahahahahahahaha
I am so amazed at this try-on – I may take 30 mins to pick my jaw up off the deck.
So you’e been scouring like a little ferret all day and this is what you’ve found. OMIGAWD mate.
Did it piss down in the late 90s – yes. Are the time periods different – yes.
When did the drought start – 2001
AND AND AND – did it (you dope) did it go longer than 2006 – YES ! And this really made it exceptional.
Pullease J-boy. Put the duelling banjos CD back on eh?
BTW 1895-1902 is the Federation drought
Luke you can ridicule me as much as you like but surely the data I posted is the question.
Surely it’s the personnel at Seqwater you should be questioning, it’s their paper.
Gavin,
which causes the most coastal erosion, rising water level or falling water level??
Luketard,
do you have ANY useful information??
You are virtually incoherent. I don’t know why Janama even bothers trying to communicate with a TRUE BELIEVER like you!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
In legal terms the word scintilla is a useful equitable tool for judges who otherwise have nothing substantial to hang a remedy on for a litigant they feel is deserving; it provides some latitude for the injection of emotion into the otherwise logical and precedent constrained proceedings.
The danger with this is that emotion can grow until it dominates the logic and scientific basis of the process; the precautionary principle is the classic example whereby the dearth of evidence is defeated by the dominace of emotion and ideology.
The pp has thoroughly contaminated the pro-AGW side of things; we see luke justifying the difference between the current drought and the Federation drought; we saw the concoction of distinctions between the Black Friday fires of 1939 and the Black Saturday fires of 2009; non-existent scintillas of ‘evidence’ are squeezed out of motes of quantum mentality and thrust triumphantly in the faces of the disbelievers. in courts of law the contamination of one level of the system is usually purged through he appeal process; in the AGW debate there is not only no objective deliberation and judgement in the first instance but the appeal process is also non-existent as in “the science is settled”. Devoid of this fundamental correcting process the AGW ‘evidence’ is grotesque in its utter lack of self-correction [which is the defining characteristic of proper science] and what is left are bloviations saturated with irony and disingenuous hypocrisy; the old coger gavin provides a classic example:
“This obsession with measurement precision that we see in amateur posts on a few like blogs is just another trick in denial operations. Cosy as the seem on the surface, they don’t rate with veteran practitioners like me skilled as I am in the art of faking a good finish on anything worth restoring for any purpose. In the end all measurements are a fudge governed only by the artist and their art form.”
kuhnkat re your rather odd Q; read this blog article for students
http://geobytesgcse.blogspot.com/2007/08/coastal-processes-erosion-transport-and.html
and
Professor Andrew Short, Senior Coastal Scientist at Coastalwatch
http://www.coastalwatch.com/news/article.aspx?articleId=4524&cateId=3&title=Impact%20of%20coastal%20erosion%20in%20Australia
Gavin,
your first link did not address my question.
the second link was long winded and had too much AGW propaganda for me to finish. What I read did not address the question.
Which causes more coastal erosion, rising water level or falling water level.
Come in Spinner “in courts of law the contamination of one level of the system is usually purged through the appeal process”
Purist git!
YEAH watching various sized ant groups on the same trail between sunrise and sunset gives us a much better understanding of more complex natural systems
Louis Hissink where are you!!!
Just saw a very interesting post over at WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/28/asteroid-explosion-over-indonesia/#more-12225
A 10 meter meteor apparently exploded over Indonesia with a force of about 50 kilotons!!! Sounds like prediction confirmation!!
kuhnkat; it’s not about water levels, its all about flows and non linear solutions
gavin,
“kuhnkat; it’s not about water levels, its all about flows and non linear solutions”
tell that to the alarmists who keep throwing down linear trends as the absolute.
decreasing water level will cause worse erosion than rising water levels.
if you see an undercut beach it will more likely be due to a period of decreasing water levels.
obviously not all the time as currents do play a part in some areas, not to mention geologic activity…
You might want to read an experts papers. Dr. Nils Moerner.
Spoken like a silver tongued lawyer trying to his client off. Keep talking Cohers – the ropa-dopes will swallow it.
KookyKat – I can’t help it if you can’t compute.
“Which causes more coastal erosion, rising water level or falling water level.” episodic storms particularly combined with high tides.
KookyKat – what a load of crap – mate you might want to study beach erosion in Australia instead boring us to death with your tedious NH anecdotes.
Moerner – was that the bloke with the spare mangrove as a “prop” – hahahahahahahaha
kuhnkat; In that student blog link – Factors affecting coastal errosion see rocks; type and structure then think about what is happening below that minister’s house in Newcastle (google Beach Road) after viewing the satelite images that show rock botton rather than piles of sand
Luke …relax about the water thing. If the worst comes to the worst in the future(and judging by the face on your logo I would say that’s likely) we can always ship a few tanker loads of the stuff over to you. Cool green and heaps of water over here in NZ at the moment.
We don’t really need it here as half of us are over in Brisbane with you guys. Over in the lucky country.
Kuhnkat,
How does concern for water shortages due to population growth segue into limiting energy production? And desalination plants, seriously? That’s akin to the old idea of building taller chimney stacks to dilute pollution which just moved the acid rain problem on to neighboring countries. Try talking to any marine biologist about desalination plants and you might get a saline solution in your eye.
Now recycling water is an eminently excellent idea which would have the added bonus of helping our coastal ecology and probably be cheaper and less energy hungry. I also think that every new house should be built on an inground 20K gallon min rainwater tank, but that would probably never happen.
Malcolm,
Sure, and if you built high density apartment buildings right across the state you could maybe fit 100 billion people in but that’s not the point. It’s not funderin’ sustainable!
Janama,
Wivenhoe Inflows
Average 1901 – 1916 (Federation Drought 400 GL/yr)
Average 1943 – 1956 (418 GL/yr)
Average 1990 – 2006 (507 GL/yr)
So 100 years ago inflows were 20% worse than recently, that’s comforting until you remember that recent ave outflows are something like 10 times what they were back then. The truth is, even if we hadn’t been in drought for the last whatever years the situation would still be unsustainable, the lower lakes problem would just have taken a few more years to get this bad.
PS, I feel I have to make an observation. This idea that everything that the other side says has to be wrong(and both sides are guilty of this) is BS and doesn’t make for productive debate.
Others may notice some sand tracks in those google images. They reminded me of surface “hardening” after dewatering. For sand to “ooze” there has to be that transport medium H20 present for at least a time .
From experience, temporary rock hard surfaces can occur when various suspended solids in solution are allowed to dewater. Pipeline transport sludge & recovery is a familular biz in mining, paint pigments also pulp and paper making.
kuhnkat; this introduces the concept of “volume reduction” with all dewatering.
Mr Derek Smith
Of course if the population of the earth was crammed into an area the size of NSW and ViC that would be one thing. It is entirely another thing whether or not that was manageable and sustainable.
The logistics of feeding and watering that density would be near impossible.
I thought that was F^$#%^$ obvious.
The purpose of doing the cals was to demonstrate something else.
You work that what it was.
To Derick Smith,
Could you enlighten this old Bushie and others just what you believe “the lower lakes problem ” is?
Have you read the numerous discussions on this subject at this site?
Luke, when are you going to get a job that adds to human endevour and join the real world seeking to make this environment better for future generations?
You cannot be gainfully empolyed and spend the time you do attacking most people on this site.
Janama,
No one has the foggiest idea what the inflow to the non-existent Wivenhoe may have been in 1916.
The Federation drought was well and truly over by 1916.
Careful, you are falling into the Luke nonsence of quoting figures that have no basis in fact and prove nothing.
Pikey.
Pikey – there is this thing called science (which you don’t believe in) which demonstrates quite easily that one can calibrate rainfall to runoff with a simple soil water model. Gee whiz ! And golly gee – this might even be the part of the basis for calculating reservoir system performance. But being an old Bushie – you wouldn’t worry about that would you ! You probably ask your pet galah.
Ann Novek,
Hi, pleased to meet you, we don’t have a cat problem yet but if and when we do,a wall might well be the solution. Does anyone else have birds fly in front of their cars like dolphins do with ships? It’s quite an experience.
Malcolm,
My apologies, I’m probably the least intelligent person on this blog, I’m pretty sure I’m the least educated. So could you please explain to me, what is the point you are trying to get across with the whole population density thing?
I’ve spent the whole day checking the health of the ocean foreshore north of the NSW border following last nights report of doom and gloom sea erosion and it appears to me to be healthier than I can ever remember it to be in my lifetime.
The sand by-pass at the Tweed R. has put so much sand on the southern Qld beaches that it is an embarrassment and surfies are bitterly complaining about their point breaks disappearing.
The same is happening on South Stradbroke Is. a bit further north and the northern tip which I landed on this morning is like the Sahara Desert. Miles and miles of sand with a recent backdrop regrowth of Casuarina equisetifolia with a good and evident population of golden wallabies [Wallabia bicolour].
There are signs of recent surveying along this advancing shoreline with large red-banded aluminium posts driven in to the beach.
Maybe they are having to redraw the map of Australia.
Derek: I was the one who actually started the “world’s population could fit into NSW + Vic” topic, the point being that would leave the rest of the globe for aliens from space to grow the food etc needed to feed them all.
As it happens our Kev has exactly this in mind. Let Australia take in all Tamils, as well as all persecuted Talibans etc from Afghanistan & Pakistan, not to mention the disaffected in Iraq and Iran (Sunni and Shia, being both equally disaffected and addicted to blowing themselves up), Somalia and the rest of Africa, and we can soon fill up those newly vacant spots along the MD, though I favour Queensland as being first in line for the Tamils’ new homeland, but not along the Gold Coast, as that would be cruel.
Too much sand, not enough sand, what it all boils down to is that people want the world be frozen in stasis, never changing. I’m sorry but that’s not how it works, nature will have it’s way and we have to just roll with the punches.
If you build a house at the base of an active volcano you’re bound to see a river of lava flowing past your front door from time to time. Likewise, if you build your house on the edge of a beach sooner or later it’s going to be threatened.
Tim,
I’ll just concede that I misunderstood what you were saying somewhere along the line and leave it at that.
What are your thoughts on desalination plants?
Derek: desal is fantastic where as in Dubai, Saudi, Kuwait etc you have free power (from otherwise flared gas) to power the plants. Here with our incredibly cheap coal in La Trobe, why not, if you can sell the water for more than the cost of the power used? But top end of WA is probably the best place using flares from LNG. (I actually did some work on desal for Lonrho back in 1975-76). Desal has made the desert bloom in Dubai, with much lusher golf courses – and much more birdlife – than you can find in Vic or NSW. Trouble with golf in Dubai as I found is too many water holes, and birds who specialise in creating a racket as you line up your putts – and then cackle in derision when you miss, as you always do.
Tim – the farmers around my area grow grass seed that’s exported to Dubai where it’s grown to feed dairy cows!
Today’s Spooner 🙂
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/10/28/820311/svSPOONER_OCT29-600×400.jpg
Has there been any comparisons done between desalination and stormwater capture and storage? We have some issues with desal in SA being put in the gulf and their effects on marine environments.
Talking of Galahs Luke.
You are colourful.
You are continually squawking incohearently.
When shot at you fly in ever diminishing circles squawking even louder.
Just a comparison.
Now as to that science.
Even an old Bushie knows that models produced with multiple variables and inexact historical data can all be made into elephants that will whistle “You are my Sunshine.”
Also Luke, have you had a look at the inflow and dam levels in the Murray system lately?
Pikey.
Spangles, Everytime I visit the NSW coast ( I spend at least 6 weeks each year) I ask locals what they think of climate change and have they noticed any change in sea level, tides, storm surge etc. They invariably laugh and scoff.
I have been visiting the same part of the coast for the last 35 years and I can also see nothing except changes to beaches due to movement of the sand. The rock platforms i dive from look identical to me.
Maybe its rosenthal’s rats at work…i expect to see no change so i don t see it. But it is interesting to me that nobody that is likely to be impacted by rising sea levels is actually remotely concerned.
If you build on a cliff or on a beach front, you have to expect erosion and the chance of your home being washed away. This latest report has been issued to add to the spin associated with the copenhagen convention
Derek,
Desal works if you’ve got a cheap or by-product source of energy as Tim describes. Here in SEQ our beaut new desal is costing us about half a mil A DAY and just sitting there [I can hear it rusting from here]and may never produce a litre of water in need.
This is what’s known as dumb desal.
If we had gone ahead with the Wolfdene dam at a fraction of the cost we would now have 1/ A great storage of cheap water. 2/ A guaranteed farming area in the catchment for all time. 3/ A huge environmental zone. 4/ A great recreation and tourism area.
What we are getting in its place is [apart from the expensive, rusty non-waterworks] an ever increasing sea of roofs.
A dam, particularly in an urbanising area is a win/win/win/win.
A desal is win[maybe]/lose/lose/lose.
In desert regions particularly where there is cheap energy as Tim describes, it makes sense and it would combine well with various forms of nuclear power generation.
I submitted a plan for wave operated big pump cylinders stationed offshore NSW and SEQ where the Tasman continually churns out big waves, to supply continuous, electricity-free, RO fresh water before they started our desal but didn’t even get a reply.
Luketard,
Dr. Moerner has studied more south Pacific islands than you have probably rolled up on!!! Otr is that BEACHED ON?????
Tell HIM about how Aussi Land differs in ocean physics from the rest of the world!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Derek Smith,
The real problem in tech and non-tech countries is water availability.
Reducing the population is called genocide in some areas.
Reducing the population to fit energy and water availability starts sounding like Communist and Fascist solutions.
Solutions to problems in FREE societies generally are around finding a solution, NOT getting rid of the humans or limiting their birth rate to reduce the magnitude of the problem.
Telling me to reduce CO2 is telling me to reduce the food supply indirectly getting rid of humans.
Let us be very clear, AGW is a One World Order type issue with a One World Order Elite Solution.
I find it endlessly fascinatinbg how Agnostics, Atheists, and others without a God appear to be attracted to taking Godhood upon themselves and running everyone elses lives!!
Gavin,
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60202/IDO60202.2009.pdf
“It shows that since 1992 sea levels have risen more substantially across the western Pacific than across the eastern Pacific. This geographical non-uniformity is related to inter-decadal sea level variability as described in section 3.2.2.”
Guess what, the Pacific Ocean, and other oceans, lakes… SLOSH!!!
Do you think that humans are responsible for the rocks with no sand??
Do you think that rising sea level is making the erosion worse??
What DO you think is happening??
Coastlines have been eroding for as long as they have existed. Blaming humans for sea rise causing this natural erosion is pointless.
Lukefart,
“Pikey – there is this thing called science (which you don’t believe in)”
I’ve got about 5 minutes. Tell me everything you know and we can fit in time for a beeah!!
Sorry, I don’t have time to listen to everything you THINK you know!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Why Lukefarttard thanks for the support!!!
““Which causes more coastal erosion, rising water level or falling water level.” episodic storms particularly combined with high tides.”
Humans have nothing to do with it!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Luke,
What amazes me over there in Oz is that with all your water problems you have shower-heads which produce a torrent of water compared with ours in NZ.(The only advantage of our miserable flow is that you can get a soap lather)
However the Greens in govt. towards the end of last year wanted to introduce legislation to reduce our shower flow even further!!!
So in addition to having our incandescent lights banned,this final straw,this funny little issue, contributed massively to the resounding biff out of the Clark govt.
BTW if Rudd bans incandescents I probably wouldn’t give him any more than one term.
There are a swag of people out there who havn’t bought into your save the planet nonsense Luke.
Also BTW the very first thing Key did after the election was repeal the ban on incandescents . Sensible fellows.
“What amazes me over there in Oz is that with all your water problems you have shower-heads which produce a torrent of water compared with ours in NZ” – well Macker during the recent Brisbane drought there has been a massive campaign to install new shower heads. And we were getting by on 140 per person per day. cf about 300 before.
KaakyKat – “Humans have nothing to do with it!!!” at this stage probably not.
Kuhnkat,
Forgive me, I would never advocate reducing population by artificial means and the Chinese solution has had very unfortunate unintended consequences but I’m afraid that I am in favor of intelligent means to limit population to a yet to be decided sustainable level. I heard on the radio recently that when you give women in third world countries an education and lifestyle choices such as getting a job, birthrates fall naturally. I believe giving them the option of birth control is also a major factor. I may be wrong but I seem to recall that most western countries actually have stagnant or dropping birth rates and that there is also a link between increasing prosperity and reducing birth rates as well.
Spangled,
Interesting stuff, there was a very promising looking wave turbine I saw on Beyond 2000(?) that never seemed to get passed the development stage. In the right locations it seems such an obvious solution. I’m not sure about those gigantic undersea tidal generators, it’s not clear whether they would have any impact on marine ecosystems.
Luke,
I’m totally on rain water so my family of 5 are trying to get by on 65l/person/day with a fair bit of success. I think being mindful of your resources is good for the soul, I remember years ago living in suburbia and whining about the cost of water back then(17c/KL?). Now I think that water should be charged at at least double so that people appreciate what they have access to.
Mack,
I’m in a bit of a bind, when my house was built it had 3000 watts of incandescent globes and because we are totally solar, changed to the compact flouros. Being conservative with lights means we only run 60-80 watts at any time. I’ve since read damming stuff about these globes on this very site but don’t see any alternative at this time. I’m hoping for a LED solution in the near future.
Luke and Derek,
As a point of interest when spending extended time at sea under sail you work on 1 litre per person per day and bathe in salt water.
The only other energy consumption is gas for cooking and refrigeration is optional.
It’s not how you would live normally but it’s what you can comfortably manage without too much deprivation. Even with young families.
Spangled,
We used to live in a shoe box and my father used to make us lick the road clean with tongue,……heh, just joking but seriously, how do you wash in salt water for more than a couple of days? When I come home from the beach I can’t go to bed without having a shower cause I end up with sweat rashes in uncomfortable places.
Derek,
That shoe box were a looxury! In extended off-shore races I made my crew cut the handles off their toothbrushes to save weight!
Most cruising is done in good climate zones where you get regular rainfall so that eases the pressure but even without it you get by.
Our family was so hard up that we used to drink our own urine. And lived in a hole in the road. Did we complain? Well yes we did actually.
Derek and spangled ,
My wife refuses to live like a mole in a hole! I cop it when my scottish nature compells me to go round switching off lights so I don’t.
Big Al left all his garden lights going during earth hour so what the hell.
Anybody ready to heat up the spa?
Luke,
OK, I can accept that your family lived in a hole in the road, that’s pretty common, but drinking your own urine? Wouldn’t you like, get yellow fever or something? Besides which its just gross, ew!
And every day the paper boy brings more….
Extraordinary September Arctic sea ice reductions and their relationships with storm behavior over 1979–2008
Ian Simmonds
School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Kevin Keay
School of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Dramatic changes have been observed in Arctic sea ice, cyclone behavior and atmospheric circulation in recent decades. Decreases in September ice extent have been remarkable over the last 30 years, and particularly so in very recent times. The analysis reveals that the trends and variability in September ice coverage and mean cyclone characteristics are related, and that the strength (rather than the number) of cyclones in the Arctic basin is playing a central role in the changes observed in that region, especially in the last few years. The findings reinforce suggestions that the decline in the extent and thickness of Arctic ice has started to render it particularly vulnerable to future anomalous cyclonic activity and atmospheric forcing.
Received 29 June 2009; accepted 1 September 2009; published 14 October 2009.
Citation: Simmonds, I., and K. Keay (2009), Extraordinary September Arctic sea ice reductions and their relationships with storm behavior over 1979–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19715, doi:10.1029/2009GL039810.
AND
Satellite observations indicate rapid warming trend for lakes in California and Nevada
Schneider P.1, S. J. Hook1, R. Radocinski1, G. K. Corlett2, G. C. Hulley1, S. G. Schladow3, T. E.
Steissberg3
1NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109,
USA
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1
7RH, UK
3Tahoe Environmental Research Center, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616,
USA
Large lake temperatures are excellent indicators of climate change; however, their usefulness is
limited by the paucity of in situ measurements and lack of long-term data records. Thermal
infrared satellite imagery has the potential to provide frequent and accurate retrievals of lake
surface temperatures spanning several decades on a global scale. Analysis of seventeen years of
data from the Along-Track Scanning Radiometer series of sensors and data from the Moderate
Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer shows that six lakes situated in California and Nevada
have exhibited average summer nighttime warming trends of 0.11 ± 0.02 °C yr-1 (p < 0.002)
since 1992. A comparison with air temperature observations suggests that the lake surface
temperature is warming approximately twice as fast as the average minimum surface air
temperature.
luke’s paper says; “Dramatic changes have been observed in Arctic sea ice, cyclone behavior and atmospheric circulation in recent decades”
1 Arctic sea ice;
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Arctic_1.jpg
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
2 Cyclone behaviour;
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/atlantic_ace.jpg
3 Atmospheric circulation;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
As for the 6 lakes showing temperature increases of up to 1.1C per decade; they would be the ones with the thermal springs underneath?
Cohers – cyclones – aka low pressure system – Arctic – try to get in the region eh?
Mindless knee jerk denialism.
“As for the 6 lakes showing temperature increases of up to 1.1C per decade; they would be the ones with the thermal springs underneath?” – so desperate – so utterly desperate Cohers
you have to deny it – trending in all six lakes – ROTFL
At some point the coincidence level has be OVERWHELMING – we’ll find out what the level is soon.
After you lot have finished denying it’s happening – you’ll be talking up your new positions – “well anyway it won’t be a problem” – you’ll “adapt” – hahahahahahaha
I also note Janama has packed it in after being done like a dinner.
Luke,
Science is not debated, politics and pseudoscience is.
luke, my link about cyclones was to the North Atlantic data;
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/atlantic_ace.jpg
Luke, 9-43 P.M. Oct.30.
That explains it.
I always though you must have been on the piss.
In relation to the supposed water shortage in Australia.
It is a fabrication!
If we compare annual precipitation per head for various countries we get the following.
Australia : 130 megalitres per person /year.
Brazil: 121 megs./year.
United States; 29 megs./year.
China; 11 megs. / year.
Japan: 5.9 megs. / year.
United Kindgom: 2.6 megs. / year.
Mack,
Can’t find the figures for N.Z.
There is an average of 290 M megs of water runs to the sea from mainland Aus. each year. With another 50M megs. from Tasmania.
It is estimated we have another 40M megs of urban run-off that is totally wasted.
If we only harvestaed 5% of the above, we have sufficient water for 150M people.
Australia is not short of water only the wisdom and desire to harvest and store it.
Pikey.
Lukey, that last paper you cite concluded in its Abstract: “The findings reinforce suggestions that the decline in the extent and thickness of Arctic ice has started to render it particularly vulnerable to future anomalous cyclonic activity and atmospheric forcing”. Could you kindly forward or post the authors’ bivariate regression results proving that “anomalous cyclonic activity” is the result of “atmospheric forcing”, with the latter broken down into its principal components, solar radiation, and radiative forcing by GHG.
“Science is not debated, politics and pseudoscience is.” – wow – what an amazingly stupid comment
Cohers – sigh – no try Arctic Basin – desperate Cohers – just desperate.
Pikey – wow – what snake oil. Pity vast amounts of water runoff into the north of Australia. I’m sure millions will love to live in the Kimberley, the Gulf, Cape York with heat and plague insects – eating mangoes not apples. Enjoying rip roaring cyclones. What meaningless stats. But thanks for playing. NEXT ! I know – let’s pump it from the Kimberley to Albury – hahahahahaha
Timmy – you should be learning by now that you’re ratshit at this stuff. Who says “atmospheric forcing” has anything to do with radiation here. You’re a real little content free unpublished verballer aren’t you. You could have been good in the Qld or NSW police in the 1970s.
Dusts hands – well that’s about it for the denialists today. Done like dinners yet again. Time for a day out with a foxy lady. See yas. (I really can’t believe they pay me to debate you guys – it’s just too easy).
“And every day the paper boy brings more….”
Arse-up-again-Luke,
No, it goes…
And February made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver….
There’s a drawing competition bring held at the local school of arts and you should enter.
Nobody draws conclusions like you can from all that “digital astrology” you just served up.
Lack of warming, lack of SLR rate increase, lack OHC increase, ever increasing ACO2……
Correlation or coincidence doesnt prove causation but lack of C or C sure disproves it.
Luke – I wasn’t done like a dinner – I just refused to accept your theory that the recent drought in the Brisbane area was worse than the federation drought, and YOU – well you failed to prove it so.
Derek – there were two wave generators on Beyond 2000 – one was built into a cliff face and the waves crashing against the coastline forced air up a shaft that had a wind turbine that produced electricity.
The other was unit that was chained to the ocean floor and as the waves passed under it they forced air up into a similar turbine setup. It was trialed at Port Kembla.
http://www.zulenet.com/electriceco/energetech.html
cohenite…”STR; saw Stewie Franks today; he has just had a paper on the STR and IOD accepted for publication in GPR; proves the dominance of the natural cycle; should be interesting”.
coho…haven’t been around for a bit. Working out of town with little time or internet access.
re natural cycles. On long drives, I have given a great deal of thought to what Lindzen said about surface temps rising as high as 72 C with no convection to cool the air. In the Canadian prairies, September saw uncommonly hot weather with temps well into the 30’s C. It was unbearable working out in the sun and I became aware of how still the air was. The prairies normally have decent winds blowing but with the really hot weather there was nary a breeze.
On days when a decent wind was blowing, the temps dropped over 5 C. That’s your convection at work, carrying off heat and regulating the surface. Of course, there are situations when the only air available to move into a hot spot is as hot as the air leaving. That happened to us here on the west coast of Canada in late July. Normally, cooling breezes blow in from the cooler ocean. Those air flow patterns were reversed, possibly because of the recent reversal of the PDO, and we were hit by hotter air from the interior. That set a record in Vancouver that has stood since 1960,
The point is that CO2 warming, especially as related to radiative warming, is a red herring. CO2 was introduced by modelers as a fudge factor to modify the outputs of their models. They have completely missed the effect of natural forces such as convection, which has a much greater effect on temperatures than radiation.
All you have to do is look at the effect of radiation on our prairies in autumn. Normally, the effect of the tilting in the Earth’s axis reduces the temps several degrees, but nothing severe. Meantime, the Arctic gets cut off from the Sun as winter approaches and the temps there drop well below zero. It’s not till that cold Arctic air is forced down into the prairies that they become so cold. Again, that’s convection.
With that freezing air, the surface freezes, and solar radiation has little effect on it. A freezing surface does not radiate significant energy. In winter, radiative energy in large portions of the northern and southern hemispheres is neglible, but energy from convection is not. In other words, convective-based energy controls radiative energy and sets the temperatures.
Why people think that CO2 can effect temperatures more than a fraction of a degree, at best, is beyond me. And I’m talking about natural CO2, not the pathetic contribution of humans. Science must reassess the hooliganism introduced to science by modelers and get real about the way the modelers have corrupted physics and meteorology.
Gordon,
Science is only a bit player in this current drama.
This is all about the reintroduction of world socialism. Karl farted and fell back in 1990 but Maurice was right behind and picked up the baton.
The west’s enormous increase in “educated idiots” could well be the tipping point.
Gordon, I couldn’t agree more; a good paper, and I only have a link to the abstract, is;
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15567030701568727
Their point is that heating from radiative transfer is dwarfed [actually nullified] by convection; LTEs form at the ground/atmosphere boundary; convectional uplift is quicker than any radiative transfer from within the rising LTE to the surrounding atmosphere which, when the internal temperature of the LTE reaches equilibrium with the atmosphere, either has the downward isotropic emission defeated by the opagueness of the atmosphere below the CEL or by the process described in this paper by Nasif Nahle;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
the problem with luke is that he thinks this is a game and doesn’t realise he is travelling with nutters.
Luke,
Fact is, most of it runs into the sea between Adelaide and Cairns on our east coast.
Just where most Australians live.
Luke, I understand you are highly educated, but you seem to lack any practical knowledge on subjects you race into with self-assumed authority.
Ever heard of Australias Great Dividing Range?
Well it runs all the way down our east coast and is Australias main water catchment.
It is not coincedental that this is where most of our population live.
Do not have time for individual river detail.
Go educate yourself.
You really are a Galah.
ALL SQUAWK and NO SENSE.
Pikey.
Derek Smith,
” I heard on the radio recently that when you give women in third world countries an education and lifestyle choices such as getting a job, birthrates fall naturally. ”
We AGREE!!!!
Education has always been the answer to so many problems. Unfortunately the nut cases always seem to take control of the educational systems to push their own agendas!!! The recent AGW classes in many countries and UK ads targeting children are excellent examples.
Hey Lukefartard,
you read about an Irish town and EU suing the Irish Gubmint??
Apparently they built a couple of windmills in the middle of a bog uphill from a town. The construction destabilised the bog which slid downhill doing minor damage to some buildings and blocking their road.
The EU is suing cause of the amount of CO2 that is being released due to the bog loss!!!
Yeah, let’s trust the GUBMINTS to get things right!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukefartard,
“Our family was so hard up that we used to drink our own urine”
Yes, that would probably explain it.
Your personality is apparently a direct response to the humiliating circumstance of being FORCED to do what Mahatma Ghandi did on his own belief that drinking some of your own urine restores some of the biological control chemicals that are lost making you healthier.
Did it work Lukefartard?? Were you healthier?? Or, and I hate to mention this in public, but, did you get your urine mixed up with your MOTHER’S???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Luke: please post the regression results I asked for, or admit they do not exist and that therefore that paper is as worthless all the others you put up.
Cohenite,
Also the problem with Luke besides the fact that he doesn’t realise he’s travelling with nutters as you pointed out is that he has had nearly 30 yrs of brainwashing of this greenhouse thing, commencing with schooling (anywhere during the 80s and 90s) and reinforced which ever way he turns by newspapers,magazines,books,TV,etc in his later years. He can’t be blamed for the way he thinks. He’s a product of that time.
I saw a revealing comment by one blogger saying he was told in school back in’ 92 to expect thermal armageddon by 2010 and was wondering where it was.
Well what a hot date. Wowie !
Curtin – are you some sort of mindless zombie that had a formative experience with a goat in an introductory stats class, thereby developing a fixation on regression. But in this case your question is like ….. “stupid”. I’ll leave it to you to work out why as an exercise. Come on Timmy – get a bit closer – keep biting like a ropa-dope.
Mack – err nope – ALL WRONG – I was a sceptic. Unlike you – I’ve done some research. (and also unlike yourself I can read above grade 7 level)
Janama,
Thanks, it was the one chained to the ocean floor that I was thinking about. I’ve always thought it was a simple yet highly functional design but haven’t heard anything about it since.
Ron,
I’m sorry but when I read your stats on Aus’s per capita rainfall I thought exactly the same thing that Luke wrote 2 responses later. I think if you could produce the same stats for the area where 90% of the population live it would give us a better picture of the situation.
BTW just because I’ve found myself agreeing with some of the things Luke says doesn’t mean we share a thick shake at the local diner.
Gordon,
Sounds good to me, at least the bits I understood.
Kuhnkat,
We probably agree on a lot of things, like your crack about lefties playing God. Case in point K. Rudd, although he isn’t an atheist.
Pikey Pikey Pikey – as an old bushie from Barellan – by now you think you would have worked out I always know what I’m talking about.
And oh dearie me – exhibit A
See the first map
http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/availability/index.html
Something about mean annual surface runoff. And look where the big numbers are. And it was you who said “Australia” matey.
Which strangely is why CSIRO have just done
http://www.csiro.au/partnerships/NASY.html
Sorry Derek – I’m dating a hot babe. If it doesn’t work out I’ll give you my number. (I think she might be a Catholic and a sceptic)
Luke,
You might have been a sceptic up to about the age of 13.
So you’ve done some research !!!
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Yeah right.
Tell Cohers about it because you know I’m too dumb to understand.
Luke,
Thanks for the anra link, I’ve just bookmarked it as a useful resource for school. The”How committed are Australia’s surface water resources?” map is very telling. If I read it correctly, over 70% of NSW & VIC are at 100% or over committed. And these are the states where the bulk of Australia’s population growth will be located. It doesn’t bode well.
Lucky Luke, a catholic AND a skeptic, you’ve got it made pal!
luke’s map references are all value filtered through such concepts as sustainable; and there is doubt about their veracity; for instance, this one obstensibly shows which regions have maximised their water resources;
http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/water/availability/index.html#committedsurface
On what basis is this concluded; is it on the basis that the 2 left-footed smelly luke-frog has an untouched habitat? Does it take into account a certain % of mandatory national parks and wild-life preserves and hippy colonies and secluded areas so that Clive Hamilton and such can wander lonely as a cloud? Does it include urban run-off which is uncollected? And so on.
derek – I’ve found the Beyond Tomorrow program you saw.
The company is now called Oceanlinx
http://www.oceanlinx.com/
Thanks Janama, you’re a gem.
janama and Derek,
There was one of these “blowholes” stationed off the Kiama jetty for a while and this company entered into pilot agreements with a couple of US islands [Rhode Is. and Maui] but I haven’t heard how it’s going. [I couldn’t access that u-tube link]
Mixing electricity generation and seawater in a harsh marine environment causes never ending problems.
Whereas existing grid power only encounters problems in extreme weather, many renewables face these stresses almost 100% of the time which further reduce their seemingly obvious potential.
This is why I wanted to produce RO fresh water directly from wave driven pumps with no electricity involved.
spangled drongo – have you ever witnessed the power in the incoming and outgoing tides at Derby or Wyndham on the Kimberly coast? The tide varies 9 meters. Funnily enough the commitment to build a tidal power station on one of them was one of the deals Meg Lees spun with the Howard Gov for the GST – yet it still never happened.
Standing on the wharf at Wyndham I observed a boat that was anchored in the river – it appeared to be doing about 25 knots from the bow wave created as the tide rushed past. Surely an aluminium smelter could be powered with such forces.
BTW derek – here’s the other aussie company involved in tidal power
http://www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com/
They started out on the Clarence River at MacLean NSW but have now expanded overseas and established Atlantis.
Spangled,
Your points are well taken and clearly, “fossil” fuels are by far the most economic and efficient means of producing electricity that we currently have. Louis might be right about abiotic oil but I’m not ready to sell the house and invest in that one just yet. So assuming that carbon “fossil” fuels are a finite resource, we need to start working on alternatives sometime.
Now I’m a fan of nuclear energy and if they can get the Thorium option up and running even the greenies might come around. But, every little bit helps and you never know when a particular piece of novel technology might have just the right application.
Your idea of producing RO fresh water without electricity is a case in point. We all know that each step in a cascade of energy transformations loses energy so reducing the number of steps makes sense.
Every year I get my year10 class to write a story under the premise “Greenpeace took over the world and banned all mining, what would your world be like in 30 years time”. Now one reason for this essay is to get them to understand how mining affects our lifestyle but it is also to make them think outside the square and consider all of the flow on effects of such an action.
What we have discovered is that many potential ways of doing things are not realized because cheap energy makes them uneconomical or unnecessary.
I’ve used the phrase “necessity is the mother of invention a lot these last few weeks and used examples from the great depression to make the point.
By the way, in light of the Monkton speech I’m starting to think that my premise isn’t quite as fictional as it used to be.
janama,
You’d reckon that they would produce terrific energy, especially with those turbines mounted at the critical curve of the nozzle like that, immersed in one of those tide flows.
The problem is like wind and solar, power transmission for huge distances, harsh environment situation maintenance and unintended environmental consequences can possibly take enough of the shine off them to make ’em more trouble than they’re worth.
janama
“the power in the incoming and outgoing tides”
Unfortunately the nasty bit of physics and engineering comes into it.
While the tide may be 9 metres, it’s the volume that goes through the turbines combined with the height that matters, and it is really difficult, as SD pointed, out to build anything of a useful size.
That is not to say it is impossible but at the moment, not cost effective.
Well, what an interesting day!
We have gone from Galahs to oxymoronic foxy ladies (glad to see we have not destroyed your sence of humour, Luke), then on to population control, via population water requirements to total water use.
At my age:
Still interested in foxy ladies.
Can’t believe that Scepticism and Catholothism can be synonymous.
No need for birth control.
But have some practical views on water.
I believe this water discussion began as questioning Australias capacity to support an increased population of up to 35 or more million.
This discussion has become mired in other issues, but I would like to explain the water availability as I see it.
For all Australians to have adequate water for the assumed Aus. lifestyle, we need 110,000 litres of water per person per year.
This includes all water for human consumption, all municiple needs and industry.
It does not include agriculture and mining, which I will discuss later.
Therefore a population of 22M requires only 2.5M megalitres of water per year.
Given our resources, this is a “piddling amount” harking back to Luke’s previous admission.
A population of say 40M would require only 4.5 M megalitres per year, still a meagre amout compared to what is available.
The graphs and data as supplied by Luke are useless in understanding the pracrical issues.
For example:
The 4 major rivers running into the Gulf deliver on average the following;
Gregory River: 2.1 M megs / year.
Norman River: 2.3 M megs / Year.
Leighhardt River: 1.9 M megs / year.
Nicholosn River : 3.6 M megs / year.
TOTAL 9.9 M megs per year.
If we just select 4 rivers on the east coast we have the following:
Richmond River: 2.2 M megs / year.
Clarence River : 4.2 M megs. / year.
Hastings River: 2.1 M megs / year.
Manning River : 1.8 M megs / year.
TOTAL: 10.2.M megs per year, after all present uses have been met.
It is strange but sad that this so called water shortage debate is continuing without anyone raising the truth that with the exception of the Sydney basin, most of the wonderful rivers between the south Australian border and Cape York are without dams and therefore without the capacity to produce the cleanest and most efficient power known to man.
All of these rivers have the capacity to store huge volumes of water and to produce hydro power.
To understand the CSIRO maps produced by Luke requires a little history and some knowledge of how water is allocated in eastern Australia.
It needs to be understood that quite properly, human water requirements will always take precedence over mining and agriculture, in that order and this has always been the case.
Witness the pipeline being built from the Goulbour to Melbourne.
When the CSIRO states that a particular river valley is over-allocated, it may sound alarming, but is only so if the time proven system is not understood.
Water allocation has always been the provence of the States and since the establishment of the “Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission” in 1912, has changed little.
All State Authorities give precedence to river flow to maintain what is called stock and domestic requirements.
That is water for towns, cities and industry and has to be sufficient to provide flow to the last town or settlement on the stream.
Available water above this is made available under an agreed formular to permanent plantings (ie Orchards and vineyards.)
Only after this is any excess water made available Pro rata to other irrigators.
Irrigation farming in Australia has only ever and will continue to use excess water in the system.
When the CSIRO claims that a river valley is over-committed, they add all stock and domestic requirements to all maximum irrigator licences to arrive at this conclusion.
This totally ignores reality and can lead to bad decission making. e.g. buying back water licences.
Have to rush, but we are NOT short of water only the desire to harvest, store and wisely use.
Will be back later.
Pikey.
Pikey, revise your math before the enemy strikes!
Pikey,
I can’t believe that any responsible govt would allow places like northern rivers of NSW to become so populated and not put in any major reservoirs.
The areas you mention from SA to NQ are where the urbanizing will happen yet most are beyond the point where a serious reservoir could be built.
It’s the big political cop-out.
Dumb desal will take over and cost us all a fortune.
I see that water rates in SEQ will now be billed by a separate entity from local govt.
Hold on to your wallets!
Even though I am not on the water grid I bet they’ll find some way to send me a bill.
Oh well, maybe when they get smart and build a chain of NRs along the coast, that will solve our water problems too.
Ron – Hydro requires head so rivers that run through deep gorges (like the Snowy) are perfect.
I’ve driven across the gulf and unfortunately those gulf rivers run across coastal plains so building a dam is a mammoth project and you’d be pushing it to get the head required for hydro power.
Similarly with the Richmond and the lower Clarence. Lismore where the Richmond starts to get serious is only around 11m above sea level. The Richmond is fed from 6- 8 tributaries none of which actually amount to much and the main river after Lismore meanders across flood plains. The upper Clarence has a couple of places where you could dam but you’d flood a lot a land that is full of gold and precious minerals. The Timbara and Mann rivers are the obvious ones to dam.
The Manning and Hastings rivers are similar to the Richmond – lottsa tributaries feeding it but the main river is on coastal plains.
Marcus; seems your Pikey missed those recent Ganges TV episodes on our ABC too
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200910/programs/ZY9719A001D2009-10-11T193000.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s695734.htm.
We saw a huge population that I suspect is still merely a bucket brigade on the whole. But what really pisses me of in all these comments from the right about our abundant resources is their sheer ignorance on the process of harnessing and disposing of any amount of liquid for our thirsty lot.
Bending and soldering copper pipes is not the first stage or the last. Even with gravity fed plastic tubes, we still need a dam or two. Over allocation may start right at this point and with climate change CSIRO and other authorities need to go back to fresh examinations of our original expectations. Cloud seeding programs over Tasmania’s abundant hydro lakes is a good case to start with
“But what really pisses me of in all these comments from the right about our abundant resources is their sheer ignorance on the process of harnessing and disposing of any amount of liquid for our thirsty lot.”
gavin,
What do you consider is the best way to supply clean water to a few billion people?
Pikey – you’ve left out many of the major systems across the Top End.
Anyway obviously not lack of water – Not ! – see Cubbie station calling in the Administrators
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/30/2728223.htm?site=news
As for damming the north and hydro power -dream on mate ….
The Ord dam still sits as a white elephant with some great cropping soils.
The Northern Myth revisited
http://ppn2009.anu.edu.au/paperssafe/Cockfield_PPNpaper_09.pdf
P.S. and good luck with the Wild Rivers legislation too !
luke, do your read your links? From the Cockfield paper on the Ord etc;
“commitments to northern development will be tempered by the lingering influence of neo-liberalism” [Abstract]
“First, it is not yet certain that there is a ‘global food crisis,
Second, there is a degree of uncertainty in regard to climate change in general and regional rainfall effects in particular” [p7]
More generally with gavin’s comments about population and doubt about supplying water; it seems that AGW supporters intrinsically doubt human ingenuity and ability to solve and overcome natural limitations; there is this continual denigration, glass 1/2 empty approach; Malthus and eugenics are starting to appear and the issue of resource deplenishment and catastrophe produced by population increase and destructive encroachment of nature is becoming the fall-back position as AGW ‘science’ is relegated to the status of the frisbee. So, for all those AGW doom and gloomers: do you think population increase is bad because it will have negative effects on humanity or because it will compromise nature?
Hi All,
Late lunch, several bottles of Riverina Red later and a little tennis in between.
Marcus,
I may have made a mistake, but although slightly sozzled, I have had a look and believe I am correct.
But happy to have your input.
Spangles,
Glad to hear from you as well.
Just consider this;
Mother Nature (God if you like), gives us this wonderful source of life called water.
Which she then evaporates from sea, swamp, salt flat depression, puddle and pristine stream and returns it to us as rain, hail and snow all near pure. To be used by all flora, fauna and mankind on earth.
All man has to do is capture and store this natural product for our needs to cover periods when precipitation is scarce.
We can pay for this capital expenditure by producing electricity whenever we release this water for use.
What have we done in recent years in Australia?
We have approved the construction of hideously expensive desalination plants that require vast amounts of power to operate, only to compete with what Mother Nature is giving us for free.
We are MAD!
We have been conned by Government and Greens into believing that “water is scarse,” only to justify charging an amount that makes the building of desalination plants economic.
janama,
You are correct that Hydro relies on head.
But all of the rivers of the east coast of Australia have more head than is required to build hydro schemes to rival the Snowy.
In the vast media frenzy that was created in the “let the Snowy run free again.” It was never reported that the Snowy Scheme only ever and for ever diverts 17% of the natural flow of that river.
All of the major tributries of the Snowy are below Jindabyne Dam, which is only 41 river kilometres from its source.
With the exception of a small weir on the Mowamba river all the tributries of the Snowy are undamed and feed the river as they always have.
Interestingly, there is more water extracted from the Snowy for irrigation near its mouth (21%) than there is for diversion to the Murray and Murrumbidgee.
The Clarence river in NSW has more than double the water and capacity to generate Hydro power than the Snowy.
janama, the tributries you mention are the ideal sites for dams with hydro power plants attached.
Dams do require the displacement of some people who live in these valleys. As a just democracy they must be compensated adequately for this in the interests of the greater good.
As a Nation that has for too long being distracted by environmental fundamentalism we need to shout from the rooftops that correctly sited, properly engineered and sensibly managed dams are nothing other than a plus for the environment.
There is NO downside.
janama,
We rarely build dams near coastal flood plains.
We tap the source and harness the power up the hill if you like.
Dams further down are for population use, but still produce some power.
Gavin,
From your comments, you have little understanding of the issues here.
Having an avid interest in water I watched every episode on the Ganges.
All of those programmes supported what I am arguing.
Appreciate that once say a megalitre of water is released into a stream, unless man interfears, it runs back into the sea.
It is only the gradient and length of watercourse that determines the time this takes.
During this journey:
Man can use it.
Man can store part of it for later use.
Man can reuse it several times. (As is done in the Snowy)
Man can let it run to the sea unused.
What is sensible?
Tasmania has just come through one of the wettest periods in white man’s history.
The dams are bursting.
Pikey.
Luke,
Just read your comment.
Really you are as colourful and a stupid as a Galah.
Of course I did not include all the syatems in the North.
Just as I did not include all the systems on the east coast.
I was responding to your stupid aassertion that the only available water for furure development and population increase was in the north.
It is not!
Ther are huge unharvested resources across large areas of Australia.
I have not mentioned or suggested any hydro schemes in the North.
That is your fabrication.
As for the Ord, it has certainly not been used to capacity since its completion.
However that is now changing dramatically, as markets for the type of produce that can be produced there are now developing.
Interestingly, I did some crop assessment work there with the Commonwaelth Development Bank, way back in the 60s.
Pikey.
I’ve just been watching the ABC’s rainforest programme [great photography] and put up with Jack Thomson telling us all to stop emitting CO2 if we want to save the rainforest. [Groan]
It seems Ron; we are about as old and cranky as each other and as such should retire properly by leaving thoughts on an advisory role in water to the next gen.
That said I remain a most practical guy when it comes to reading up on the latest schemes. Many of my minders early on were big on water. BTW from the mid 60’s I was roaming industrial Melbourne’s major water users looking at their monitoring and treatment systems amongst other process control issues in general.
Actual dates escape me now but I was contracted to the MMBW instrumentation division some where between the Murray – Dartmouth and Thompson River projects. This was the time Melbourne had literally run out of water supply and sewage treatment options to match the huge public demand after a series of nasty incidents round the city outskirts back then. Mid 70’s I did preliminary commissioning all over the paddock for both suppliers and users but what matters most now is, I know there are no short cuts to public security.
The same can be said about our communications, particularly during emergencies.
Did anyone watch the rainforest doc on ABC tonight? Intact rainforests develop their own clouds. Down in Tassie Ron, some experienced light plane pilots call the aftermath of that process clag.
Pikey – stop squirming and laying smoke trying to escape. The biggest water resources available for development are in the North. Their development is problematic for a number of reasons. Selective stats won’t cut it I’m afraid. If you don’t think the MDB is over the limit for sustainable flows I’m amazed !
The end of drought aid – but hey if there’s no climate problems why is it needed.
Try that one denialists.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291545-601,00.html
Derek Smith,
As one of the few sane voices hereabouts, you may care to offer your students a modeling exercise.
Lord Stern and Dr Pauchari want us all to become vegetarian to reduce methane emissions, and so save the planet. If we turn to vegetables, then to be politically correct they must be organically grown. But organic vege growing needs animal poo. But, wait a minute, we have abolished animal farming to cut down on methane, so there is not enough animal poo.
High marks to be given for innovative models involving harvesting of kangaroo, elephant, whale and polar bear poo, using solar powered ships and vehicles. Could biochar from prescribed burning save the day? Where do termite and rice field methane fit into the model? Try to introduce regressions and principal components. Get those young minds working, to save us all, if possible before Copenhagen.
P.S. The vegetables would have to be certified dead of natural causes, but that’s another issue.
Davey – relax the probability of nothing at all being done is very high. Probably inevitable that nothing will be done. Too hard. Which is why best minds have moved to adaptation.
“The biggest water resources available for development are in the North.”
Oh really – here are the average rainfall figures to the end of November in the regions under discussion
Burketown – 660.2mm
wollogorang – 781.9mm
Borroloola – 739.6
McArthur River – 645.7
Wyndham – 667
Halls Creek – 478
Tabulam – 1089.00
Dorrigo – 1766.2mm
Grafton – 933.3
Coffs Harbour 1529.7
Port Macquarie – 1244.6
Taree – 1017.9
I think there’s more water in the east coast rivers Luke.
I heard some fool from teh “climate group” today on AM saying that the Europeans were moving to a position of cutting emissions by 95 by 2050!! How can anybody take these people seriously? How can they actually sleep at night knowing they are blatantly lying to the public? Do they actually have any critical thinking skills at all?
The world most of all needs to be protected from stupid people that want to push their political dogma onto the rest of humanity.
Luke,
We had a brief discussion, some years ago, about Peter Checkland’s ‘Soft Systems’ analysis. You were not impressed, but I still think that his ‘rich picture’ (CATWOE) approach has merit. Simple, cartoon-style models can very quickly show up twisted thinking, including mine.
For instance, some ‘environmentalists’ are ideologically opposed to regular prescribed burning, but greatly in favour of increased Aboriginal management in National Parks. A simple picture model shows that, if National Parks were returned to traditional management, then regular burning would be very much a feature of Aboriginal management, as it is already in NT and Tiwi Islands. Such burning would sequester very large amounts of carbon, and the smoke would reduce radiant heat from the sun.
I haven’t tried it, but I suspect that a ‘rich picture’ model of adaptation to climate change, natural or anthropogenic, would be useful in provoking more thought, and stimulating productive discussion. Perhaps you could, in negotiation with Mr Uderzo, produce ‘Asterix Meets the Climate Challenge’. Having fallen into the magic broth as a child, Obelisk is obviously immune to any change in climate.
I think that should be Obelix.
Janama, your average rainfall figures to the end of November as an indicator of potential water resource development are less than meaningless. Safe yield from a storage is determined by the size of the storage and the variability of inflows . Think roof and rainwater tank if you like. But the harsh reality is that variability is so high in Australian rainfall and runoff that storages have to be several times larger than world averages for a give mean inflow.
Gee Janama – ever consider a thing called catchment area too? NEXT !
Of course being fair dinkum we’d also need to look at arable land available, evaporation, dam shape (deep very shallow). And as anyone following the Northern Myth would realise – distance to markets, cost of freight, massive numbers of insects, isolation, lack of schools & other facilities etc. hence fly in, fly out culture.
Thinking about it Davey …
Luke,
Talk about Pots and Kettles.
It was you who made the false claim that the only available water resources left in Australia were in the far north.
As I have demonstrated many times on this site; this is false.
Just take a look at my paper “Water in Australia.”
Luke,
“MDB is over the limit for sustainable flows.”
This is meaningless.
Please, please read again what I wrote about how the system has been managed for nearly 100 years.
Tell me how buying of irrigator licences or reducing “allocations” would change anything?
The CSIRO maps you posted here, while academically correct, are totally without any practical application.
Sadly we are seeing more and more of this nonsence circulating from previously esteemed institutions.
While it may be of academic interest it has little place in pracrice or in the decission making process.
Thanks for the support Janama.
For any readers who are interested, the average run-off and historical flows for most of the rivers in Australia are on a number of web sites and they clearly show that Lukes claims are without fact.
What they do show are that most of our rivers have highly variable flows.
That the incidence of floods and periods of little or no run-off, is unpredictable, but recurs at varying intervals.
It is this historical fact that makes it essential for Australia to build dams.
If we take the Clarence as an example we will see that it has an average discharge of 4.2 M megalitres.
However, there are years when the discharge exceeds 10M megs. and some below 2M megs.
If we construct one, two or three dams with a total capacity of say 4 to 5 M megs. These dams would be regularly filled in times of excess flow.
Guess what?
We have sufficient water for 10 M people.
Plenty to augment flow in dry times to enhance the river environment.
Guarantee for irrigation purposes. But remember that urban and domestic needs will always take precedent over agriculture. (Just as it is now doing in the MDB.)
Wonderful areas for tourism.
The capacity to produce nil-emmission power at the touch of a switch, potentially up to 65% of the Snowy capacity.
We can repeat this process on many of our rivers.
The construction of major dams and associated Hydro generators, requires considerable initial capital, but not as much as some of the desal plants presently being built.
The advantage of Hydro is that once they are commissioned they require little upkeep and virtually nothing to run, in stark contrast to desal.
The entire Snowy Scheme was paid for from the sale of Hydro power.
Hydro= High capex, more water, cheap water, no emissions, cheap power, low maintenance.
Desal= High capex, less water, expensive water, high emissions, high maintenance and huge ongoing power costs.
Gavin,
If citizen Luke is an example of the younger generation, then I will keep up the work to ensure that our decission making process is based on truth, reason and in the best interests of future generations.
But enjoy your input.
Bazza,
it is probably my Cocky background, but I canot make any sense of your comments.
Would you like to explain that again.
Pikey.
You lot need to slow down before you disappear up your own fundamental orifi.
Ever think about posting something like:-
Hi Jen – just in case you bother to check in now and again, hope you’re enjoying your walkabout. Lots of birds and serenity and stuff…..
Pikey, a storage is a thing like a bank balance or a lolly jar that helps match supply and demand. The more variable and random the deposits the bigger balance you need to keep, to keep up regular withdrawals. Which is of course exactly the problem farmers have in maintaining adequate reserves of hay, water, cash whatever. So with a changing climate and greater variability you would need an even bigger storage. If any of that was counterintuitive you would not have needed to play your Cocky card.
Lukefartard,
“(and also unlike yourself I can read above grade 7 level)”
Is that in a balloon or an aeroplane??? Maybe a hang glider?? By the way, any particular school??
But, can you reason and communicate above that level?? Your contributions here would lead us to say NO!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What an old codger your are Pikey. “The CSIRO maps you posted here, while academically correct, are totally without any practical application.” Indeed ! they are correct.
Let’s see – major cotton infrastructure sitting idle. Farms for sale. Orchards being ploughed in.
There is not enough water in the MDB to satisfy the desires of the users. Pretty basic – but Pikey that’s why you’re a denialist.
“Let’s see – major cotton infrastructure sitting idle. Farms for sale. Orchards being ploughed in.”
That’s because trendy city baby boomers decided to throw their excess at agriculture investment schemes and suddenly all the “family farms” were challenged by the “corporate farms” and their isn’t enough water to go around.
Anybody read this?
CSIRO. Australia’s great adviser.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26291548-601,00.html
Green Davey,
Collecting animal poo shouldn’t be a problem due to the incredible amount of bull shit that’s flying around. Anyway, I recon that a lot of our friends in the AGW community would get a bit peeved from time to time by the blatant hijacking of their cause by personal agenda groups like PETA.
I can see Luke in my mind now, tucking into a nice steak and thinking to himself “it’s the fossil fuels you morons!”.
Speaking of biochar, looking at things from an AGW perspective I don’t get the whole sequestration, capture and storage thing. It seems a bit risky and just delaying the inevitable as well as hanging on to the old tech for as long as possible.
Same with biofuels, they’re a half baked solution that uses up cropping land and sends food prices through the roof.
If I was a Luke, I wouldn’t be looking for different things to BURN, that’s what got us in this mess in the first place. I’d be pushing for a complete change in tech and get rid of this addiction to combustible energy sources. (I’d also be out on a hot date with my catholic, skeptic girlfriend)
As far as the Aboriginal burning thing goes, a friend of mine with several rooms full of fossils told me recently that fossils of tree kangaroos have been found on the Nullarbor plain. (WARNING, politically correct persons avert your eyes now!) This suggests that the plains were once covered in forest and the aboriginal burning practices didn’t work with the type of forest believed to have been there, destroying a whole ecosystem.
Ron,
I see what you’re saying and I’m almost convinced of the theoretical potential you propose but I have a doubt. All the data on total rainfall and river volume etc. is great but the general gist seems to be that it’s all available for human consumption. Forgive me, but what about the environment? I don’t have the capacity to do the math so could someone tell me what percentage of this total amount is the population entitled to?
I’m afraid that Luke’s arguments still find in me some fertile soil because at present water rationing IS the reality and what you say may be entirely correct but who here can see any of it being realized in the near future.
If you could put my mind at ease, it would be much appreciated.
Best TV show of all time……FIREFLY!
Just thought I’d throw that one in.
What seems to be a major factor absent from almost all the above posts is that over time new big or small dams are built upstream, and they obviously (except to CSIRO) of necessity interrupt the flows downstream of said dams. For example, I am very reliably informed that there are at least 2,000 small dams upstream of Canberra’s Googong Dam, which therefore never reaches its design capacity.
Tim, small dams have a small influence except on small flows. The various risk factors to water resources in the Murray Darling have been extensively studied and you should not bother commenting if you have not bothered to do your homework. Get real. ENSO events dominate eastern Australian water resources behaviour.
bazza says: “ENSO events dominate eastern Australian water resources behaviour.” luke would disagree, he’s an IOD man.
Derek, as Tim wonders about private dams upstream from his Googong Dam side of this town, I say we are stuck with a very fickle mother nature and the question of who is entitled to what drop of water is a big part of the ongoing storage development debate everywhere.
My garden in Canberra has just been deluged again by an intense thunderstorm. A few days ago it was an even bigger afternoon hailstorm that only a few of us experienced it seems. For a short time it can be difficult to cross the street even in gumboots because this older suburb has virtually no tanks. Also our normally bone dry drives, front gardens and back yards quickly overflow into the street gutters where all is lost to the Murrumbidgee via the creek which rises to another gusher while we watch. My thin top soil is gone in a jiffy too.
These days our newer suburbs are built with a chain of artificial ponds, however nobody can keep the dust down during most of the construction phase. It has to be, all that underground infrastructure that goes in first through the rock and a hard place. IMO the mandatory rain water tanks over there are a minium size given the above extremes.
On my abandoned hobby farm project in Tasmania (with good rainfall), a standard reinforced concrete tank built on site was 8000 gal. Back then, we were going to build solar passive with a massive electric slab heating capacity as backup but it only got to the transformer upgrade before domestic Hydro power went up to pay for a backlog of guaranteed industrial capacity on their books. Subsidised anything big is a curse in the end.
BTW my two cotton touring tents, plastic dish or bucket for our washing needs and old cast iron stove with its makeshift flue jammed down the back at the campsite by the bush were all very cheap to run over a season. However such back to earth strategies become frightening in a storm. We eventually hired a big dozer and a long armed digger for a day to make a proper building site at both high points on the property.
Fencing the boundaries including some steep forest would take much longer as it does with all our other infrastructure, but what do we realy need?
Cohers – shows how much you listen – I thought as much
You said -“bazza says: “ENSO events dominate eastern Australian water resources behaviour.” luke would disagree, he’s an IOD man.”
You should have said STR man – but only in the context of why south-eastern Australia is trending the way it is. Of course ENSO is a bloody big influence on eastern Australia. But most years aren’t El Nino years eh? IOD is an interesting frilly add on (IMO)
Luke,
To ” stir the possum” here is fine, even “pickle the onion” and play devil’s advocate, but for goodness sake;
travel with an open mind.
To only see problems is a misuse of the imagination.
An “Old Codger” I may be, but avidely determined to pursue parctical sollutions to the cause of a better tomorrow.
I note that just as you do in every debate, when confronted with some practical questions you fly off to that hollow tree limb and wait for the subject to change.
How about answering the questions I posed earlier.
Tell us in your own words what the problems of the MDB are and how your would rectify these problems and why that course of action would work.
Don’t just avoid the issue as you did when we got serious about sustainable agriculture in the wheat sheep belt.
We would all appreciate something direct from Luke.
Derek Smith,
I appreciate your input and would like to spend considerable time on a detailed response, but haven’t the time. (painting the house)
In summary, to effect sensible change and make for a better and sustainable future for our Grand-kids, we have to change public perceptions that have been indoctrinated into the majority by often well meaning but misguided Greens, assisted by a sensationalist Media.
Some of the oft repeated False Claims:
1. Australia is short of water.
2. Our rivers are dying
3.Major cities will run out of water.
4. We should not be using water for crops like rice and cotton.
5. Dams destroy rivers and riverine habitat. (Don’t Murray the Mary.)
Responses to above
1: I believe my response to this has been documented here and cannot be argued against. We have huge water resources in comparison to our population, even if we grow to 50M.
2: Our rivers are simply not dying. Most of the rivers in Australia and certainly the rivers of the MDB have run dry several times since 1788.
The only reason they have continued to flow in recent years is because of the dams built by earlier generations.
This is well documented and is detailed in my document, “Bunyips in our Rivers.” which is on this site.
Sadly while vast amounts of time and money have been wasted over recent years, several real environmental disasters have gone unresaerched and and continue to cause real problems.European carp for one.
3. The silliest decission we have recently made as a society is to be building Desal Plants.
Melbourne needs some new dams on streams to the east.
Sydney needs a dam on the Shoalhaven and storm water recovery.
Adelaide will never be short of water unless the Murrat ceases to flow. Not even likely, and I note that Luke has not responded to my note about the present state of the storages.
Brisbane, Gold Coast and Sunshine coasts have huge potential for run-off storage.
4: This is a very big subject which I cannot cover here, except to say that surely the business (farmer) who is paying to purchase the water is best equipped to decide the best return on that investment.
Just as an aside the rice grown in Aus. is not a tropical rice. It is bred from a japonica variety and all of the rice grown has been bred in Aus. for Aus. conditions.
5. Under Aus. conditions, correctly sited, properly constructed and practically managed dams only have environmental upside.
They are designed to store excess water in times of high run-off.
This stord water is then available to maintain stream flow, for population and industry use, for recreation and for agriculture and mining.
Derek, I am not advocating that all stored water is for human consumption.
Human consumption and industry actually use very little of our water.
That is why programs to limit personal use are largely futile.
Most people have little understanding of the vasy volumes of water that flow to waste in any stream valley when there is heavy rain.
We need to plan for this in all developments and create damed water habitat that is multi use.
There is an example in my piece “Water in Australia” relating to the Belinger river.
The Belinger is a largely pristine but tny river (average run-off 240,00 megs.per year)
The Belinger river has been in flood 6 times in the last 3 years.
In one of those floods I measured the flow over the bridge at Belingen. It was flowing over the bridge at 72,00 megalitres a day.
Sufficient water in one day to keep Coffs Harbour and Nambucca Heads in water for 9 years.
Both towns are regularly short of water.
Someone above spoke of the small stream run-off near Canberra.
These streams should all have impedement structures that do not totally store the excess but hold the initial flood and slowly release into the stream over time.
These are easy to construct and are very effective.
For the Hanahrans like Luke who may argue that we do not have the money for what I am advotacing.
If we had the money being wasted on Desal and the money being wasted by Wong on Buyback in the MDB we would have sufficient to do much of what I am advocating.
Thought for the day.
Once we allow Governments to legislate commerce (ETS and water buyback), the first things bought and sold are Legislators.
Gotta run up a ladder.
Pikey.
Cohers, science is not a courtroom with ENSO v IOD guilty not guilty. Lawyers always lose the middle ground in their relentless pursuit of the truth. ‘The unspeakable after the uneatable’?
Actually IOD is more like a son of ENSO and I am not sure if the Indian Ocean is fit for trial in its own right. You see the Pacific has a memory ( well sometimes) so it has predictability wheras the Indian Ocean appears to have no memory – its a no-brainer!
What luke said;
“To assess the relative importance of the IOD and ENSO for Southeast Australian drought, all years for the period 1889 to 2006 are classified as to the state of the Indian and Pacific Ocean, respectively (Figure 1a and Table S1 in the auxiliary material).1 The classification is based on work by Meyers et al. [2007], extended to recent years using HadISST data, but retaining the climate shifts defined in the original paper. Of the original 122 years classified, 14 have changed classification. This is not surprising in a method that is not local in time, and that relies on threshold criteria. Results were robust to variations in the thresholds used. The years of importance to this study are the negative IOD years during dry periods, and none of these changed classification.
This is the real IOD issue below in another paper which is the IOD changes I’m referring to. I assume you’ll get the drift…. Or do I have to explain it to you (OK you explain it to Louis – it will be beyond him).
Nature Geoscience 1, 849 – 853 (2008)
Recent intensification of tropical climate variability in the Indian Ocean
Nerilie J. Abram1,2, Michael K. Gagan1, Julia E. Cole3, Wahyoe S. Hantoro4 & Manfred Mudelsee5
The interplay of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, Asian monsoon and Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD)1, 2, 3 drives climatic extremes in and around the Indian Ocean. Historical4, 5 and proxy6, 7, 8, 9 records reveal changes in the behaviour of the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Asian monsoon over recent decades10, 11, 12. However, reliable instrumental records of the IOD cover only the past 50 years1, 3, and there is no consensus on long-term variability of the IOD or its possible response to greenhouse gas forcing13. Here we use a suite of coral oxygen-isotope records to reconstruct a basin-wide index of IOD behaviour since AD 1846. Our record reveals an increase in the frequency and strength of IOD events during the twentieth century, which is associated with enhanced seasonal upwelling in the eastern Indian Ocean. Although the El Niño Southern Oscillation has historically influenced the variability of both the IOD and the Asian monsoon3, 8, 10, we find that the recent intensification of the IOD coincides with the development of direct, positive IOD–monsoon feedbacks. We suggest that projected greenhouse warming may lead to a redistribution of rainfall across the Indian Ocean and a growing interdependence between the IOD and Asian monsoon precipitation variability”
Ron Pike,
I was wondering if you could give your evaluation of a particularly nasty enviro claim used here in the US.
The claim is something like this. Rivers need the high flow water regularly to “clean” the river. Without it the river bed becomes silted and even polluted from build ups of material. Especially in Salmon rivers it becomes dangerous for the fish.
Thank you for any response.
Alan Jones has been busy – last Monday he interviewed Monckton and followed it up with an interview with Prof Lindzen. He then nailed Turnbull about the liberal parties view on Climate change and the Copenhagen treaty. 🙂
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_homepage&id=1&Itemid=44
Hi All,
First my apologies for all the typos and spelling mistakes in my hasty posting this morning.
Kuhnkat,
Where are you from in the USA?
I cannot claim to have any practical knowledge of rivers in USA, although I go there every year.
I have spent quite some time on the Colorado river, which has some similarities with rivers I know well in Australia.
I have a poem about the Colorado which I am happy to share with you, called “Perpetual I Am.”
It may surprise you to know that all of the storages on the Murray Darling Basin and including the storages of our Snowy Scheme only total 29M megaliters.
The Hoover dam on the Colorado alone has a capacity of 35M megalitres and Lake Powell a little less.
The Colorado river has always flooded the Imperial valley. All that has changed is this flooding is now controlled by man and has resulted in one of the most produvtive areas on earth.
Very similar to the irrigated ares of the Murray and Murrumbidgee, where I worked most of my life.
In relation to your question, Australian rivers still flood regardless of dams.
But if we have a situation where a river following several years of low run-off, that has a dam holding say 650,000 megs. and there has been little downstream flow for 2 years and this is causing problems with say oyster farmers. Then authorities can elect to flush the river from the storage.
If the dam wasn’t there this would not be possible, the run-off would have long since flowed to the sea.
It is the Political Greens here also that have created the ongoing but unsupportable arguments about water and rivers.
Several years ago Bob Brown the leader of the Political Greens, made the statement that the rivers of the MDB were dying
Also that all of the river red gums were now dead or dying because of lack of environmental flow.
THIS WAS ALL TOTALLY FALSE!
However it made wonderful copy for our media.
It was beat up for months and still ocassionly gets a run in the MSM.
Brown refused to debate me on the subject but he and others kept repeating the claim.
After about 3 years of dogged rebuttal we have managed to largely show this to be false.
So what we now have is an also false claim that lack of flow is destroying the lower lakes of the Murray.
Lakes I would like to advise that were once tidal, but are now fresh, because of the foolish construction of barrrages.
The fight goes on.
In the mean time I am looking forward to being in USA in February and reciting some poetry in several centres in Colorado.
May even catch-up.
Pikey.
janama,
Yeah, pity Turnbull wouldn’t listen to Jones.
Did you watch ABC’s foreign correspondent tonight re Copenhagen?
Talk about LeggoLand!
Great photos of wind turbines in the sea but pretty fact and content free.
For a while there I deluded myself that they just might ask some pertinent questions.
Ron,
OK, I’ve just gone back and read your previous 3 articles and am happily convinced of your arguments. I also read all of the comments and would like to address one made by Slim regarding the impossibility of watering a family of 4 from rainwater tanks.
My family of 5 exists not uncomfortably on around 130,000 L TOTAL, that is about 74 liters per person per day. We have a total of about 320 square meters of roof area and an ave rainfall of 450 mm. So far this year we’ve had 500 mm and have lost at least 50,000 L from overflow when all the tanks were full and we had big rains.
Of course we don’t have a swimming pool and we don’t wash our cars at home (I wash my car once or twice a year when it rains ) and during the colder months I don’t bathe every day but my point is it’s not that hard to live on just rain water.
From what you and others have written, it seems that the real impediment towater and food security is popularist governments with an eye on the short term.
Cheers.
Luke also said:
from http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/NichollsUNSWfinal.pdf
March-August southern Australian rainfall decline:
Reflects increased local pressures
Cannot be explained by trend in SSTs
around northern Australia (trend is wrong
sign)
Cannot be explained by trend in NINO3
(trend is too weak)
Cannot be explained by trend in IOD
(western pole of IOD is unrelated to
rainfall; eastern pole trend is wrong sign)
May be explained by trend in SAM (but
doubts about data and strength of trend
and physical link)
from http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
The on-going drought is explained by the strengthening of the STR
(80% of the rainfall signal reproduced by the STR-I anomalies)
•
The STR is responding to global temperature of the planet
(two periods of warming during the 20th century as well as one of stabilisation)
(not by chance since it is reproduced by a fully coupled GCM –ensemble-)
•
Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification
(as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations:
regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)
•
The WWII drought is the first protracted drought in SEA partly due to G.W.
(albeit only 30% can be explained by the STR-I linked to G.W.)
•
The big differences between WWII and now:
1.
WWII was an Australia-wide drought, now: Australia-wide wet period … are we still the driest inhabited continent on earth? (Ian Smith was right!!!!!!!!)
2.
Tropical SSTs (natural variability) was the largest contributor -even in SWEA-
3.
Currently, tropical SSTs have help reduced the magnitude of our drought (small)
From http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/LATEST%20program_SEA_workshop.pdf
In analyzing Pikey’s comments above, we need to keep an eye on the facts and statements like the following –
“Murray-Darling Basin uses the majority of Australia’s water” ABS 2008
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4610.0.55.007
more on background issues, policies and caps
http://www.reec.nsw.edu.au/geo/water/page/abs%20mdb.pdf
some fast facts
http://www.csiro.au/science/National-Water-Commission–ci_pubHist-1.html
connected water resources
http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/water-sciences/ground-surface/connected-water
Ground water association with widely variable small stream flows could be my pet subject.
However Ron; I still prefer the views of old timers, artists and greenies when it comes to assessing impacts of major works done in the name of progress and a good example was the flooding of Tasmania’s old Lake Pedder for extra hydro power in 1972. IMO Kevin Kiernan’s photo here is a fine shot of the unique beach and dune formation that gives us a clue to all sand movement at the margins.
http://www.lakepedder.org/images/index.html
cheers
STR;
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/110573975/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
It’s not moving;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037786.shtml
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17007531
and which data used determines the results;
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4710/
I hope Jen and you-all don’t mind but here is my attempted post at Real Climate (sic) trying to rebut the character assassination of Steve Levitt by the ineffable Raymond Pierrehumbert (yes, that is his real name, poor sod). Naturally it never got up, so here goes:
Dear Prof. Pierrehumbert
I refer to your open letter to Steve Levitt, and provide here some interpolations of mine on just the core of your letter, knowing from experience that they would never be allowed to appear at RC [www.realclimate.org].
“Wherever it comes from, waste heat is not usually taken into account in global climate calculations for the simple reason that it is utterly trivial in comparison to the heat trapped by the carbon dioxide that is released when you burn fossil fuels to supply energy. For example, that 6 trillion Watts of waste heat from coal burning would amount to only 0.012 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface [TC: BUT REACHES 1.2 W at this rate for 100 years]. Without even thinking very hard, you can realize that this is a tiny number compared to the heat-trapping effect of CO2. As a general point of reference, the extra heat trapped by CO2 AT THE POINT where you’ve burned enough coal to double the atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 4 Watts per square meter of the Earth’s surface — over 300 times the effect of the waste heat. [TC: this conveniently compares ANNUAL production of waste heat with TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS PLUS so far of increasing [CO2] for just 40% since 1750 plus another 90+ needed for the doubling to be achieved at the present rate of 0.41% p.a.]
The “4 Watts per square meter” statistic gives us an easy point of reference because it is available from any number of easily accessible sources, such as the IPCC Technical Summary or David Archer’s basic textbook that came out of our “Global Warming for Poets” core course. Another simple way to grasp the insignificance of the waste heat effect is to turn it into a temperature change using the standard climate sensitivity of 1 degree C of warming for each 2 Watts per square meter of heat added to the energy budget of the planet (this sensitivity factor also being readily available from sources like the ones I just pointed out). That gives us a warming of 0.006 degrees C [TC: but that is per annum, i.e 0.6 oC for 100 years, exactly what we have had since 1900)] for the waste heat from coal burning, and much less for the incremental heat from switching to solar cells [TC: once again RP confuses flows with stocks]. It doesn’t take a lot of thinking to realize that this is a trivial number compared to the magnitude of warming expected from a doubling of CO2 [TC: likely to take nearly 100 years from now, as we have only managed c40% since 1750]. (My emphasis added to your text).
You are not the first climate “scientist” I have found to be incapable of distinguishing between stocks and flows – nor will you be the last! More to the point, none of that breed including yourself has ever demonstrated a single statistically significant relationship between changes in annual mean (or mean minimum) temperature and changes in [CO2] at any single location on this earth. I have tried and failed (including at Mauna Loa, Cape Grim, and Pt Barrow, the pristine locations free from UHI etc where [CO2] is actually measured) – but what I do find is remarkably statistically significant correlations between changes in solar radiation at those places and others (eg Sacramento) and the changes in temperature there since 1959. Similarly I find for Los Angeles no relationship between changes in [CO2] and temperature anywhere in that city, but a significant effect for changes in energy consumption (which does actually confirm some of what you say).
Kind regards
Tim Curtin
Yes Cohers – not saying STR is moving and all your listed authors know each other. It’s intensifying old son. Try to keep focussed Cohers.
Timmy – get Wattsup to give you a run or Climateaudit. Surely that will get your ratings up.
If they won’t give you a run – probably means you’re a crank.
Of course it has been demonstrated at Mauna Loa – but you being a denialist will deny it.
Loopylukey: pray tell us what for “that demonstration at Mauna Loa” the R2 was for changes in T on changes in [CO2], and what was the coefficient on d[CO2]? And what was the coefficient for SR which at c 150 W/sq.m. at ML must have a larger impact than the trifling 1.7 W/sq.m. of [CO2] in 2005? These are important details, please do not keep them secret.
As you’ve been told before this excellent piece of work puts the sword to your nefarious work.
http://ormserver.arts.yorku.ca/publictalks/Direct%20Observation%20of%20Global%20Warming%20and%20Correlation%20with%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Data.ppt
You’re a mug to keep coming back for it.
But as I said – Wattsup should give you a run surely – what’s holding you back from international fame?
Of course it’s another bad day for sceptics as the evidence piles up relentlessly
“We present additional evidence that the combination of processes driving the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields is unique within an 11,700-year perspective”
Glacier loss on Kilimanjaro continues unabated
L. G. Thompsona,b,1, H. H. Brechera, E. Mosley-Thompsona,c, D. R. Hardyd and B. G. Marka,c
+ Author Affiliations
aByrd Polar Research Center, Ohio State University, 108 Scott Hall, 1090 Carmack Road, Columbus, OH 43210;
bSchool of Earth Sciences, Ohio State University, 125 South Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210;
cDepartment of Geography, Ohio State University, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210; and
dDepartment of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, 236 Hasbrouck, Amherst, MA 01003
Edited by James E. Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, and approved September 22, 2009 (received for review June 1, 2009)
Abstract
The dramatic loss of Kilimanjaro’s ice cover has attracted global attention. The three remaining ice fields on the plateau and the slopes are both shrinking laterally and rapidly thinning. Summit ice cover (areal extent) decreased ≈1% per year from 1912 to 1953 and ≈2.5% per year from 1989 to 2007. Of the ice cover present in 1912, 85% has disappeared and 26% of that present in 2000 is now gone. From 2000 to 2007 thinning (surface lowering) at the summits of the Northern and Southern Ice Fields was ≈1.9 and ≈5.1 m, respectively, which based on ice thicknesses at the summit drill sites in 2000 represents a thinning of ≈3.6% and ≈24%, respectively. Furtwängler Glacier thinned ≈50% at the drill site between 2000 and 2009. Ice volume changes (2000–2007) calculated for two ice fields reveal that nearly equivalent ice volumes are now being lost to thinning and lateral shrinking. The relative importance of different climatological drivers remains an area of active inquiry, yet several points bear consideration. Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid to low latitudes. The Northern Ice Field has persisted at least 11,700 years and survived a widespread drought ≈4,200 years ago that lasted ≈300 years. We present additional evidence that the combination of processes driving the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields is unique within an 11,700-year perspective. If current climatological conditions are sustained, the ice fields atop Kilimanjaro and on its flanks will likely disappear within several decades.
Better get a coffee sit back and wait with glee for the shrill rants of the denialist scum. Like a hive of angry bees I can hear the hum coming.
As Janet Albrechtsen suggested in her piece in the Australian this morning:
Kilimanjaro’s ice cover is just another.
Loopeylukey: evasive as ever, you use the Mt Kili furfy to distract attention from your inability to report data rather than mythology. What do you think the mean max and min temps are atop Kili, @ 19,331 feet? Does ice melt at T below 0 oC? What has happened is a change in rainfall* and wind patterns up there, climate change all right, but uncorrelated with [CO2]; instead where there used to be fewer than 10 million in the general area below, there are now more than double, using wood for fuel, not Parafin, too costly since OPEC’s price hikes ever since 1970.
*A study by Philip Mote formerly of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria concludes that the shrinking of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is not directly due to rising temperature but rather to decreased precipitation.[12] [Wiki]
All explained in the paper Timmy. It’s all over now for Kilimanjaro deniers. How’s your publications in Nature and GRL going?
Ron,
thank you for speaking about this issue. It is controversial in the US.
If I am correctly interpreting what you wrote, nature will have wide variances where drought and deluge will cause extreme damage to river ecosystems. If man does a reasonable job of managing dams, we can smooth the extremes between deluge and drought with an overall improvement on nature.
This sounds similar to my thoughts on forests and wild lands in general.
I currently live in the San Gabriel Valley west of Los Angeles. I lived in the Outer Sunset in San Francisco for the past 19 years.
Tim Curtin,
the 1.2w/m2 in your post for 100 years is basically meaningless. Over 1 year .012w/m2 will easily dissipate with the much higher natural fluxes, unless there is some kind of “tipping point” past which the energy can not radiate away.
I do not believe in tipping points with the current knowledge of physics and the actual conditions.
Lukefartard,
“Of course it’s another bad day for sceptics as the evidence piles up relentlessly”
You remind me of that guy in Iraq assuring the newsdopes that the US Military wasn’t anywhere near Baghdad when they could be seen from the rooftop!!!
I KNEW you lived in an alternate universe in your own mind!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukefartard,
that’s right little Lukey, all EXPLAINED in the paper.
Do you never require JUSTIFICATION and FACTS with EXPLANATIONS??
I can explain how I am the most intelligent creature in the universe. I believe you would rightfully be sceptical!! You should try some of that scepticism on those whoppers we call Peer Reviewed Litchurchur!!
Tim Curtin…I’m on your side of the argument but I think you are giving far too much credit to the heat trapping ability of CO2. Peirrehumbert is a geophysicist, and IMHO, based on what I have read of his work, his understanding of physics is limited. He is heavily biased toward the computer model view of AGW and it would seem his grasp pf physics has come from courses he took along the way. In fact, if you read his book, he seems to infer that’s the way things are done in science these days, to get a degree in whatever you like and bone up on physics in your leisure time..
On the other hand, Craig Bohren is a meteorologists as well as a degreed physicist. There is little comparison between Pierrehumbert and Bohren when it comes to physics theory, and a quick scan of the former’s book reveals that he is not in the same league as Bohren in that capacity. Bohren claims that the notion of CO2 trapping heat is at best a metaphor and at worst, plain silly. He makes such a statement in his book, The Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation.
Unfortunately we are cursed by people like Pierrehumbert and his partner in crime at RC, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician. Both are spewing adulterated physics in support of their extreme views of the atmosphere. The engineer, Jeffrey Glassman has taken Schmidt to task on his understanding of physics, especially positive feedback theory.
Bohren supports his claims against CO2 trapping through 3 chapters of his book on photon theory. He points out the extremely complex interaction between photons of surface radiation and atmospheric gases. Although EM is claimed to have a dual wave/particle nature, Planck developed photon theory, on which quantum theory is based. It’s apparently easier to analyze sound using wave theory and IR using photon, or particle theory, but no one has yet proved that IR is not a wave.
Suppose it is. ACO2 makes up about 0.0016 % of atmospheric gases and IR radiated from the surface could be visualized as a continuum of energy. How is such an extremely rare gas supposed to trap anything, since most of it would escape between the gaping spaces.? Such an observation would be unsatisfactory for a physicist like Bohren, however, but he claims essentially the same thing. He states that photons of IR cannot be regarded as truant school children being corraled by CO2 as the truant officer. Both he and the German physicists, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, have gone to great pains to point out that the AGW view of radiated heat is far too simplified to be taken seriously.
Gerlich, in particular, an expert on vectors and tensors, takes exception to the Mickey Mouse one-line drawings used to describe the flow of photons in the atmosphere. He claims that even the more complex Feynman drawings could not describe the flow of energy in the atmosphere. One thing is clear, photons of heat do not flow directly from the surface to CO2 molecules in the kindergarten drawings provided by the likes of Pierrehumbert and the IPCC.
If a photon of surface IR can be considered a particle without mass, as it is defined, how does it get from the surface to a molecule of CO2? There are bazzillions of other atoms and molecules in its path. Nitrogen and oxygen make up 97% of atmospheric gases, and although they apparently don’t absorb IR, they can certainly scatter it. There goes your direct, one-line pathways used in AGW drawings to represent radiation.
Bohren does concede that the layer model with a cooler atmosphere radiating against a warmer surface is plausible, but as G&T point out, that model violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics when it is claimed that IR back-radiated from the cooler atmosphere can be added to solar radiation to warm the surface more than it is heated by solar energy alone. The atmospheric IR being back-radiated, if it is at all, represents a loss at the surface and came from solar radiation in the first place via the surface. This suggests a perpetual motion/heat storage system in which only a mathematician could miss the adulterated physics in that scenario. If such a heat storage system is possible, why are we not using it to heat our homes? As G&T claimed, CO2 simply does not have those abilities on that scale.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/consensus.jpg
LoopyLukey still believes glaciers melt when temperatures are below freezing point. Have you like me ever been atop Kibo? try it some days clad just in your swimmers.
“The fact that you have melting may mean air temperatures have increased, but it doesn’t necessarily,” says Philip Mote, who heads the Oregon Climate Change Research Institute at Oregon State University. “And in fact, the temperature on the summit of Kilimanjaro is essentially always below freezing, which makes it hard to accept warming as the reason [for glacier loss].”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1934203,00.html#ixzz0VrE7muQn
Gordon: many thanks for that excellent explanation. I had not believed “raypierre” is not a physicist – I guess it shows! While Schmidt is possibly a mathematician, he has admitted on the same Raypierre-Levitt thread at his very own RC site that he cannot do regressions, still less read the output! Incredible that he is not aware of the total absence of any such analysis showing the claimed correlation between d[CO2] and dTemps. Here is his response just 2 days ago to Julia Isaac:
Julia Isaak says:
2 November 2009 at 5:05 PM
…My reservations relate to the following comments to Gavin.
#240 Gavin
I set up no strawmen; the simple fact is there is an extremely poor correlation between AGW and widely accepted measurement data. This I suggest is reason enough to be skeptical, certainly of the claim that the science is ’settled’.
[Response: Sorry, but you are not being clear. What measure of ‘AGW’ do you think should correlate with what? Do you mean CO2 concentrations with global temperature? the radiative forcing of CO2? the radiative forcing of all the factors changing atmospheric composition? And where is there a prediction that these things should be perfectly correlated? [in AR4, passim, especially WG1 SPM, and p.671] How can mainstream theory be faulted for not matching a prediction it never made? [he must be joking!]And not credited for the predictions it did make? [which have all been disproven to date] And when did I ever say that ‘the science is settled’? [again and again!]….stop reading whatever it is you are reading, and start off with the IPCC FAQ. Then come back and discuss. – gavin]”
Those comments are mindboggling, coming as they do from Hansen’s Bulldog and chief spokesman plus co-author. Schmidt cannot be a mathematician at all as he is even unaware that for regressions it matters little whether you express d[CO2] as changes in that year on year or as [CO2]t=0/[CO2]t=now (as in the Radiative Forcing formula RF=k+lnCO2t/lnCO2t), in fact you get a very slightly better R2 using just d[CO2]/dt.
“raypierre” is no better, I doubt he knows what a photon is, hence his unavailing struggle to finish his book.
I can’t believe the kilimanjaro rubbish has resurfaced; clause 29 from this;
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
And straight from the alarmist’s mouth;
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleID=34106
kuhmkat; your comment about Tim’s accumulative temperature effect from small annual waste increments raises a number of points; the first is this is exactly what AGW claims for CO2 incremental increase; that is, an accumulating heat effect; the issue of accumulative natural heat increase is looked at here;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
The mechanisms for this are analysed in these 2 papers;
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
As well as the cloud mechanism the reemergence affect is discussed by Bob Tisdale;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/27/why-regression-analysis-fails-to-capture-the-aftereffects-of-el-nino-events/#more-9594
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/reemergence-mechanism.html
And they say it’s not a religion?
Al Gore: “to appeal to those who believe, there is a moral or religious duty to protect the planet.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/al-gore-our-choice-environment-climate
Ps. and he, AG now thinks, CO2 is only 40% responsible for warming!
Fancy that! What next?
Luke,
As expected and correctly predicted, whenever you are confronted with facts and truth that refute your persimistic claims, you retreat to your hollow tree limb. (likley in a supposed dead river red gum), from whence you throw obfuscational crap and try to change the subject.
Either front up and respond to reasonable questions; communicate with truth or shut-up.
How about for the first time ever on this site completing the argument?
A least show you have the depth of knowledge to support your claims.
Your credibility is looking very weak.
Kuhnkat,
Basically agree.
Most of mankind (wether we recognise it or not) have a close relationship with Nature.
Our spirituality is embedded in our environment and our partnership with Nature.
No one wishes to see destruction or even disturbance of habitat and the capacity of our environment to evolve and prosper.
My Grandfather instilled in me and anyone else that would listen, “we have a responsibility to pass land on to the next generation in better shape than when we acquired it.”
There is and never has been a balanced environment.
It has always been a battle for survival. A “dog eat dog” if you like.
We must never accept that the theory of evolution is about survival of the fittest or strongest.
It has to do more with the survival and prosperity of those that adapt to changing circumstances.
Man is not only part of that ongoing adaption, but is at the top of the heap and therefore has responsibilities to not only be aware of the consequences of his actions, but to ensure that they are responsible for future generations.
Those who under the guise of “mankind has destroyed the environment,” would take us back to the days of “Hunter Gathers,” have no appreciation of the advances western man has made in making our environment better for most species.
This is not the case in the developing world.
Responsibly using the vast resources of water on earth are part of that.
Have we made mistakes?
Just like the developing world now, of course we have.
Gavin,
You have given me a bit of homework, which I am happy to respond to if that is your wish.
But not tonight.
Derek Smith,
The real problem is misinformation, for which we have to blame the media.
Politicans react to the most sensationalist claims made in the MSM.
Sadly we have in Australia both a P.M. and an Opposition leader who only listen to the latest headline.
Neither have any philosophical or leadership backbone.
Bloody sad.
Pikey.
Denialist turds
“Kilimanjaro’s ice loss is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid to low latitudes. The Northern Ice Field has persisted at least 11,700 years and survived a widespread drought ≈4,200 years ago that lasted ≈300 years. We present additional evidence that the combination of processes driving the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro’s ice fields is unique within an 11,700-year perspective.”
yes yes yes – all deniable – that’s why you’re denialist scum
Yes Luke, but if you were a bit sceptical you would have looked at what has been happening in the area. You would also have followed Cohenite’s link to see that as has already been suggested, the temperature at the glacier is below zero so there are other causes to explain the shrinking…such as less snow which means there is less white snow to reflect the sun, also the shape of the sheer face, makes it hard for the glacier to expand.
Do you think human activity in the area might be at a high from the last 11,700 years? Are there fewer trees/ forests in the area? has land use changed?
Did most of the retreat occur prior to mans significant increase in co2?
I think in the lead up to copenhagen we can expect to hear a lot more exagerations and lies.
I suggest to all posters to ignore Luke and never replie to him. If we are lucky he will dissapear. Calling people names does show him to be an ignoramus and this site would be better without him….Unless he is a denier and wants normal people to see how sad AGW’s are by acting like one of them
Marcus,
‘And they say it’s not a religion?’ – Unfortunately, that’s what they are saying…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/04/2732928.htm?section=justin
Tim Curtin…re your quote from Gavin Schmidt in response to Julia Isaac…”What measure of ‘AGW’ do you think should correlate with what? Do you mean CO2 concentrations with global temperature? the radiative forcing of CO2? the radiative forcing of ….”
The very language used by Schmidt is evasive. I think he knows very well that Julia is referring to a mismatch between directly measured temperatures and the AGW theory, but he is sidestepping that. Even so, he uses terms like global temperature and forcing.
In The Fundamentals of Atmospheric Radiation, meteorologist/physicist Craig Bohren claims there is no such thing as a global temperature, as an average or otherwise. The proper term is globally-averaged temperature, and Bohren queries in detail what is meant by an average. He describes at least a dozen different forms of averaging.
This is the crux of the matter and the method by which that average is derived is crucial. If there are localized anomalies in any data, weighting factors are required to smooth them out since a simple averaging will tend to skew the overall readings. In some data, the extremes are thrown out. I wonder what we would have on the Earth if we did throw out the extremes. Probably no average warming at all.
John Christy of UAH has been averaging direct satellite measurements of the atmosphere for 30 years and his data comes from the NOAA satellites which scan 95% of the atmosphere. Hansen, with Schmidt et al, has been using surface station data which they have taken the liberty of modifying for a better fit (i.e. to fit Al Gore’s physics). Recently, Schmidt admitted GISSTEMP does not bother to verify the data they receive from third party sources because they don’t have the budget to do so. Fred Singer has stated that he’d much rather accept satellite data that covers the atmosphere accurately and almost completely. Who wouldn’t, except for Schmidt, Hansen et al?
Christy claims that so-called global warming is far from global. He points out that most of the warming is in two highly localized hot spots in the Canadian and Siberian Arctic. Pat Michaels points out further that most of that warming is in the winter, at night. The hot spots are enough to skew the global average to make it slightly positive, although the Antarctic cools the planet almost as much as the Arctic hot spots warm it. The Tropics are hardly affected at all. Christy released the zinger that the localization of warming is not the signature of CO2 warming. Long ago, he pointed out the obvious: the satellite data is showing hardly any warming, and is at least a third of the model-theorized warming.
It would appear that Schmidt is indulging in semantics with his reference to global warming, as are the IPCC and all the pro-AGW theorists. Not only that, Schmidt is introducing the concept of forcing to a context in which it does not belong. Forcing is a term used in mathematics and peculiar to that field. A differential equation can be forced to respond to a particular input but that applies only to equations as used in computer models. In fact, CO2 was introduced as such a forcing because there was no explanation for why the model outputs did not correspond with directly observed data. Aerosols were introduced for a similar reason.
This is ironic because the modelers introduced the CO2 as a fudge factor (theorized forcing) and are now passing it off as a real forcing in the atmosphere. Problem is, there’s no such thing in physics. Also, if I get their drift, they are claiming CO2 is not really a forcing because of it’s theoretical longevity in the atmosphere. Others argue that it is because it’s longevity is not that long (a few years). It’s comical in a way, that humans introduced CO2 as a fudge factor to computer models then claimed it’s action in the atmosphere follows suit, without so much as an smidgen of proof or directly measured temperatures to back the theory. We are supposed to take their opinion for it in the form of consensus.
Poor old Luke, He’s whittled down his” global climate change” to Kilimanjaro,
Like a drowning man grasping at the last straw.
This is exactly right Gordon; time and time again we hear from the alarmists that CO2 is an evenly distributed gas and that Tave is a legitimate measure of the effect of CO2 forcing; why then are there so many regional exceptions to the grand theory as Koutsoyiannis has found.
Come on Toby – this is a brand NEW paper. The fact that the ice didn’t disappear in a 300 year drought is utterly extraordinary – so much for land use change. Below zero – try sublimation mate. The rate of change is a jaw-drop. Try reading the paper instead of pontificating.
and who’s Jack M – some Jack-ass or Jack-off – Jack the fact you wrote that means that you’re unable to ignore me. Coz you know I’m right.
Mack – last straw !! – are you actually mental – this whole thread has been a never ending list of new paper after new paper on AGW – and all you can do is mock – at some point you’d have to start being the slightest bit sceptical of your scepticism – oh I forgot – but you’re mental – carry on then.
Gordon Robertson: Your comment is so good I hope you will try to post it at Real Climate itself. I would, but I am banned there as also at John Quiggin, Tim Lambert’s Deltoid, and Barry Brook. Funny how the true believers cannot “brook” dissent! I suspect it is because they have a lot to be scared of, like data.
Roberston – what an amazing pile of evil nonsense you have penned.
How utterly laughable from another unpublished denialist clown.
I assume that observed global changes in the phenology and life cycles of many species are because “nature” is conspiring with Gavin Schmidt.
Lukefartard,
“I assume that observed global changes in the phenology and life cycles of many species are because “nature” is conspiring with Gavin Schmidt.”
That’s right, you ASSume global changes!!
Now, how about some real data???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
luke, Koutsoyiannis was published and Tim Curtin will soon be published; the issue of regional contradictions to AGW theory can’t be ignored in a torrent of abuse and hysterical utterences no matter how entertaining your abusive utterances are.
IMO a lot of this stuff comes from the same crowd who say we haven’t had a global financial crisis. What’s up with that? They can’t see an issue because they won’t use their eyes and other inherited but undeveloped primary senses so let’s go damping the signals everywhere to keep the status quo. Bigger dams and more fudge hey? Latent socialism at it’s destructive worst. Bet the same lot can’t stand our finer music either.
Some ground rules for enlightenment here – starting with don’t let your old political inclinations go to your head and make some fundamental observations like we are converting a lot of C into gasses. Also most natural resources are both over allocated and over used.
Overheard John Quiggan on AM today while discussing our traffic congestion with Geraldine Doogue; using the term “greenhouse gasses” in relation to our car travels.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/
Now this could be what it’s all about –
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/04/john-quiggin-plays-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey-with-quot-libertarians-and-delusionism-quot.aspx
Back to flat earth measurement fundamentals for denialst bloggers –
If we can accept the above gasses are going on then we don’t look for a change of radius at SL on this lumpy old Earth as observed from some distant galaxy when the climate is changing because of AGW. Any change due to climate influences will be observed first round the circumference and in particular, any smart traveller will notice a few easy things to observe like retreating glaciers and disappearing beaches at the margins.
A focus on mathematicians behind the physics of it all is hardly a necessary response to the major problem of the whole human race doing what they shouldn’t do given their historical ignorance of Gaia in maintaining our recent climate.
Gavin,
“A focus on mathematicians behind the physics of it all is hardly a necessary response to the major problem of the whole human race doing what they shouldn’t do given their historical ignorance of Gaia in maintaining our recent climate.”
Could you please explain what is so MAGICAL about our recent climate???
Please try to stick with facts and can the alarmist rhetoric!!
By the way, accepting that there is a tiny increase in the amount of a trace gas has little to do with anything!!
Meanwhile back at the ranch, it is raining “cats & dogs” along the east coast and southern Queensland.
Rivers around here are flooding again, some for the fifth time this year.
Tens of millions of megalitres are once again rushing out to sea.
But of course we are short of water and may have to force people to live in the Gulf!
Pikey.
Typical!! – kuhnkat “Please try to stick with facts and can the alarmist rhetoric”
“accepting that there is a tiny increase in the amount of a trace gas has little to do with anything” except perhaps the price of fresh fish
From one of gavin’s links:
“People who would oppose dams, logging, the redevelopment of their neighbourhoods or the pollution of their rivers are often left few means of expressing or arguing their case unless they are prepared to engage in a debate framed by the languages of cost-benefit analysis, reductionist science, utilitarianism, male domination — and, increasingly, English. Not only are these languages in which many local objection — such as that which holds ancestral community rights to a particular place to have precedence over the imperatives of “national development” — appear disreputable. They are also languages whose use allows enclosers to eavesdrop on, “correct” and dominate the conversations of the enclosed. …
Because they hold themselves to be speaking a universal language, the modern enclosers who work for development agencies and governments feel no qualms in presuming to speak for the enclosed. They assume reflexively that they understand their predicament as well as or better than the enclosed do themselves. It is this tacit assumption that legitimizes enclosure in the encloser’s mind – and it is an assumption that cannot be countered simply by transferring what are conventionbally assumed to be the trappings of power from one group to another….”
The great irony of course here, which is not understood by the old lefties like gavin or the young green polemicists, is that they are now the enclosers; the AGW value is a dominating one which has the imprimatur of the social, political and economic structure. To this extent this is the consequence of the false idea of the consensus. An example of how this new paradigm of AGW dominates “ancestral community rights” is the greens support for prevention of indigenous development of parts of northern Queensland. But AGW dominance establishes a worse hegomony; this is the primacy of nature. We see continual references in the AGW agitprop to defilment of nature by human-kind, that humanity are despoilers of nature and that nature would be better off without humanity.
This is not just misanthropy or Malthusian justified eugenics; it is a religiously framed denial of human nature and human apotheosis. Humans are rapidly evolving from natural limitations; in my youth the technological, medical and energy context of today could not be imagined. At its core AGW is a denial of that evolution; it is a denial which frames its dictates in a veneration of the superiority of nature and a pretense that reversion to natural ways is better for humanity. This is of course a lie so the question remains why does AGW ideology argue that it is true?
Excellent Cohenite.
I agree and would add that only when untruth, sensationalism and stupidity are allowed to go unchallenged, can it prevail.
The problem that has occured in most of the western democracies in recent years is that the MSM have been complicit in most of the radical environmental sensationalism.
The widespred use of sites like Jennifers is because it has been very difficult to get any balance in the MSM.
Which brings me to Rudd and his CPRS.
I have just read a sketchy report that Rudd gave a lengthy speech to the Lowey Institute last evening.
Someone here with better skills than me could possibly give us a link.
Having not mentioned this subject for months, he is reported to have been quite scathing and used the phrase “Climate Change sceptics are ruthless gamblers who put at risk our jobs, our economy, our rivers and our reefs.”
Time for this clown and his outlandish claims to be challenged where everyone can take note.
Obviously we cannot rely on the Oppositions “Man of La Mancha,” who is determined to fight on until his approval rating hits zero.
Pikey.
Tim Curtin…”Gordon Robertson: Your comment is so good I hope you will try to post it at Real Climate itself. I would, but I am banned there ….”
Tim…I wont even try posting on RC because I’d be immediately banned as you have and so many other good posters. Even Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit was banned, prompting him to ask if Gavin Schmidt is honest.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=419
You have to wonder about RC when they are afraid to publish cutting dissent of their theories. Schmidt appeared on a debate once with Richard Lindzen and the late Michael Crichton. Before the debate began, each debater was allowed a brief spiel to put their positions forward. Schmidt announced that he would not participate in a one on one debate (presumably to avoid Lindzen) and that if anyone wanted to know about global warming, they were urged to contact RC directly. How convenient!! BTW, Schmidt’s side ultimately lost the debate.
RC have criticized the work of Roy Spencer, a bona fide meteorologists who has worked for NASA. As far as I know, no one associated with RC is qualified in meteorology, or atmospheric physics in general. Yet both Schmidt and Mann, of the Hockey Stick fame, sit on the Journal of Climate, presumably reviewing papers Spencer might submit. Schmidt is a mathematician specializing in computer modeling and Mann is a geologist who got his degree circa 1998.
Spencer recently claimed one of his papers was rejected and that the reviewer did not seem to understand what he was getting at. Lindzen, who has over 200 papers reviewed, complained that he is receiving far more scrutiny than other people submitting for review. At least they are in good company. Einstein was rejected once by the publisher of a journal because the latter ‘felt’ the content of his paper was not likely to pass review. Imagine any reviewer trying to pass judgment on Einstein. Seems we’re back to that situation, where mathematicians and geologists sit in judgment of distinguished meteorologists who are experts in their fields.
Someone asked Linus Pauling once why he had not submitted one of his experiments to a double blind study. Pauling asked why such a study was necessary when an outcome was obvious. We seem to have lost touch with the purpose of double blind studies and peer review, or of debate itself. Review was initially intended to keep out nut cases who put forward theories on perpetual motion and the likes. Today, the reviews are stacked to prevent skeptical attacks on certain popular paradigms. We all know that RC is not setup to debate science, it’s sole purpose is to spread rhetoric and prop up the AGW theory. The people who run it are heavily into emotion, which is the basis of rhetoric.
“IMO a lot of this stuff comes from the same crowd who say we haven’t had a global financial crisis. What’s up with that? They can’t see an issue because they won’t use their eyes and other inherited but undeveloped primary senses so let’s go damping the signals everywhere to keep the status quo.”
gavin,
I haven’t really come across anyone who denies the GFC but maybe they do in Outer Mongolia, but AGW is another kettle of fish.
Since 1878 we have “average” cooling of 1.19c and “average” warming of 1.20c so how much of that difference is due to natural variation coming out of the little ice age and how much due to ACO2 would you calculate?
Our long term knowledge of measureable events such as temperatures, MSLs, glaciers, sea ice etc. is so sketchy that for anyone to be anything but sceptical, they would have to be denialist or delusional.
Particularly when even modern measurements are debateable and known unknowns are still plentiful.
Here you go Ron
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/Publication.asp?pid=1167
I couldn’t get it to download so I was directed to this
http://www.pm.gov.au/node/6305
How about this from the speech?
We should all put on Harpo Marx faces [lots of talc and red hair] and sandwich boards written with this doom and go out into the streets.
Luke,
We say…..
The melting snows of Kilimanjaro are due to deforestation surrounding the mountain,
A local CLIMATIC EFFECT CAUSED BY MAN !!!
You say….
The melting is due to AGW.
Which one is it Luke? Com’on be honest . (and don’t come over my side of the fence by saying it’s a little bit of both)
I can hear you moaning with gripe as you turn down that CLIMATIC EFFECT CAUSED BY MAN bit.
Isn’t it curious, CSIRO are only aloud to publish stuff OK’d by the government but that same government then uses CSIRO to justify their arguments with “the experts tell us…”. The funny thing is, I get the impression Rudd doesn’t believe his own rhetoric.
Luke’
“I assume that observed global changes in the phenology and life cycles of many species are because “nature” is conspiring with Gavin Schmidt.”
Or perhaps these changes are an indication of the adaptability of those species to the natural variability of the local environment.
aloud should be allowed . That’s quite a bad one Derek. Good job you don’t teach English.:-)
Makc’
I tired so hard to get hte speling rite butt, yoo no, sumtimze mi keebord juss wohnt wurk.
Derek: bravo for when you said – ‘Isn’t it curious, CSIRO are only allowed to publish stuff OK’d by the government but that same government then uses CSIRO to justify their arguments with “the experts tell us…”. ‘
Yet only 2 years ago at the height of the 2007 election campaign the Howard government raised no objection when CSIRO itself trumpeted (23 October 2007) in various Media Releases a wholly scurrilous paper published in the disgraceful Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by CSIRO’s own Pep Canadell and Mike Raupach that was clearly aimed at discrediting that Government’s stand on AGW.
Here it is:
23 October 2007
Ref 07/211
Decline in uptake of carbon emissions confirmed
A decline in the proportion of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions absorbed
by land and oceans is speeding up the growth of atmospheric CO2,
according to a paper published today in the US Journal: Proceedings of
the National Academy of Science.
Lead author and Executive Director of the Global Carbon Project, CSIRO’s
Dr Pep Canadell, says the acceleration is due to three factors: global
economic growth; the world’s economy becoming more carbon intense (that
is, since 2000 more carbon is being emitted to produce each dollar of
global wealth); and a deterioration in the land and oceans’ ability to
absorb carbon from the atmosphere at the required rate.
“What we are seeing is a decrease in the planet’s ability to absorb
carbon emissions due to human activity,” Dr Canadell says.
“Fifty years ago, for every tonne of CO2 emitted, 600kg were removed by
land and ocean sinks. However, in 2006, only 550kg were removed per
tonne and that amount is falling.”…
…CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach … says
“The carbon cycle is generating stronger-than-expected and
sooner-than-expected climate ‘forcing’ – that is, mechanisms that
‘force’ the climate to change. In turn, climate change itself is feeding
back to affect the carbon cycle, decreasing land and ocean sinks.”
Most of the co-authors of the study – including Dr Canadell and Dr
Raupach – are members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 earlier this
month.
Dr Raupach says the research shows that the Earth is losing its
restorative capacity to absorb CO2 emissions following massive increases
in emissions over the past half century. “The longer we delay reducing
emissions, the more restorative capacity will be lost,” Dr Raupach says.
Paper available at: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org
Image available at:
http://www.scienceimage.csiro.au/mediarelease/mr07-carbon_uptake.html
Further Information:
Dr Mike Raupach, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
02 6246 5573; 1408 260 825; Mike.Raupach at csiro.au
Dr Pep Canadell, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
+61 40706 8930; Pep.Canadell at csiro.au
Media Assistance:
Bill Stephens, CSIRO Media Liaison
02 6176 6153; 0408 817 066
The paper itself is drivel, confusing first and second derivatives, and making claims for which all observations of the actual take up of CO2 emissions show to be increasing not decreasing as was deceitfully claimed by CSIRO in its own Press Release on what has to be the most dishonest paper ever published even by PNAS.
Funny how SMH & co picked this up not to mention the gorgeous Maxine who successfully ousted Howard a few weeks later. No wrist slaps from CSIRO – not even when Canadell & Raupach earlier this year “defied” CSIRO by attacking Rudd for not going far enough with his ETS.
CSIRO, of course being the lap-dog it is, endorses the Copenhagen monstrosity; to sign the Bernardi petition against Australia’s signing the treaty see here;
http://www.corybernardi.com/
What a deep little black hole we have here. Spangled, Gordon and others who may be lurking; my comment is simple – When you apply enough damping, no one hears the music. So boring!
Please come out of blogsphere for your sources on this real AGW issue.
Cohenite: I can depend on lifetime worked as a servant in technology for my current views and I don’t need to roam the web seeking support. However when you bother investigate my links I expect you to see similar arguments written in a style beyond my capacity, including all that which emanates from department professionals in support of governments.
Let’s say again, some familiarity with that process helps a lot especially in understanding the role of various umpires including the media with all stages of policy development.
Dealing with numskulls on the outside is the hardest task a PS officer has
If Kevin was genuine he ought to embrace this plan. Culling camels is a step in the right direction but this is a lot better.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/04/forests-desert-answer-climate-change
cohers,
very good.
Tim,
How do those papers pass peer review when anything anti-AGW gets refused.
“Please come out of blogsphere for your sources on this real AGW issue.”
http://www.climate4you.com/
check the data!
Mack are you a little mental – survives a 300 year drought – consider the land surface feedback in that !! Wake up dope. Gee I wonder what many other tropical glaciers are doing? hmmmmm
Derek – not all – many poikilotherm growth rates are simply dependent on temperature. Golly mate – it’s basic stuff and global. try thinking !
http://www.philosophicalturn.net/CMI/Environment/Nature_Attributing_Anthropogenic_Climate_Change.pdf
Climate change deniers ‘gambling’ the future
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Broadcast: 06/11/2009
Reporter: Dana Robertson
The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has slammed climate change deniers, saying they are holding the world to ransom.
Transcript
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER: The Prime Minister has finished the week with a verbal assault on so-called climate change sceptics. Mr Rudd’s accused the global warming non-believers of holding the world to ransom and gambling recklessly with humanity’s future. While he named politicians in the US and Britain, it was clear his barbs were aimed squarely at the Liberal and National parties here at home. Dana Robertson reports from Canberra.
DANA ROBERTSON, REPORTER: There’s a month to go and the gloves are off.
KEVIN RUDD, PRIME MINISTER: It is time to remove any polite veneer from this debate.
DANA ROBERTSON: And for the next 40 minutes, the Prime Minister took aim at the people he says are derailing the prospects of a global climate agreement in Copenhagen.
KEVIN RUDD: The legion of climate change sceptics are active across the world, and they happily play with our children’s future. The clock is ticking for the planet, but the climate change sceptics simply do not care.
DANA ROBERTSON: Mr Rudd says the sceptics are small in number, but too dangerous to be ignored. He says they lurk largely in the embrace of conservative parties around the world, but their agenda is nothing of the sort.
KEVIN RUDD: Climate change sceptics in all their guises and disguises are not conservatives, they are in fact the radicals. They are reckless gamblers who are betting all of our futures on their arrogant assumption that their intuitions should triumph over all evidence.
DANA ROBERTSON: Whether they’re outright deniers, opponents of action or just waiting for other countries to move first, Mr Rudd says the end result of doing nothing is the same.
KEVIN RUDD: Their aim is not to convince every person on Earth of the follies of acting on climate change; their aim is to erode just enough of the political will that action becomes impossible. By slowing the actions of each individual country, they aim to slowly drag global negotiations on climate change to a standstill.
DANA ROBERTSON: Many of Mr Rudd’s shots were fired far from home, but there was no disguising the real target of his invective.
KEVIN RUDD: The tentacles of the climate change sceptics reach deep into the ranks of the Liberal Party, and once you add to them the National Party, it’s plain the sceptics and the deniers are a major force.
DANA ROBERTSON: Kevin Rudd’s accused Malcolm Turnbull of cowardice and a failure of leadership for refusing to guarantee passage of the Emissions Trading Scheme through the Senate before Copenhagen. But at the same time, his own Climate Change Minister has raised doubts about the Government’s ability to give any ground in its negotiations with the Coalition. “we expect any amendments to the CPRS must be economically and fiscally responsible and environmentally credible. In light of budget impact released on Monday, it is clear that carte-blanche acceptance of the entirety of the Opposition’s current proposals does not pass these tests.”
Malcolm Turnbull says he won’t be baited into a fight over climate change, which he says is simply a distraction from the Government’s border protection failures.
MALCOLM TURNBULL, OPPOSITION LEADER: The negotiations are being conducted in good faith and confidentially and I won’t be running a commentary on them. I – the negotiations are proceeding. They’ll have an outcome and then we will then decide as the Opposition how we respond to the legislation.
DANA ROBERTSON: No-one’s sceptical about the real priorities of politics. Dana Robertson, Lateline.
You know Gavin the bane of my life has been “numbskulls” in the PS.
You need to get out more.
There are a lot of great and rational people out there in all walks of life.
Pikey.
Thanks Janama,
Now that I have read this self-serving load of tripe, I am totally convinced we have for a P.M. a pompous illogical clown.
Where oh where is the leader to refute this nonsense?
Where is our enquiring Fourth Estate?
Can’t wait until Hans Christian Rudd returns from Copenhagen with some new Fairy Tales.
By the way, in relation to water availability.
I have just returned from a walk along Sapphire beach, most of which has been washed away overnight by very heavy rain.
The remaining beach is covered with trees and debris from the surrounding land.
The sea is brown to the horizon.
The Pacific highway is cut and all local rivers and streams are in flood.
There is a small unnamed creek that flows into the sea adjacent to where we live and only flows after rain, usually for about a week.
My estimate this morning is that it is flowing at about 900 megs per day.
Coffs daily water use is 15 megs.
The flow in Coffs Creek, that runs through the town, is presently sufficient if harvested for just 24 hours, to supply Coffs Harbour for over 2 years.
Luke, Do you still claim we need to go to the Gulf for water?
I note you have as usual, made no attempt to answer my questions regarding water availability.
Don’t you think it is time to maybe admit that on this at least, you got it wrong?
Pikey.
Luke,
I’ve tried thinking but it’s never gotten me anywhere.
Anyway, I had a bit of a look at some articles concerning both poikilotherms, and poikilotherms plus climate change and I’m afraid your case seems very weak to me. In fact, if I may risk looking like a complete idiot (not for the first time) there is a suggestion that warming would be advantageous particularly for reptiles. Most of the “problems” concerning poikilotherms (can we just say cold blooded animals?) that I’ve read are constructs based on IPCC models and not empirical evidence and are full of assumptions and qualifications.
I tried reading your linked article but by the time I’d waded through what seemed like an eternity of IPCC worship, I didn’t have the stomach to take any of it seriously. If you can find some non-partisan articles that plead your case in more concrete terms, please feel free to send them my way.
Cheers.
“I’ve tried thinking but it’s never gotten me anywhere.” well obviously – not very intelligent Derek – if plants start flowering earlier consistently why do you think that might be Derek. Insects going through life cycles more quickly.Time to maturity etc.
Might it a fundamental concept of day degrees. Wow Derek – rocket science.
” didn’t have the stomach to take any of it seriously. If you can find some non-partisan articles that plead your case in more concrete terms’
Derek – give up – need to have basic level of IQ to be in the debate. And so Derek you sort of what to debate the issue – but you really don’t – do you? And you won’t find any non-partisan scientists Derek – coz there’s this enormous global conspiracy of evil scientists that just makes this stuff up. And it’s all about the UN taking over the world. And as we’ve seen the UN is just so effective in controlling global wars – like Rwanda – that you’d have to believe this is the agenda !
Pikey _ I didn’t say we had to go the Gulf for water. I did say there was a lot there. And also in the Kimberley.
And yes Pikey – the irrigators in the MDB just have so much water – that they’re beside themselves. They just don’t know how they’ve going to harvest all that cotton. Wall to wall cotton out there Pikey.
King Kevin’s high aspirations at the UN require that he blow the warminghorn with might and main.
But even Bob Brown reckons that he’s got no clothes.
And in view of what’s gonna happen, Barnaby is probably his best friend.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6905356.ece
Luke,
Did Kev mention this bit?
“The Global Humanitarian Forum, based in Geneva, has estimated that more than 300,000 people are killed each year by climate change, nearly all of them in poor countries.”
His spiel was pretty hard to wade through and I may have overlooked something.
If he did I’m sure he could find room for it on his sandwich board.
gavin,
What do you make of one of the known knowns?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/october-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-28-deg-c/
Luke,
Come on, the only constant in nature is change. Do you believe in evolution? Well evolution is about adaptation and it is clear that adaptability has been working quite well for a long time otherwise life wouldn’t have survived past the first big freeze.
You seem to be working on the assumption that the world was in a state of perfection between 1960 and 1990 climate-wise and that any deviation from that would be disastrous. Where is this perfect climate that you pine for, give me a year, you tell me what is the optimum state of the planet.
Did you know that shortly after the last glacial period those majestic Californian redwoods would have been considered WEEDS?
Change happens Luke, the only thing that is up for debate is how much power humans have to affect change.
BTW you’re correct, I don’t really want to debate the issue, There are plenty of much more qualified people on this blog who do a sterling job at that.
Cheers.
Derek – give up – need to have basic level of IQ to be in the debate.
Yeah Luke,
Anyone knows that the left are smarter than every one else.
http://american.com/archive/2009/october/are-liberals-smarter-than-conservatives
“Luke,
Come on, the only constant in nature is change. Do you believe in evolution? Well evolution is about adaptation and it is clear that adaptability has been working quite well for a long time otherwise life wouldn’t have survived past the first big freeze.”
Derek,
Hush yo’ mouf.
With ACC we now have “PLAN A”!!!
No more of this bloody plan B adaptation crap.
We can blame and tax the innocents off the face of the earth!
Many thanks Luke for link to full text of that amazing stream of drivel by Rosenzweig, Karoly, et 11 al. (including tea lady and photocopiers) in Nature May 2008. Too bad that the leading tea lady (Cynthia R) has never heard of the phrase “post hoc ergo propter hoc”, but then she would’nt have would she, as the whole paper is based on that fallacy. Amazing that not one of the 13, and especially not the 3 including David K claiming to have done “the statistical (sic) analyses”, is capable of performing the regression analysis which alone can provide a real basis for the paper’s conclusions rather than the “post hoc” assertions which are all we get.
For example, we are told that there has been an “observed increase in global average temperatures” since 1950, and that various data series (none of more than 50 years so far as one can tell from the paper) on changes in e.g. terrestrial biology, are consistent with that warming. But that begs the question of what changes if any were occurring before the “observed” warming after 1950. The paper offers no evidence on the pre-1950 period, so cannot determine how much of observed biological changes since 1950 are “new” and ergo propter hoc.
Naturally, Cynthia & David have not been able to find any data on Agriculture and Forestry, never having heard of FAO (teaboys and girls like them would not would they?), with its time series of commercial production of food crops, livestock, fisheries and timber, all of which show stunning increases since 1960. I have correlated those with changes in [CO2] and GMT with statistically significant results that pass the auto-correlation tests that once again Cynthia David & co have never heard of (if they have, why are these tests not applied to their own data?). To ignore world food production as these authors did is pure charlatanry.
Thanks Tim, you took the veritable words right out of my mouth. I was in the process of typing virtually the same thing when I realized I HAVE THE I.Q. OF A SLUG!
Just as well I’ve got you guts to do the heavy thinking for me!
Well Luke, in response to my data backed comment that present populations and up to 35M in the future, could easily be accomodated from our water resources you replied:
Oct. 31 – 9-50AM.
“I’m sure they would love to live in Kimberley, the Gulf, Cape York, with heat and plague.”
It seems to me that you are one of the following:
A: Have a very poor memory. Not likely in my opinion.
B: Will without much thought say anything to be argumentative. Quite likely.
C: You really are a Galah and will squwark lowder and lowder to get attention. Highly likely.
As you have made NO attempt to answer the issues raised I suggest you go to your room and copy these lines 100 times until you know them off by heart.
1: Agriculture only ever has and ever will use water that is excess to other requirements from our river systems.
2: Water used for irrigation last season can never be responsible for lack of flow next season. It is physically impossible.
3: Once water is released from storage what is not used flows to the sea.
3: Dams are built to store water in times of excess flow to guarantee and enhance flows in times of low run-off.
Pikey.
Willis Eschenbach on why the proposed Copenhagen agreement won’t work:
“While in 1970 the US and Western Europe combined to contribute about half of all CO2 emissions, at present this is far from true. In the past 35 years, the combined emissions of the US and Western Europe have risen only slightly. Globally, however, CO2 emissions have risen steeply, with no end in sight.
So it doesn’t matter if Europe signs on to a new Kyoto. It doesn’t matter if the US adopts Cap and Trade. Both of them together will make no significant difference. Even if both areas could roll their CO2 emissions back to 1970 levels, it would not affect the situation in the slightest.
These are meaningless attempts to hold back a rising tide of emissions. Me, I don’t think rising CO2 levels are a problem. But if you think it will be a problem, then you should definitely concentrate on adaptation strategies .. because mitigation simply isn’t going to work.”
What more needs to be said?
While searching for info on Luke’s poikilotherms, I came across this article in nature. “http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0903/full/457669a.html”. I don’t know how to create links yet so you will just have to paste the url.
Anyway it has some interesting things to say regarding temp gradients from poles to tropics and hints at the adaptability of species.
Cheers.
Derek Smith “I don’t know how to create links yet so you will just have to paste the url.”
I usually put it on a line by itself with no quotes, like this:
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0903/full/457669a.html
Gavin,
““accepting that there is a tiny increase in the amount of a trace gas has little to do with anything” except perhaps the price of fresh fish”
Brilliant response to my question about what is so MAGICAL about the current climate. Just breathtaking. You certainly put me in my place!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0903/full/457669a.html
Gordon,
Thanks, I had no idea it was that easy. Now if I can just find something useful enough to link to……..
” Agriculture only ever has and ever will use water that is excess to other requirements from our river systems.” – hahahahahahahaha
So that’s why we have all this farm irrigation infrastructure sitting idle then. Clever agriculture. Your mates Pikey?
OK, if higher temperatures are bad, that means by extension that there must be an optimum temperature for the planet. Conversely, too cold is also bad so there must be a temperature somewhere between too hot and too cold that is just right. A baby bear temp if you will.
What say the AGW collective who contribute to this blog mumble amongst yourselves for a bit and get back to me when you have an answer. For some reason this is important information.
My considered opinion based on months of education and an extremely high IQ (it’s gotta be close to 100, IQ is measured in % isn’t it?), there is no optimum temp, although if it’s hot enough to melt lead you aren’t going to be able to shoot anything for dinner.
Pikey – over some time I’ve observed that fundamentally you’re sneaky. And like a good denialist you’re now wanting to work from the middle of an argument out of the page in a new direction that suits you.
You quoted an Australian statistic of x litres /person. Australia is a big place and some parts a long way from Barellan (thank heavens). I pointed out much of our spare water resources are in the north, coinciding with land suitable for irrigation. An environment many would find unpleasant and difficult (not all).
You didn’t present until later any statistics about eastern Australia or Coffs Harbour or wherever.
You then try to pretend there is currently no lack of water across major irrigation systems in the MDB.
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSSYD429097 says it all.
Try to lay straight in bed matey.
“OK, if higher temperatures are bad, that means by extension that there must be an optimum temperature for the planet.” —– Gong. goooooonnnggggg !
Jeez Derek – outstanding. The issue is about rapid change in climate (~100 years) with 6 billion going to 9 billion humans. Limits on arable land and freshwater. Who wins and who loses as atmospheric system rearrange themselves. An example from variability – see how much chaos and El Nino event can bring already. Small shifts in sea temperatures and pressure systems can have major impacts. See the effect and intensifying subtropical ridge (STR) is already having on Murray rainfall patterns.
It’s not about the temperature per se. Try to get on the page in this debate eh?
hahahahahaha – I missed it – now the nutty squirrels are invoking evolution ! hahahahah
and chump Timmy – OMIGOD – pray tell why are they going to add ag stats when there all manner of confounding effects.
The very very very simple point Tim is in the period where you denialist scum deny any temperature increase, deny you can measure it – that all these temperature rate dependent species in natural systems have just coincidentally decided to respond in a manner which just so happens to be exactly what you’d expect from a rise in temperature. Didn’t say anything about good or bad – simply that they had.
Gee isn’t Nature naughty for this big conspiracy -who put Nature up to it?
But hey – that’s why you’re denialist scum – you job is to deny the obvious.
Temperature did increase over the 20thC luke; but it wasn’t due to AGW;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/10/temperature-trends-and-carbon-dioxide-a-note-from-cohenite/
There are a couple of adjustments needed to my calculations but the point is temperature movement over the 20thC does not correlate with an anthropogenic forcing signal.
Luke,”The issue is about rapid change in climate (~100 years) ”
You actually think that a 0.75 degree rise in temp over 100 years is rapid and unprecedented? Buddy, the last 10K years have been labeled as abnormally stable by paleoclimatologists, try the Younger Dryas on for size if you want rapid climate change.
I find it hard to believe that an intelligent person like yourself accepts without question such things as the infallibility of the GISS temp record, the certainty of IPCC climate models RC’s claims that UHI effects are negligible etc. Surely you don’t accept every “fact” presented by Al Gore in his ridiculous film “An Inconvenient truth”?
It is simply not possible for everything that Tim, Ron, Louis, Janama etc. says be wrong, so it has become clear that you also have no interest in honest debate.
Pikey; “You need to get out more. There are a lot of great and rational people out there in all walks of life”
Mate; a long time ago I established little routines to keep me out and about. I discovered that by doing a particular line of work either full time or part time I could constantly meet people in a relaxed atmosphere. For instance, a good door to door salesman in creationg oportunity must learn to listen to all potential customers.
Today day in my official retirement I have prepared several wagon loads of used goods for the local trash and treasure. It’s guarenteed to make conversation with a wide range of folk willing to spend their time keeping me up to date on their current needs one way or another. Tomorrow I will meet weather permitting, international students, visiting military personnell, refugees, businessmen and women, teachers, accademics, retired policemen and so on.
It’s so easy for me to keep tabs on our global situation there given the competion for seller space and operator relevance to the crouds. Short term versus long term anticipation is just part of the fun. I can say philossophy beats science any day.
Derek:”You actually think that a 0.75 degree rise in temp over 100 years is rapid and unprecedented”
Take a tip from a guy who did a lot of temp measurement and instrument calibration over the decades – in the scale 0-15C. .75C change IS a lot!
For those who haven’t cottoned on yet; its all about the water/ice balance and sea level with and without significant permant ice caps above SL
Lukebaby ,
Asses still being frozen down here!
http://business.scoop.co.nz/2009/11/03/coldest-october-in-over-half-a-century/
Speaking of frozen, Gavin, do you know what defines an ice age? PERMANENT ICE! We are in the middle of an ice age and you guys are worried about a little bit of warming. If you look at the temperature record for the past 5 million years it’s getting gradually colder! We are due for another glacial period at any time now so I for one am thankful that it’s still warm.
If you want to bleat about extreme weather events, try the last glacial maximum with it’s extreme deserts and 300km/hr winds. The little ice age was a picnic compared to the LGM.
BTW Luke, when the next glacial period hits you wont have to worry about 9 billion people, most of ’em will be dead.
Well said, Derek. Go to http://www.climate4you.com for stunning pic of the sun on 5th November, not a spot to be seen. Then do some stats on sunspot numbers against temperature! Even Al Gore has just backed off the IPCC claim parroted by the ineffable Karoly that the “predominant” (i.e. more than 50%) influence on GW is anthropogenic, it’s now down to only 40%.
‘
As for Loopy, as a PS you must be aware there are costs and benefits in most situations (regrettably in your case costs always benefits). Can you explain why when [CO2] was only c280 ppm in say 1750, and there were fewer than 1 billion people, it would be a Good Thing to reduce emissions enough to get [CO2] down to 350 ppm from present 390 ppm. Check out your next packet of wheaties, and work out from the amount of calories per 100 grams how much [CO2] p.a. is needed to feed nearly 7 billion people at your own no doubt excessive consumption rate. Will 350 ppm be enough, arrived at by reducing emissions from 10GtC pa to nil or close to? Do tell. I bet you cannot or will not.
Derek – you sure is dumb matey boy – now stop being a total dope and put your brain in gear for once – don’t like GISS – well try CRU, don’t land series try 2 ocean data sets – Parker et al. Don’t like thermometers – try boreholes. Don’t like that – try species phenology – now isn’t just so funny that the answer is the fucking same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOODY HELL
Next glacial period Derek – try 50,000 to 150,000 years – hmmmm – gee I didn’t think of that says Derek
As for “oh well shit has happened before” – yea well not with 6-9 billion humans it ain’t.
Wanna do a “dry run” for last time the place warmed up – see what desertified.
And seemingly when big shifts happen – species die ! And shit happens. The fact that you are even here is more good luck than good management.
Tim – you’re such a total wanker. It’s agronomy and genetics boofhead. CO2 effects at the limit of experimental field detection.
“It is simply not possible for everything that Tim, Ron, Louis, Janama etc. says be wrong,”
you friggin dope – they’re political denialist scum – what do you reckon eh? They’re shills.
“Rivers around here are flooding again, some for the fifth time this year.
Tens of millions of megalitres are once again rushing out to sea.”
and how many years didn’t this happen? You just can’t stop yourself bullshitting Pikey.
Anyway irrigators have got enough MDB related infrastructure on the public tit – so you raise the money and pay for the dam and inland diversion system Pikey. You can enjoy it when it sits idle too.
Derek Smith….”….there is no optimum temp…”
There’s not only not an optimum temperature, according to meteorologist/physicist, Craig Bohren, there is not even a global temperature.
Think about it. We measure temperatures using a centigrade scale calibrated in degrees. What is a degree? It’s an arbitrary measure of the expansion of mercury or some other material that responds to the change in kinetic energy of surrounding atoms.
Even if we use 1/10th degrees, it is still arbitrary. In reality, temperatures could be measured in millionths of a degree, resulting in millions of world temperatures. That range could be extended theoretically to an infinite number of temperatures.
So, what is a global temperature? There’s no such thing, obviously, to anyone who understands the integration of calculus, which is the summing of tiny discrete quantities to represent a whole. It’s simply not possible to sum the infinite number of local temperatures to arrive at a global temperature. For one, we would need an infinite number of thermometers inputting their readings at one time and a means of averaging them to arrive at a single reading.
The way it’s done in reality is rather primitive. The surface method is to locate thermometers throughout the world, which is rather difficult when most of it is ocean. Not only that, we have to rely on people in different countries to get that data to a central accumulation point like NASA’s GISSTEMP. NASA has already admitted they cannot verify that data due to budget constraints.
It would be bad enough if they merely averaged that data, but they insist on adjusting it to account for unnatural heating of thermometers surrounded by cities. When you have extremists like James Hansen doing that, a man who raves about tipping points and putting skeptics in jail, an intelligent person has to wonder at the results. It is apparent, that the global temperature presented is a very rough average of data accumulated from the world at large.
The more accurate method of temperature data acquisition is done by satellites, which scan 95% of the atmosphere measuring microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. Even at that, the data has to be averaged. However, the broad and accurate coverage of the atmosphere reveals that global temperatures have highly localized hot spots in the Canadian and Siberian Arctic. They also show equally and highly localized spots of cooling in the Antarctic. It is the Arctic hot spots that are mathematically skewing the global warming average in a slightly positive direction.
The satellite data has also revealed that the atmosphere has barely warmed in the 30 years satellites have been in use. They show at least 1/3rd of the warming predicted by models. That’s why there has been ridiculous assaults on the data by IPCC supporters.
Gavin,
Sounds like a rewarding life.
Just enjoy it Mate.
Pikey.
luke, you say all the measures of AGW confirm the theory; here are 2 fundamental measures based on CO2 showing different correlations; which is right; SST and PDO;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2010/normalise/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1880/to:1910/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1940/to:1976/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1976/to:1998/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1850/to:2010/trend
SST and CO2;
http://i37.tinypic.com/30mo4ev.jpg
Luke,
“Derek – you sure is dumb matey boy – now stop being a total dope and put your brain in gear for once – don’t like GISS – well try CRU, don’t land series try 2 ocean data sets – Parker et al. Don’t like thermometers – try boreholes. Don’t like that – try species phenology – now isn’t just so funny that the answer is the fucking same !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BLOODY HELL”
I’m sorry but you just made my point. All of these data collection methods have been shown to be flawed and yet you still have complete faith in them.
“Next glacial period Derek – try 50,000 to 150,000 years”……..um….which comic book are you getting your info from? When was the last time an interglacial lasted 50K years?
“Wanna do a “dry run” for last time the place warmed up – see what desertified.”
That would be the Holocene maximum when it was warmer than today and if you go to the following link and look around, you’ll find that there were a lot less deserts than now.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html
Gavin,
“For those who haven’t cottoned on yet; its all about the water/ice balance and sea level with and without significant permant ice caps above SL”
How about in your neighborhood:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/science-is-in-on-climate-change-sea-level-rise-17mm/story-e6frg6nf-1225795202916
Just as with ice ages, the seas go up and they go down.
BTW Luke, if you dig out your personally signed copy of “An Inconvenient Truth” and watch the bit where Big Al talks about the temp/co2 graph covering the last 450K years, you might notice how short and unstable some of those interglacials were. Ours is in fact longer than average so from a statistical point, we can expect the temp to start a long downward slope at any time from now on.
Ron Pike – check out this weeks Landline program on the northern territory water issues.
I appears the farmers want to expand but the Governments, environmentalists and the CSIRO stand in their way.
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/
Gordon,
I completely agree with what you said, I just wanted to put out a simple, alternate opinion and see what bites I got. Studying past climate by regions shows that there can be a +4c increase at 65N with a corresponding -2C decrease at the equator. It is also clear that the same effect can be seen longitudinally which overall suggests that ice core readings are not a definitive record of past temperatures anyway.
Conversely, alarmists are so fixated on global average temp increases that they have no wriggle room as far as defining an optimum global ave temp. There has been no response from Luke et al on that question, so I can only assume that they have been caught short.
Thanks Janama,
I did see it as I usually watch Landline.
I will comment later and also respond to Lukes continuing changing of the goal posts and other rubbish.
Presently have to finish some poetry.
Interestingly I have just finished talking to my son who is an agricultural scientist, conducting trials in Vic., W.A. and S.A.
He has just returned from the west and said that WA, SA and Vic will all harvest record crops.
A good news story that Luke and the AGW church would not wish to hear.
They feed on disaster like a vampires on blood.
Pikey.
janama,
As a regular Landline watcher, these sorts of programmes gimme the whoops.
Saying that all that potential is only being used to 1 or 2 percent of capacity but emphasising unspecified dangers so as to pay homage to AGW is plain alarmist crap.
And just look at those “forests” they are protecting from clearing! The whole lot wouldn’t absorb as much CO2 as a small melon patch.
There are so many positives in that northern development and that show just concentrated on the negatives [like the evaporation from lake Argyle] with no one as usual asking the right questions.
It’s not as if they were clearing the Amazon RF.
I wonder if this assesment will include any defined carbon accounting?
If the govt were serious about sustainable development instead of subsidised pauperism up there they would allow that approval for Fleming to proceed, sell the blocks for $1 each provided houses were built and allow controlled landclearing and irrigation.
Pikey will be pleased to know that today a Chinese student in a big covered truck carting seedlings from interstate tried back over my corolla in the que as we were leaving the market. We now wear the distinct imprint of a rusty RSJ by the forward number plate.
Win some loose some hey!
Derek; you have become too smug for words in your last post. I also notice no one else picked up on my “flat” SL gauge etc.
In one conversation today with a retired HS science teacher as we discussed truing his new lathe for gun barrels I related my old trick with thermometers. I frequently showed off my tool box selection in the common crib room. I usually had at least three linear types, say -20/150C, 0/300 and 0/1000. In a mug of ice water usually made from freezer cubes and tap water I could guarantee a difference in all three at melt point but by giving only the big one to the lads as it stood, every day on site was a good one when it came to discussing any lack of air con there.
Re SL input and perspective: In a typical routine, I would hunt errors on float gauges too, in fact any device from a boiler drum sight level to a weigh bridge depending on the industry. In my experience float gauges attached to damping, amping etc are one of the less sensitive instruments given dodgy floats wandering around in a slimy well hardly ever get serviced. Some I saw had already sunk. Interpreting chart data after these events is a load of fun.
What we have today in all climate science is a legacy from that earlier commercial-industrial period in terms of our current in house standards development. Science in the lab is hardly ever transportable in the way we may expect by just reading blogsphere. However some of this stuff can be highly amusing especially the back slapping rounds here.
Folks; newbies in measurement science on the internet are the real danger
The line about 25% of Lake Argyle evaporating was just unbelievable – the lake holds 5,797,000 megalitres!!!!
I’ve driven through that country and it’s as flat as a tack – the river is huge, as are the crocs 🙂
That’s the “forest” that gets burnt every year Spangled, it never gets a chance to get back up.
Gavin,
Yes and I will remain smug, supercilious and altogether up myself until someone answers my question.
I’ve just been reading the responses to “Rudd’s rant” by Andrew Bolt and came across this response from Cohenite;
”
cohenite replied to watty
Sat 07 Nov 09 (11:07am)
Yep, Rudd is a scary person. By way of reply to dio’s stupid comment which, as best one can tell, refers to the conensus argument to justify the dumb conclusion of an “overwhelming body of evidence” to support AGW. Not only is there not a body of evidence, there is not a skin scrap or a finger-nail of evidence to support AGW. Alternatively, there are many disproofs of AGW; here a few;
1 Professor Koutsoyiannis in 2008 proved the IPCC computer model predictions about temperature were wrong.
2 Professor Lindzen using ERBE data proved the IPCC model predictions of less radiation leaving the atmosphere were wrong.
3 Professor Paltridge proved the IPCC model predictions of increased specific humidity was wrong
4 Dr Miskolzi proved the IPCC predictions of an increase in the greenhouse effect based on an increase in atmospheric optical depth was wrong
5 Dr David Stockwell proves that CSIRO predictions are flawed and unreliable.
Round 1 can’t be to rudd; he isn’t even in the ring.”
If I may focus on points 1 to 5, in light of the complete failure of the IPCC to be credible and the blind obeisance of Luke and his ilk to the proclamations of said institution, is it surprising that I am a skeptic?
No Derek, it is not!
Cohenite,
I was just thinking, I’m not up to speed on protocols for this blog site so if I shouldn’t have quoted you without permission, I apologies. I was so caught up in my own smugness that I didn’t think.
Janama,
The net evaporation at Argyle is about 80 centremeters/ year.
Without evaporation we would not have precipitation.
Without precipitation all life would die.
The thought processes of most environmentalists are already dead.
Still busy on other things.
Pikey
Ron,
I’m going to go out on a limb here but I would think that 50% evaporation from a dam would still be better than not having the dam in the first place. As evaporation losses relate to surface area verses volume, what are your thoughts on building deeper dams?
Derek,
You are of course right.
But please do not think for one minute that engineers and conservationalists have not been aware of this for over 100 years.
Whenever we seek to harvest and store water, consideration is always given to maximising volume and mimimising surface area.
This is not something that political environmentalists though up.
It is amazing that with so many of these vital issues we have a vocal (Luke Type Galahs) who can only see problems, that are mostly not relevant, while others can see reasonable solutions.
I can’t comment further as I have other work on that must be completed.
Pikey.
The main thing you bloggers have in common like those back in the crib room is a sheer lack of practical experience in dealing with both science and engineering concepts that confirm imaginative thinking at the grass roots of progress. Given we have only a couple of thousand years of history in modern languages, maths, astronomy, navigation, taxation etc it should come as no surprise our climate science based on global data is still rather thin.
Obtaining stability in all measurement fields is a relatively new goal for researchers on the whole. Forensic science is no exception. An item on ABC radio today reminds us of just how short we have been on reliable proof when this story revealed some euro secret service agents hunted BO around the 1950’s and kept bits of worn undies in a sealed jar as potential evidence.
Our home grown NATA was into electrical testing labs by then and had deals re mutual recognition of trade measurements beyond the national scene however natural sciences globally struggled even in the wake of Darwin.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200911/programs/DO0752V001D2009-11-08T193000.htm
A good question for newbies: How old is say the Admiralty set of standards that may have influenced global temperature and climate records post Darwin?
Another issue to ponder is most of our instruments and recorders made between the wars and after shared a common heritage and generally came to us from only a hand full of competent manufacturers’ world wide.
At various times I worked directly for some of the importers including the UK based Kent group in Australia. We got smart thermometers when?
You lot have nothing to stand on when it comes to old records and their interpretation
1 Professor Koutsoyiannis in 2008 proved the IPCC computer model predictions about temperature were wrong.
2 Professor Lindzen using ERBE data proved the IPCC model predictions of less radiation leaving the atmosphere were wrong.
3 Professor Paltridge proved the IPCC model predictions of increased specific humidity was wrong
4 Dr Miskolzi proved the IPCC predictions of an increase in the greenhouse effect based on an increase in atmospheric optical depth was wrong
5 Dr David Stockwell proves that CSIRO predictions are flawed and unreliable.
Pity they’re all wrong eh? Just more filth from paid denialists.
Cohers is back to magical heat building properties of internal oscillations. Cohers discovers Jacks Beans Stalk – Matey get published and stop being a giggle.
Hey Luke, has anyone told you that your little picture in the RH corner makes you look like Wallace from Wallace and Grommet?
“Pity they’re all wrong eh? Just more filth from paid denialists.”
Luke,
The models ARE all wrong and always will be. That’s not denialism, that’s reality.
The stockmarket is better understood than weather and climate yet computers will never predict that or any other part of our future correctly.
Better swat up on Superfreakonomics and settle for adaptation first [y’know, plan B] until we can all afford mitigation [plan A].
There’s a fair chance we may not need either plan.
Derek,
You’ll hurt Wallace’s feelings.
OK Luke, I’ve done some calculations and concluded that 15.7 is the optimum global ave temp. Prove to me that I’m wrong.I don’t think you can.
Derek, you can quote me, I’m just a figment of luke’s imagination anyway.
gavin says; “A good question for newbies: How old is say the Admiralty set of standards that may have influenced global temperature and climate records post Darwin?” How about the pre-Darwin standards?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4449527.ece
The thing about this treasure trove of ‘real evidence’ which contradicts AGW is that there is no ‘real evidence’ to support AGW despite luke’s many prostestations about convergent evidence, because all of it is filtered through the computers.
How do you Australians like having a PM who is on the verge of using climate hysteria as an scuse to shutdown civil rights?
http://www.lowyinstitute.org/PublicationPop.asp?pid=1167
No need for the Luke to answer – you creeps likely wrote the speech.
The connection between bad science and killing dissent, from the days of Galileo, to eugenics to Lysenko to today’s AGW scam, is an unbroken line, connected by true believers. And they always claim to be so sincere, and so wise, and so enlightened.
Watch out, lovers of freedom. Australia’s leaders, as they did in the age of eugenics, are ready to grasp the nettle again.
http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0403/Eugenics_in_Australia.htm
Yes of course Galileo was good science. The point was that the trend of state power being on the wrong side of science is clear and historic.And you PM is clearly making sure that tradition goes unbroken.
Go ahead and bray away, Luke. Yes, I committed a typo.
Hmmm, cohenite was quite selective in offering opinion based on the Times article
I prefer these quotes
“Most of these earlier documents contain verbal descriptions of weather rather than numerical data, because ships lacked the instruments to take numerical readings”
Wheeler makes clear he has no doubts about modern human-induced climate change. He said: “Global warming is a reality-
Derek being called on his bulldust descends further into silliness. It’s was actually 15.8 anyway. Glad you like my pic – they reckon I’m an rampant alarmist so it’s the best I could do.
But having Hunter rant on about civil rights and eugenics tells me who the true alarmist fruitloops are. Hey Hunter – it’s a big UN conspiracy – ooooooo — reds under the bed – ooooooo – how much for your women Hunter …. I want to buy them ,….
“The thing about this treasure trove of ‘real evidence’ which contradicts AGW is that there is no ‘real evidence’ to support AGW despite luke’s many prostestations about convergent evidence, because all of it is filtered through the computers.”
cohers,
It really is a treasure trove. But there’s more. Merchant shipping that were much more numerous and from many countries also listed these and other observations in great detail [ gridded pilot charts of wind direction and speed for every month of the year are still used today. I bet Jessica, being in the doldrums, is checking them right now].
Initially the IPCC stuck with this factual data but when it failed to support hockey sticks they tossed it out in favour of assumed data.
Menstrual Kevin and all the other gory bleeders do likewise.
gavin,
Don’t cherry pick. This is what he said:
“Global warming is a reality, but what our data shows is that climate science is complex and that it is wrong to take particular events and link them to CO2 emissions.”
And GW is not AGW.
Gavin,
“You lot have nothing to stand on when it comes to old records and their interpretation”
Take it up with Nils-Axel Moerner.
So what did you think of the recent paper showin Aussie sea level rising at a rate of 1.7mm.
Have you figured out the Hong Kong tidal gauge records yet??
HMMMM??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavin,
“Most of these earlier documents contain verbal descriptions of weather rather than numerical data, because ships lacked the instruments to take numerical readings”
I know, you would rather ignore this quote:
“Ships’ officers recorded air pressure, wind strength, air and sea temperature and other weather conditions.”
You DO know they had thermometers and barometers and anemometers back then don’t you???
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_temperature_and_pressure_measurement_technology
By the 17th century they were all developed.
Now you can be as picky as you want about not having the measurements on earlier ships (how early was that again??), BUT, a hundred more years data is enough to kill off AGW, or keep it on life support!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
gavin, the full quote is:
“Most of these earlier documents contain verbal descriptions of weather rather than numerical data, because ships lacked the instruments to take numerical readings. However, Wheeler and his colleagues found early Royal Navy officers recorded weather in consistent language.
“It means we can deduce numerical values for wind strength and direction, temperature and rainfall,” he said. The information will ultimately contribute to the International Comprehensive Ocean-Atmos-phere Data Set, a global database maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a US government agency.”
While there is the standard declaimer about AGW being real by the researcher included in the article [it is published in the Times for heavens sake] the tenor and gist of the article is contradictory to that disclaimer. I must say I find your post quite irritating.
Cohenite; speculation about the Dennis Wheeler article is rife
“18th Century Ships’ Logs Predict Future Weather Forecast”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091006104627.htm
other headlines
“Captain Cook and Climate Change”
“Captain Bligh’s logbooks to yield climate bounty”
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/10/one-hundred-and-fifty-years-ago-charles-darwins-origin-of-the-species-revolutionized-how-we-view-evolution-and-our-place-in.html
I say you still haven’t got a leg to stand on so back off or be irritated by someone who actually knows a bit about the history of modern instruments and the creation of reliable records first hand.
kuhnkat,
Yeah but “numerical data” these days means DIGITAL and they were too backward for that.
Seriously though, what I always admired about those early mariners was their ability to calculate and measure the necessary data to incredibly small increments with great accuracy.
Because they usually had overcrowded, overloaded, underpowered vessels with a very low margin of safety compared with today, to survive they had to apply themselves to the task with ten times the diligence.
Discipline had to be like iron.
One stuff-up and you wuz dead.
Consider Cook’s dilemma as he sailed northward into an ever thickening maze of coral. OK in daylight but after dark he had to reef down to maintain just steerage speed and keep the man in the chains feverishly swinging the lead.
He must have known that it was almost inevitable that he would hit coral but he got through anyway and cleaned off the barnacles as well.
Plan B, not plan A.
Luke,
I haven’t been called on anything, youhave just dodged the question as usual which means that youeither can’t give an answer or you’re afraid to ’cause you think you might look foolish
While Luke is sweating over my question about optimum temperature, let me throw another chunk of bait out to the circling sharks.
According to the alarmist view, even a CO2 concentration of 350 ppm is too high and we know from research that if it got below 150 ppm it would probably be the end of life as we know it. So, just like temperature, the AGW crowd must have an idea of what the optimum CO2 level is as well.
So, challenge no.2/ tell us what you think it is, I’ll even let you have a 50 ppm range as we can’t be too pedantic about these things. Over to you Luke.
PS, apologies for such poor editing of my previous post.
gavin; I read your 2 links; they were both supportive of the data and information to be gained from the historical research; I don’t know what you mean by “speculation is rife”; I meant to say I find your comment quite amusing not irritating, but continue huffing and puffing; I find that amusing as well .
I also find Derek’s challenge of luke amusing; luke afraid of looking “foolish”? Derek, surely you joke!
Speaking of Parker and Folland and EOF’s; for luke’s delectation I present the EMD and IMFs;
http://landshape.org/enm/emd-and-natural-variation/#more-3201
Cohenite, as always I aim to please. Anyway, Just in case Luke forgot my original question, here it is again;
OK, if higher temperatures are bad, that means by extension that there must be an optimum temperature for the planet. Conversely, too cold is also bad so there must be a temperature somewhere between too hot and too cold that is just right. A baby bear temp if you will.
What say the AGW collective who contribute to this blog mumble amongst yourselves for a bit and get back to me when you have an answer.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this is potentially a checkmate move.
Baited breath and all that.
Derek – why am I going to answer a “non-question”? It’s a silly question from a silly person who wouldn’t know how to make a climate risk decision on anything. Don’t think you have me on toast with your non-question.
Why do you think your question is worth answering? Tell me.
(Oh BTW – my answer is that I don’t know.) Come on Derek come closer.
(BTW Cohers – I have given up long ago reading Stockwell’s unpublished rat dirt)
Luke,
You’re the one who thinks a GAT of 15 C is too hot, you’re the one who believes in tipping points, You’re the one who believes in some idealised perfect climate. The question is worth answering precisely because you can’t answer it!
Time to admit defeat Luke.
How tedious luke; “unpublished ratdirt.” The difference between PCA and EMD is that PCA does not distinguish adequately between stationary and non-stationary data; the hot point of AGW is what % of natural and anthropogenic [if any] factors contribute to trend; PCA can’t do it, EMD can.
Karoly ranting away again on the 4 Corners Program.
Did I hear it correctly when he said in the last few years there has been 1000 papers on Climate Change Science that have been published, and not one has been against the warmists theory theory.That shouldnt be too hard to blow apart.
Even if one disallows those that are blatantly crook, this a bold statement to make, as it will only take one……
Now if one also disallows those that have been peer reviewed by the same self referencing cliques like the one Karoly belongs to, and also take out all those that havnt archived their data in accordance with the established protocol..then we are probably down to about 100 ..and there still would be several that would blow holes in some part or other of the mantra.
Poor old Karoly, at least he is not as bad as some of his colleagues that rated Gore’s AIT as a 9/10
Kuhnkat, I say we neednt bother with your chalenges regarding my point of view on the integrity of old instruments as used by Cook etc on their voyages, but reading your wiki ref was a rather nostalgic return to my roots.
Sure we got the Fahrenheit scale and a decent linear thermometer in the early 1700’s and I had forgotten why Fahrenheit prevailed beyond Centigrade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highly_composite_number
Perhaps its worth noting that in Melbourne we were still making vapour pressure thermometers based on a Bourdon tube and bulb fed capilulary for diehards in industry around the 1960’s Back then I also used a range of Budenberg Gauges as portable standards after calibration on their dead weight tester. In fact I worked with most of those items in the wiki list including the hi vac tester here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLeod_gauge
However lets return to thermometers for a mo with this consideration for liquid/vapour types that use the bourdon tube and note we used various liquids to achieve a large temperature range. Also in practice we assume normal atmospheric pressure for most applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_point#Relation_between_the_normal_boiling_point_and_the_vapor_pressure_of_liquids
Mercury types are avoided in the food industry for obvious reasons however I prefer them over the above for overall accuracy and reliability. Access to a portable temp reference as with pressure is highly desireable. Finding gross error quickly was my main target in all instrument calibration exercises. See the common problem below
Notes on actual instruments as used in voyages
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1657/1523-0430(2006)38%5B454:OTMIAO%5D2.0.CO%3B2
TABLE 1 A comparison between alcohol thermometers nos. 1–5 (uncolored) and alcohol thermometers 6–10 (colored with a dye to enable easier reading) conducted by Captain Parry on board HMS Fury at Winter Island in 1822 (Source: HMSO, 1882, p. 296)
Malcolm; are you one of those backward looking people behind the far right as shown on 4 corners tonight?
Derek; re that optimum temp, I’m about as conservative as can be on the status quo
Gavin.
So you would probably know about the make, model etc and accuracy of the thermometers used in weather stations since perhaps they were first introduced. Are these things in museums somewhere?
Gavin,
Perhaps you could help me,when I took over as science teacher at my small school I inherited a collection of the standard, cheap thermometers. I’ve since purchased more of the same from the regular school supply store but find them unsatisfactory. When conducting MP and BP experiments with my year 8’s they invariably end up with a BP of between 105 and 110 C. WE get the same results every year so I tend to favor systematic error over random error.
Can you recommend an accurate brand and supplier for less than $10 per unit?
Reading Malcolm Hills deluded diatribe agin Prof Karoly and the weight of evidence he quoted on Four Corners, reminded me of the quote in The Australian today on the funny phoney world that lies beyond reason and even rhyme. The quote was a neat analogy for why AGW sceptics are a bit like Christians embracing the repetition of the litanies. As Alain wrote in his preface to the famous Litanies, “When, in its distress, the christian soul can find no more words to implore the mercy of God, it repeats, times without end, the same fierce-faithed prayer. Reason reaches its limits and only belief can chase its flight”. Todays quote in The Australian was about how the Wallabies had discovered enough belief to waltz over England. Sporting teams do need belief in their ability to transcend the evidence of their recent form, but in science evidence must not fly beyond its limits. The fierce-faithed litanies of the AGW sceptics are proof they are beyond reason and beggaring belief.
So why is your question important Derek?
“you’re the one who believes in tipping points, You’re the one who believes in some idealised perfect climate”
you could get a job in the NSW police Derek – our cops are just as good at verballing. Where did I say that?
You are a moron bazza. It was Karoly who was trotting out the repetitive litanies.
That was the whole effing point.. but obviously it went straight over head.
To make the point clearer to you, if you wanted an example of just one paper, try Koutsoyiannis (2008), who proved the IPCC models and predictions about temperature were wrong.
Listening to Turnbull and Macfarlane trying to defend the indefensible on ABC last evening, made me even more appreciative of the “whatever it takes” approach and the organisational abilities of the Labour Party.
They have not only very successfully infiltrated the ABC and from a political comment point of view control these segments.
It is now obvious they have infiltrated the Liberal Party and go their man to the Leadership.
That’s really doing “whatever it takes.”
Luke,
your responses to my arguments on water are at best childish and of course abusive.
When are you going to tell us all what you believe the problems of the MDB are and how you think we should respond?
Pikey
Koutsoyiannis is the last test you’d apply to GCMs. Wouldn’t expect results other than what he got. Understanding that is a threshold test of dopiness. Bazza you’re dealing with people who simply don’t have the intellectual capacity.
Pikey – you’re simply a bulldust artist and an old coot. With irrigation infrastructure sitting idle around the MDB – it seems to indicate some difference between aspirations and supply. Call me intuitive.
Yes, we know you don’t understand Koutsoyiannis luke; find fault with these critiques of the GCMs;
http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/vyushin/Papers/Govindan_Vyushin_PRL_2002.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature-trends-with-model-predictions?page=6
http://kestencgreen.com/forecasting-climate-hk.pdf
The reason why GCMs are duds;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
Well Walker you hypocrite, impugning some elses intellectual capacity on the track record you have consistently demonstrated over the years of infecting this blog, is cognitive dissonance at its best.
You know as well as I do that there are heaps of papers that cast doubt over the validity of the AGW hypothesis ..you may discount K 2008, but there ooddles of others…all proving the point that Karolys spray was total b/s.
I carefully observed Professor Karoly on TV last night. Were I his platoon commander, I would not promote him to lance-corporal. On the other hand, Nick Minchin and Tony Abbott struck me as leadership material. I am sure many others made a similar judgement. We need mature political leadership and judgement, not musical chairs with climate, illegal migrants, and crackpot carbon schemes.
As a conservative greenie (it’s about conservation isn’t it?) I am glad that the dodgy, self-promoting nature of climate evangelism was laid bare for all to see. Well done the ABC, even if it was an unintentional own goal. Climate capers indeed.
Ernst-Georg Beck is at it again
http://www.klima2009.net/de/papers/4/6
Janame,
yup, I think he may actually be making headway against the rock solid intellects of AGW!!
Too bad the AGW PeerReviewedLitchurchur isn’t put to the same rigourous dissection as his and other work not supportive of AGW!!
So Gavin,
I think what you are trying to say is that you are old enough to have installed and used the new fangled water thermographs when they were developed??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
O K Luke,
This old coot has a few minutes to spare, so lets have a look at what you are squawking.
“Irrigation infrastructure is lying idle around the MDB.”
Well if you are refering to infrastructure owned and operated by farmers (pumps, channels, storages, centre pivots and the like), yes some of this will centainly be idle.
But farmers are just as capable of making adaptive business decisions as any other business and certainly do not require directives from a totalatarian public service.
If you are refering to State owned structures such as dams, hydro generators, channels and the like; well Luke the fact of the matter is they are all in use.
The Goulbourn valley, Murray valley and Murrumbidgee valey will all produce an average to above average of horticultural crops this year.
Just as they did last year and increasingly for the last 60 years.
There is some real problems in the Lachlan valley, where the catchment of the Lachlan has been well below average for several years.
While the production of annual crops will be limited throughout the system, storages at this point of the irrigation season are the best since 2005.
So Luke what is your considered resolution to your perceived problems in the MDB?
Pikey.
Derek, re your classroom thermometers, I probably can’t help much as it’s been a quite while since I had the little state’s Education dept science equipment maintenance contract.
Now if I can change your dilemma to the general (a run of the mill case); how do I re-calibrate a pile of old instruments in a hurry? I would say take the whole bunch of thermometers to a bucket of ice water then to a boiling pot and make a shallow nick in the glass of each one with a handy metal ‘nail’ file at the appropriate point on their scales. Job finished!
Make do with the old graduations in between and start all your other temperature readings from which ever new mark is closest. Going back to the minor issues like immersion depth, atmospheric pressure etc I say ignore the lot but make sure the immersion times are realistic for all things to settle.
You can find better thermometer types for climate work as used in some of those old air con testing instruments known is sling cyclometers. We must have matched thermometer pairs to measure RH (hg in glass +/- .5C).
Industry uses a pair of RTD’s these days (+/- point 1C).
See Psychrometer calibration-
“Accurate calibration of the thermometers used is of course fundamental to precise humidity determination by the wet-dry method; it is also important for the most accurate results to protect the thermometers from radiant heat and ensure a sufficiently high speed of airflow over the wet bulb”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hygrometer
Seems we go on in my retirement
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/09/more-problems-with-computer-models-our-world-is-one-of-novelty-and-change/?cp=4
For examples of how Rudd cannot read thermometers see my piece today at
http://www.quadrantonline.org.au
Regards
Tim
Cohenite and the rest o y’all,
Erl Hap and Carl Wok have a very interesting post over at Climate Change.
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/the-climate-engine/
I won’t try to describe it here as I am still working my way through it. I can only say it seems to have some interesting new views of existing data, and data that we don’t typically seen analysed, that you may find interesting.
Enjoy if you haven’t already been there!!
Yes kuhnkat, when you think the Weart piece and the Arthur Smith rubbish on the greenhouse effect have currency among the alarmists it is unreasonable that Erl and Carl’s article will not have the same traction; the Weart link is first below, followed by Arhtur’s;
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324
IMO Erl is just another back slapping blogger who avoids the burning question – what happens to all that fossil C
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
RC,
“As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.”
First, MORE than 50% radiates away from the ground. The higher you go the more radiates away. Just grab any ball and look at the angle to the horizon as the point moves away from it!! Unless of course the molecule is in a valley or hole!!
Second, he uses poor terminology in saying radiation is STOPPED. This implies a significant delay. I would love to see his quantum calculations proving this!! (not that I would understand them myself!!) This is another deal breaker as the reradiation happens extremely fast. The likelihood that there is a collision to transfer energy to a non-ghg is extremely small. additionally, IF the collision is with a “hotter” molecule the GHG will gain energy and radiate more!! Sadly the understanding of radiative physics and our atmosphere exhibited in this paragraph is poor.
Third, EVERYTHING radiates IR!!! It may be at a substantially lower rate than GHG’s, but, there is still IR. The hotter things get, the more IR is emitted. Nice thermostat huh?? I still wonder why this is ignored!!!
Basically they reiterate the physics that REQUIRE there to be a Hot Spot with cooling strat and Tropopause heightening which is not happening!!
Smith should debate the Germans. Of course, he would run away very fast if he saw them coming!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavin,
explain the question to me. If you are talking about the buildup of CO2, I would like to wait for at least 1000ppm before restarting the discussion of limiting it!! That is, if we can burn enough fossil fuel or feed enough cows or… to reach 1000ppm!!!
Good point kuhnkat; the isotropic emission concept is the backbone of AGW back radiation a la Philipona; but with convection carrying LTEs containing the CO2 molecules, which have been excited at ground level, to the CEL which is where emission from the by then dissipated LTE occurs at a height of ~ 7-8 klm the horizon effect would see most of the emitted LW radiation miss the surface.
I see Midnight Darkness has today stopped the building of the Traveston Dam on the Mary river in SE Qld.
He has done so on the dubious pretence that it would be harmful to the native fish and a turtle.
And, does this sound familiar. “We are going with the science on this.”
I know of no dam in Australia that hasn’t proved to be a benefit for native acquatic species.
I inspected the Mary dam site and surrounding areas last year and believe that the Mary river would hugely benefit from this dam and I believe a smaller dam further up stream.
The reason being that while the Mary river has a significant catchment, it does regularly cease to flow.
I ask Midnight Cowboy this; what is best for the fish in the river?
A river that regularly runs dry, or one where habitat is maintained within the dam and stream flows are guaranteed by that dam.
We really are living in a dark age.
There is a dark cloud of radical environmentalism blocking out the light of reason and logic.
Pikey.
“There is a dark cloud of radical environmentalism blocking out the light of reason and logic.”
Pikey,
Sad but true. Kevin blocked the Wolfdene and now this.
Traveston has a weir immediately downstream and two large dams upstream so the environment was not an argument.
The state govt has spent a fortune getting this far and what do we have left?
Dumb desal!
Hi Spangles,
You say there are two large dams upstream.
Seems like you have details of which I am not aware.
Could you give me some info of this?
Thanks in anticipation.
On a more general issue.
How can we change the concept that to stop a dam is to “save a river?”
These are the headlines everywhere this evening and they are so wrong.
The very effective “Don’t Murray the Mary,” campaign while totally false in fact, builds on the Media assisted belief that the Murray is “dying,” while in fact, if it was not for man-made dams the Murray and all of its tributries would have been dry for much of the last 8 years.
Man made dams enhance rivers.
They are an improvement on the “Natural Environment.”
Pikey.
Can’t agree with you on this one Drongo. Wolfdene was going to be so shallow, that almost 50% of its contents would have been lost in evaporation each year. I was on the water management plan committee, & some of the department blokes were really pi55ed off that they would spend months on plans, fully evaluated, only to have Beattie go off half cocked, with stupid ideas from some of his pollys.
Traveston had similar problems, & would have been very hard to seal. It may have leaked almost as much as it evaporated. Not a good dam.
A dam should benifit the local people, first, & foremost. Down stream of Traviston there is quite a bit of irrigation, & they were about to see their water go to Brisbane. Maryborough people were wondering if they would get any.
The Boonah people saw their “irrigation” dam water pumped off to Swanbank power station, even while the irrigators paid their $24,000 PA levey for the third year, with no water to show for it. To add insult to injury, the local council was made to pay for the infrastructure to get it there. I think the people of the Mary could see the same rorts comming their way. First they take your water, then you have to pay for them to do so.
I think it’s about time that Brisbane started to pay it’s own way. It should harvest, & store its own bl@@dy water. Lets face it, if they can just get her foot out of it, Anna’s mouth is big enough for a few years worth storage.
I have raised my family with less rainfall than Brisbane, with 12,000 gallons tankage, & never had to buy water. The 2 B [Beattie, & Bleigh] were never interested in making sure I had water. Why do the Brisbane lot deserve any special treatment?
As Cohenite makes unclear “the isotropic emission concept is the backbone of AGW back radiation a la Philipona; but with convection carrying LTEs containing the CO2 molecules, which have been excited at ground level, to the CEL which is where emission from the by then dissipated LTE occurs at a height of ~ 7-8 klm the horizon effect would see most of the emitted LW radiation miss the surface.” So much for the near flat earth hypothesis. Next we will have neocons gone green over Traveston. If you are belief driven, you can be flexible as to the evidence.
Pikey,
There is the Borumba Dam, the Baroon Dam and the 6 Mile Ck Dam [Lake MacDonald] which are all upstream of the [lately] proposed Traveston.
Hasbeen,
Australia doesn’t have the luxury of many deep gorges in suitable areas being a flat landscape but with future raising of dam walls as has happened with the Hinze and others, evaporation ceases to be a problem and volume multiplies for relatively little extra pain.
The 15 metre increase that is currently being added to the Hinze, trebles the volume for only double the surface area and the evap rate pa would be what, one metre? I’m not sure of coastal evaporation rates but from my own experience with high RH compared with out west they are not a lot.
In rapidly urbanizing areas like SEQ, dams are the only realistic way to go unless we are gonna use desal via gen 4 nuclear on somewhere like Stradbroke Is. and the chances of that……
Hasbeen,
I reckon Brisbane could solve their water problem for a fair while by raising the wall at Wivenhoe.
You don’t have to be snide bazza; CO2 molecules are, for purposes of AGW, assumed to be uniform point source emitters of LW radiation; downward back-radiation is assumed to constitute 50% of the emissions with only 2 vectors; down and up; in actuality the vectors are unlimited; at CEL altitude Earth’s curvature will mean that the majority of the emissions miss the Earth thus greatly reducing back-radiation; of course this paper makes it plain that the AGW reliance on back-radiation due to up/down isotropy is defeated for other reasons;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
If you don’t understand that I don’t know what other remediation can be done for you.
Cohenite; man, IMO you have just become another Morano stooge if you insist on this one.
Folks: Nasif Nahle is oft quoted in blogsphere but I see only a deliberate line deployed to discredit basic physics around analysing a thin column of gas perpendicular to a large plane. Cohenite forgets I’m the original flat earther here, see my response to this quote
“One simply cannot convert a sphere to a flat plate -”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/04/on-the-first-principles-of-heat-transfer-a-note-from-alan-siddons/?cp=3
The problem is we have to suffer a few campaigners who don’t come from physics, ask that math lady again hey.
Sideways IR losses missing the Earth indeed!!!
“I reckon Brisbane could solve their water problem for a fair while by raising the wall at Wivenhoe.”
BRILLIANT – it’s this sort of devastating logic that makes this blog a world champion. One small problem – the water level has been a loooong way from the top of the wall for a looooong time.
Now maybe that’s why you’re called a “drongo” !
Indeed Toowoomba has now gone critical with hydrological drought and …
THE town that rejected recycled water has been forced to tap into an emergency allocation of bore water while it waits for a lifesaving pipeline connecting Wivenhoe Dam to the region’s water supply.
While Toowoomba was in full bloom as it celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Carnival of Flowers yesterday, away from the festivities the region continued to bake in a decade-long drought, with dam levels falling to a critically low 9.8 per cent.
In a sign of the desperate times, the Toowoomba Regional Council Deputy Mayor, Paul Antonio, said the town was now pumping water from an emergency allocation from the Great Artesian Basin.
It comes three years after residents rejected a recycled water referendum when dam levels were over 23 per cent.
Now Australia’s second largest inland city, with a regional population of more than 150,000, will come within a few months of its dams running completely dry as the State Government works to complete a 38km pipeline from Wivenhoe to Cressbrook Dam.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26096406-5012321,00.html
I know let’s do a “Pikey” and build more dams in the Toowoomba region that won’t fill.
On Traveston – well politics may be sus who knows. No big end of town money in this one for Garrett. Just a state government. A cynic might suggest that the current government might be secretly glad that the Feds have got them off the hook with a hugely unpopular dam proposal.
As for Pikey’s infinite wisdom that dams always improve things, well there obviously are benefits, but being the ecological ignoramus that he is, wouldn’t give a rats about the scores of turtles with smashed shells dying every day as a result of other weirs and dams on related systems in the Burnett/Mary region. Mary River turtles are also listed in the world’s top 25 most endangered turtle species. That’s the bum breathing turtles – Elusor macrurus — Mary River Turtle – neat critters – being cloacal breathers, who knows, Pikey be related.
gavin, your link to Alan Siddon’s wonderful piece has this;
“In addition, a planet’s liquids or solids lose heat over a 2-dimensional area, whereas a gas radiates in 3 dimensions. This geometrical factor alone handicaps the ability of a gas to conserve thermal energy, irrespective of how relatively massless it is”
Which is my point; as usual, I’m not sure what yours is.
Derek Smith
Some time ago I asked the following of Luke (possibly he is Luke Wynne) et al.
1. Is there any state of the climate that is not caused by AGW or “climate change”?
2. At what global temperature does this stop?
3. If building an alternative power system is easy why doesn’t the environmental movement get to and build a power station as an example? We need about 30 stations capable of delivering 1GW 24/7 each. One would be a good start!
The point being that so many things are attributed for instance http://www.terradaily.com/2006/061211182846.nwcc15td.html that it is quite difficult to know what won’t be. There is no actual idea what is the ideal temperature and that there is no viable solution to increasing emissions .
Luke came back with the answer that is stupid with no elaboration. This I see was the same response to your questions. The trolls this blog are a waste of space they just are not worth the energy and their aim is to waste yours. Paid agitators or devout demented followers I don’t know which but does it matter? Luke’s picture shows that he considers himself to be someone demented straight out of the funny farm.
There are many blogs more worthwhile than this one now and those on the other side have views that are less demented. People like Luke, SJT do not have a presence there, so move on it is not worth arguing with the religious.
Hang on – is this the DHMO guy with the depressive childhood giving me a lecture. Even the gravatar looks depressed. Pullease.
As for paid agitators, trolls, devout, demented, and religious – gee I thought you meant the denialist scum?
DHMO it’s a silly question as it’s about trend and rate of trend. I assume morons like yourself and Derek are snug as bugs in a rug with the current climate variation and would like it to increase?
But you haven’t thought about that as you’ve got your head up your bum.
And I know logic isn’t one of your strong points but just because the solution might be extremely difficult doesn’t logically mean the science is wrong. That’s like telling your oncologist that he’s ugly.
BTW Direct Factory Outlet – I gave him my answer which was “I don’t know”.
BTW Direct Factory Outlet – the gravatar is of “an alarmist” being alarmed. How come you guys don’t have one being denialist scum?
Luke – here is the current state of Brisbane’s dams
Dam level update – Monday 9 November 2009
Wivenhoe, Somerset & North Pine dams (Greater Brisbane)
The combined dam levels are now at 73.4% capacity (down 0.07% since Friday the 6th of November.) Wivenhoe Dam is currently 66.4% (up from 66.2% on Friday the 30th of October,) Somerset Dam is at 82.2% (down from 84.1% on the 30th of October) and North Pine is currently at 95.5% (down from 96.1% on the 30th of October.)
If the Wivenhoe dam can be at 66.4% of capacity after your supposed 10 year drought imagine how much water it could hold in normal times with a higher wall.
you really spew out a load of BS.
Dhmo; I reckon you are on a bum steer with your Luke Wynne thing.
Tried Google ?
As to trolls here; beware of the numerous one eyed variety
cohenite “a planet’s liquids or solids lose heat over a 2-dimensional area, whereas a gas radiates in 3 dimensions” is wrong.
Think about it!
Alright gavin, excluding latent heat transfer, we’re left with conduction, convection and radiation; are you saying the heat transfer from a solid is the same as from a gas?
Luke,
your logic on dams is just plain denialist.
Australia’s big rainfall systems are always spasmodic and that is precicely why we need really big reservoirs.
They become more efficient as they increase in size as the surrounding population builds.
An exercise like the recent Traveston travesty is incredibly destructive, divisive and expensive for a community but over time it should become a prized asset of ever increasing value and reducing cost/benefit unlike a desal plant which is a millstone forever.
You’re not sodum as to be saying that our big rain depressions which are MIA at present are never going to return?
I thought the warm religion preached more of that catastrophism.
shouldn’t that be “just plain denialist SCUM!” Drongo? 🙂
Cohenite; “are you saying the heat transfer from a solid is the same as from a gas?”
NO, what I was onto is the big fiddle with dimensions during analysis. A simple approach for comparing solids. liquids and gasae is here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#One_dimensional_application.2C_using_thermal_circuits
The thermo laws have to work in a variety of situations. When I hear gas I may think of a furnace or the whistle of a superheated steam pipe. Given the pipeline insulation, am I bothered by the heat transfer mechanism along the axis of flow or the barrier between that axis and me?
When standing beside a big mirror in the sun it has little to do with either conduction or convection While looking back a earth from a jet plane at cruising altitude, I see colour in the visable spectrun and know there is much transfered through the medium bothways. We needent bother with what is lost sideways hey
Read this section
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer#Insulation_and_radiant_barriers
spangled drongo “Global warming is a reality…”
I know you used this from a quote, Spangled, but it’s a phrase that is beginning to bother me deeply. Global warming is a reality only in the world of mathematics. That is to say, the correct term id globally-averaged warming.
I’m not going to split hairs and claim there has been no warming globally, even though such a warming would be meaningless locally. In fact, I don’t care if the globe has warmed a bit. I am bugged by the mathematical averaging, however, and the inference that it means anything. Tsonis has already done invaluable work correlating warming and cooling over a century to the natural variability of the oceans. The fact that his work, and the work of Christy and Spencer with satellite temperature data averaging, is being ignored by the IPCC and the AGW theorists, is the real issue.
Even skeptics like Pat Michaels are jumping aboard with this nonsense that CO2 is causing a global warming. His reasoning is that it doesn’t matter, that there isn’t enough of it to worry about. I think Pat is feeling beat up after a couple of decades of skepticism and is looking for some relief by paying lip service to the status quo. We can still count on John Christy to call a spade a spade, however. He still claims the highly localized warming revealed by the satellites in the Arctic is not a signature of CO2 warming.
gavin, the circuit metaphor for heat transfer in the atmosphere has been done here;
http://landshape.org/enm/electrical-analogue-of-shaviv-and-miskolczi/
But I think you are missing the point; AGW theory relies on back-radiation heating the surface to a temperature beyond what it would be without this alleged greenhouse effect; back-radiation relies on the isotropic concept; which says an emitting photon will act like an isotropic radiator;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotropic_radiator
The AGW assumption is that 50% of the emissions will go up and 50% down as back-radiation, ignoring the equal probability of sideways emission directivity; but since almost all of LW emission occurs at the CEL [about 7-8 klms above the surface] the sideways emissions will miss the surface.
I’m not sure what your objection to the Nasif Nahle paper was; but the paper is to this point.
“The AGW assumption is that 50% of the emissions will go up and 50% down as back-radiation, ignoring the equal probability of sideways emission directivity; but since almost all of LW emission occurs at the CEL [about 7-8 klms above the surface] the sideways emissions will miss the surface.”
You nong, that’s just a simplification for exlaining how it works. It’s not the exact percentages.
Gordon,
I agree, it is troubling [it wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t gonna send us broke] and you have to read thing like this to see how silly is:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/georgia-tech-50-percent-of-the-usa-warming-that-has-occurred-since-1950-is-due-to-land-use-changes/#comments
Ah, little will is back and in fine non sequitur mode; he says;
“You nong, that’s just a simplification for exlaining how it works. It’s not the exact percentages”
Well, at this stage, with our dear leader in uber hyperbolic mode and set to sign away our futures to the UN Copenhagen UNFCCC retirement fund, I’ll settle for simplification; but by way of explanantion little will what are the %s?
Well, c’mon SJT, spit it out.
Everyone knows its half up, half down and half sideways.
Have a good carbon free holiday?
Now we need to rush another one of these through on the Sunny Coast.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26326397-3102,00.html
But, wait a minute. During the day, the IR from the sun works its way down through the atmosphere to the ground through reradiation just like the OLR works its way UP and out!!!!
I mean, why wouldn’t it?? It is the same physics!!
Now, how do we figure out what source is pumping how much energy into the GHG’s?!?!
Where is that in the SIMPLIFICATIONS??? Where is it in the models?!?!?!?!
Anyone see this effect included in any papers???
Dhmo,
Good to hear from you, we haven’t met before as I’m fairly new to this (or any)blog. I get your point with Luke entirely but I’m trying to be patient with him and we have had the odd cordial exchange so I’m not willing to start calling him names yet even though I am apparently a moron.
One of the things I like about this blog, (apart from learning a hell of a lot from a number of people who know a great deal more than me) is that contrary views are allowed and that argument and debate are common.
There is no problem with Gavin playing hard ball, he gives as good as he gets without descending into hysterical diatribes and I have personally found Bernard J. to be eloquent and a gentleman. Can’t say the same for Luke and SJT but I live in hope.
Cheers.
Derek,
hope springs eternal!!
Another small and simple question you can answer for us Luke is …
When did AGW start ?
Give us a date.. + or – 10yrs will do , Just so we can establish the time frame we are dealing with here.
We are aware that some of you cranks think AGW started when man arrived on earth,but even you would agree that they are probably nutters… wouldn’t you Luke? or would you?
“When did AGW start?” Well, Mack, luke is a fan of Ruddiman;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006EO350008.shtml
Mack: “When did AGW start ?”
Lets but in with a time related to the “industrial revolution”. That’s about us moving from wind, water or bullock power for all travel and production via steam engines. Add to that electricity for light and you have the big picture.
But Gavin, what about the enormous amount of Biologicals that were being burnt for heat and food before the industrial revolution?? Not to mention the land management by burning, forest fires, whale fat…
Spangles,
Thanks for that, will have a look when I get more time.
Does beg the question though, as to why the Mary is oft reported as having little or no stream flow.
Are these stories part of the environmentalist hoo-haa?
In the interim, it would appear that Luke has obviously gone to the same school of Public Relations as Kevin Rudd.
They appear to have both majored in how to influence people by being humble and and nice.
Pikey.
Mack,
A scientist neighbour of mine insists that land use changes as early as 15ky ago had some effect on GW and he may be right [those Sumerians messing about in the Garden of Eden] but if all the land use changes that have increasingly occurred since have been an increasing contributor then that doesn’t leave much room for the other things including ACO2e that are supposed to increase temperature.
Less than 50% of SFA?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/georgia-tech-50-percent-of-the-usa-warming-that-has-occurred-since-1950-is-due-to-land-use-changes/#more-12724
We have Luke Late Holocene (thanks Cohenite) and Gavin about the start of the Industrial Revolution.
What a fine mess you’ve gotten yourselves into.
Pikey,
I used to be a navvy [labourer] on bridge building sites on the Mary during the ’50s and there isn’t much flow except when it floods which can be often. I used to drive a jackhammer underwater in the old deep-sea divers kit of copper helmet and lead boots etc and I came across lungfish and those penny turtles that Luke talks about [they only breathe through their arse unlike Luke who occasionally talks through his].
If you seriously checked it out I think you might find that there are many substantial dams in the upper Mary catchment.
Nevertheless it can deliver huge flows like most east coast rivers.
Kuhnkat and other recent posters; we don’t need some academic to give us a NEW perspective in whats up or down. Sure we had stoves, lamps and kilns before the industrial revolution but it was our steel rolling out that made a big difference in our energy use. Cast iron kettles on cast iron wheels had a limided impact on the environment.
I first went to work in a factory town where most industry was built close to the expanding port. More steam steel and concrete was the order of the day yet we still had a lineshaft or two driving some of the process. Unfortunatly there was no coal at hand so the company imported it before switching to oil. Furnace mods and boiler upgrades became my cup of tea.
Resource exploitation likewise ran on steel. The town eventually exported rubber tyred underground mining equipment made initially to suit the deeper local mineral lodes. The same region also had it’s open cut mines and vast forests. Inland it was all about dams and roads. The greater part of that population became resource bent for decades and that made me very practical in the pursuit of industrial progress. This form of creativity requires both practice and patience. IMO that could be the gulf between us.
BTW instruments also got a boost after the industrial revolution, with boilers and line pumps came pressure gauges however process automation took quite a while. Environment engineering didn’t happen untill the 1970’s and that means you have no reliable records across the spectrum of measurements before then.
” Environment engineering didn’t happen untill the 1970’s and that means you have no reliable records across the spectrum of measurements before then.”
Gavin,
You mean the only reliable warming is what the satellites have measured?
0.28c?
Gee Janama – you must have a MENSA IQ – how often does Wivenhoe overflow? I know engineers are pretty dumb but gee wilkers – maybe they’ve done some sums eh?
Goofball !
Mack – Cohers have you the answer – Ruddiman !
And Janama – is there such a thing as “normal”?
I just noticed a very good sign. The wikipedia suddenly has a lot of informative information in it that doesn’t amount to CO2-Propaganda. I’m claiming that it really is that sudden. I’m supposing there must have been an editorial change from the top. With some of the bigshots getting the shits with people like William Connelly sabotaging the Wiki for propaganda purposes.
For example they’ve now got highly detailed information on the Holocene optimum which they’ve split in two. The one most carefully following the traditional understanding is called “The Atlantic Period” and they admit openly that it was warmer than today with a higher sea level.
They’ve got a very good explanation and critique of the Malinkovitch cycles now. And they mention the CO2 feedback as just one possibility. Not as known doctrine.
This could not have been done with the bully-boys who were running things earlier.
Not sure where the Academics are Gavin. May be under all those layers of SOOT?!?!?! Nuthin like a change in albedo to change your life!
Luke – according to J. V. Hodgkinson the Wivenhoe has overflowed 6 times since 1986.
Normal is when you have average rainfall as this article states.
http://wivenhoesomersetrainfall.com/
Spangled; I confess to being completely unaware of your .28C warming as confirmed by satellites but I’m not surprised. Is it a consensus now? On the other hand I believe the modern climate scientists still have a devil of a job sorting older weather records.
However in 1986 I met a young man from Canberra who as a graduate of some new science was fully deployed by his department in finding gold without leaving his chair for various companies from our old mineral records. This process was a big surprise as I had just left the mining industry which had by then automated most assaying procedures in the field. I thought that required a particular sensitivity in his so called “data mining”.
The management of device sensitivity over the long haul is what I did for a crust. It often meant I clashed with the odd academic out in the field. They frequently failed to appreciate the history of our instruments in monitoring trends. Drifting along was a constant theme in all process monitoring, something precise was an illusion.
Else where; I worked with evaporative engineering, flue gases and chemicals in production. The monitoring of air streams and their extremes is about as difficult as it gets in measuring techniques. Spot checks on a daily basis inside A/C ducts with a hand held Pitot tube and manometer also a sling cyclometer was the only way to measure our efficiency beyond the heat exchangers and drying hoods. Exposure time had to be minium.
Obtaining RH and managing dew point manually in these conditions gives me an insight to historic ships and their captains working in the tropics or round the poles with their crude equipment. Imagine sweat pouring down your hands, dripping off your nose onto your wet bulb as you read the temperature or perhaps the manometer is stuck in the frost on the Pitot tube. Recall that AirBus incident!
Gavin,
Your comment ” Environment engineering didn’t happen untill the 1970’s and that means you have no reliable records across the spectrum of measurements before then.” is very relevant with respect to measurements, particularly with respect the accuracy and comparability thereof.
I can only go back to the 1950’s, but even then many rural weather stations consisted of a max/min thermometer hung on a nail on the back verandah and an aneroid barometer in the kitchen of the local post office. With a bit of luck the post master’s wife or kids would read them each morning, or when they remembered. If two days running had the same max and min, then it was “oh, hell, forgot to reset the bugger again. Hey darl, was yesterday hotter or colder than the day before?” Is there any reason to believe remote stations in other countries were any better?
And we are supposed to believe this sort of data can give us a credible base to compare with today’s electronically derived 5 decimal place readings? Yeah, go pull the other one!
What nonsense gavin. Were that the case and you had this special sensitivity then how did you manage to fall for this feeble racket.
You know when I first looked into it I thought that it was real but benign. We are after all in an ice age. Why look a gifthorse in the mouth. Later I thought it was good inductive thinking that unfortunately turned out to be wrong, the verdict being on empirical grounds. Now it strikes me as a stupid theory from the start. Because there is so much it doesn’t take into account.
Yet you fell hook line and sinker for this idiocy right from the start and have never changed your view of it at all. You are a fool man. You don’t have any insight into anything. If you worked with evaporative engineering you’d know the inherent negative feedback that evaporation represents. Either you did do this work ,and are uncommonly stupid or you never did this and are still pretty stupid.
Yet another book from a climate scientist debunking AGW is about to be released.
The book is called “The unruly climate” authored by
Ole Humlum who is a professor in geophysics from the University of Oslo.
You may know of Prof Humlum as he is the creator of http://www.climate4you.com which is the best online resource on climate data.
http://www.bibliotek.trykkefrihed.dk/det-ustyrlige-klima.htm (use the google translator)
I do hope the book is released in english.
janama,
Good link, I hope Luke reads it.
From memory the proposed raising of the Wivenhoe would have trebled capacity and combined with the increased Borumba dam would provide water for most of this century.
These “uncommon events” of large scale rainfall need to fill these storages are often very common but big dams are needed to catch this huge runoff when it happens. They fill very quickly and also reduce the flood damage.
I don’t know where Luke has been all his life [maybe he’s very young] but these random, huge rain depressions are a way of life in this part of the world.
Compared with the political agony of building new dams, expanding existing dams is a tearless exercise with often better outcomes.
Janama – and then not for years and years ! What’s normal. How much evap for years ?
Have you actually seen the structure?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26340789-27197,00.html Post Traveston policy paralysis in banana-land
Cows not so bad for water & GHG ?
http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/livestocks-dainty-water-usage-footprint/1674734.aspx
And hey we could have increased the height of all the Toowoomba dams – wouldn’t that make you popular with the locals – they’d lynch ya ! They’d still be empty.
Dudes you have no idea of normal. You have 3-4 mega-droughts per century. Decadal variability max. 50s and 70s stand out as wet. The rest of the 20th century different. There is no year like the mean in many places. It’s just a statistic.
Wivenhoe already has a big flood compartment – but you can’t hold that water forever or a followup event might jeopardise the structure.
And unlike farms – shutting the gate on a city during drought tends to be unacceptable with the voters. Has to be 100%. Need number of dams geographically dispersed, conservation measures, recycling & de-sal. (or no people)
So will it eventually be $4M Qlders literally “on the piss”.
And have you considered taking the Wivenhoe Lake right back to the wall of Somerset Dam and the consequences of that ?
Drongo – It appears Luke may have read it but as usual failed to understand it.
I think you’ll find the suggestion is to pump the excess over the hill to the increased capacity Borumba Dam.
I’m off to Coolangatta for the weekend. 🙂
Janama says “Normal is when you have average rainfall as this article states”. It is a waste of time pondering rainfall patterns if you are looking at reliability of supply. The facts are simple enough. The view a decade ago was that Brisbanes water supply was reliable enouh given the historical record. It took a drought with inflows at he edge of, or outside the historic record to challenge that. At least JV Hodgkinson had a go at analysing history in terms of common and uncommon events. But as an accountant he would know you cant balance your cheque book unless you look at all the entries and do a running balance. It used to be said before the recent spate of creative accounting that double entry bookkeeping was the last breakthrough in accounting and that was was many centuries ago. But you cant arbitarily divide the hydrologic record up into two classes to prove your point.
I’ll be in Coolongatta around the 30/11/09; looking forward to some of those -vePDO storm swells.
gavin,
It’s amazing how you can gauge things with crude instruments [indicators]. Colours for steel temps, knots in a line and dead reckoning for longitude, stars, sun and swells for position, lattitude, time and direction, catgut for RH, seat of the pants for many forces etc.
Fluid dynamics can’t be worked out if you don’t know the forces involved but SOTP often gets you through. I’ve argued with scientists for years who said I couldn’t build something a certain way and needed to increase the engineering properties by a factor of ten. Because it was a racing machine this was plainly ridiculous so went ahead anyway but because I needed approval finally advised that the article had been built to my spec and had operated successfully for a hundred hours whereupon they issued an approval. No-one could work out the stresses so that other great gauge, trial and error, SOTP, [plan B] did the job.
I used to tune a V12 Ferrari engine with a string of manometers but found that a single decibel meter worked better. [a good ear]
Thought everyone might be interested in these contrasts of human land management in the same areas:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/photographs-of-what-land-management-of-landscape-can-result-in/
Spangled,
“I used to tune a V12 Ferrari engine with a string of manometers but found that a single decibel meter worked better.”
Color me green, with ENVY!!!!
Almost forgot, Pielke Sr. also reported on a Pan Evap paper:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/pan-evaporation-trends-and-its-relation-to-the-diagnosis-of-global-warming-comments-on-a-new-article-by-roderick-et-al-2009/
Kuhnkat, don’t be too envious of Drongo, with that V12 Ferrari engine.
I drove a Ferrari GT B, V12 in the 1968 Surfers Paradise 12 hour sports car race.
The noise of the valve gear was deafening, even with a helmet, & it was the worst handling car I ever drove on a race track.
We tested a stock standard 327 Holden Monaro on the track the next day. The Holden was 25 miles/hour [yes still miles then] slower down the straight, but was 6 seconds per lap quicker, & that was on road tyres.
Just because it has a flash name on it, does not make it good, & that goes for many things, not just cars.
Have a good carbon free holiday?
I have been walkabout writing a novel about a future dystopia. In it, science has been relegated to the dustbin of history, and all scientific discourse is carried out in the blogosphere. Anthony Watts has his website voted as the Best Science Website every year for the 50 years. Quite a nice place to live in, if a little warm at times.
Well, that new Roderick paper on pan evaporation just about does it for me; the slight increase in temperature has coincided with a decline in PE; this dovetails with Paltridge’s paper on the decline in SH and Lindzen’s paper showing an increase in TOA OLR; whatever is causing the slight increase in temp it sure isn’t AGW; but we already knew that from this paper;
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
What a great planet.
Hasbeen,
Yeah, but that was becauce you were running Borranis and those outdated Dunlop disc brakes.
That was old tech and not comparable to those state-of-the-art 327 Monaros.
Also that 275 GTB you drove was only 3.3 litres compared to the 327ci [about 5.5l] torquey Chevvy and it sure looked prettier[ I know, I was driving one of those yeller Midway Motors Monaro 327s at that meeting].
And Bill Brown didn’t have his suspension sorted…..
Anyhow, you know who won, that Ferrari 250 LM!
Very similar motor to yours.
Come off it Cohenite – we’ve known about Roderick’s great research for years. So what?
“I have been walkabout writing a novel about a future dystopia.”
SJT,
That’s a pretty sad thing to be doing on walkabout. You should be writing a U topian novel or at least something happy about our present wonderful climate.
You could use that great jewish quote; “I find the climate very effervescent, and I can’t remember ven it effer vasn’t”.
It would get your mind off those wacky GCMs.
So, Drongo, I’m not the only hasbeen around here. Poor Jen.
Mate, that was the day that all my illusions were shatted. I just couldn’t believe a Ferrari could be so bad. Don’t forget, we had enough pull to have Green Spot racing tyres on that thing, & the inboard discs were a little better than the Holdens drums.
It had enough poke, & the stopping was great, the problem was it wanted to swap ends, when ever the steering wheel was turned.
The most embarrassing thing was Doug Whitford, in the Datsun 2000 Fairlady. It took 9 laps for me to get far enough in front of him, to stop him passing me into Lukey, each lap.
I really liked the Monaros, but I don’t think I’d ever call them as state of the art. I had never expected to see any Ferrari blown away by what was really a yank tank, in drag.
Yes the old LM did good. Of course she was stroked along by a couple of blokes who well knew, that to finish first, first you had to finish, unlike Bill, with the P4.
Hasbeen,
My motorsport efforts were only amateurish, unlike you.
I remember your battles that day.
Undoubtedly one of the greatest races ever held in Qld. Everyone thought Sutcliffe in the GT40 had won until they did a countback.
Mad Flannery and Penny have been at it again.
Not “might be inundated”, “will be inundated”!
But then, of course, when it doesn’t happen we will be able to sue them and recoup our billions.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/14/2742769.htm?section=justin
Thanks spangled, Hasbeen and kuhnkat, now I know. “Anyhow, you know who won, that Ferrari 250 LM”. Not only that, but also the most excitement generated lately on this site has been about car racing. It is starting to make sense – of course rev heads would be in denial about AGW along with a few other things.
Bazza,
People who win races [whatever that race may be] or seriously give it their best shot, are compelled to know only too well the lessons of truth, honesty, conservation, efficiency etc to the nth degree.
They don’t dabble in bullshit.
When the flag drops, the bullshit stops.
I’ve just written to Penny about that crazy alarmist report she is releasing in Sydney today claiming “250,000 homes will be inundated” and asked her what her evidence was.
BTW, her and Combet’s websites seem to be down, must be SLR.
Can you believe these wackos? Evidence is showing a reduction in rates of SLR and they produce a report with almost twice IPCC projected SLR maximums.
If it wasn’t so obvious and serious what the “great orchestrations” were all about it would be a joke.
I suppose we gotta be thankful with the “Alarmist of the year” on board, Penny didn’t claim 8 storeys of inundation.
janama, while you’re in Coolangatta, see if you can spot a dalek getting about muttering, “inundate, inundate”.
sorry – haven’t spotted any so far but I’ll keep and eye out – anyhow the seafood is good 🙂 white wine and fresh prawns go together so well.
Hasbeen,
not to argue with you or anything, BUT, even I could get laid if I owned the Ferrari!!!!
Other than that, my 2001 GSXR1000K1 does OK in the canyons. My 1983 Suzuki Katana GS1100SD does a fairly good cruise, but, won’t touch the Ferrari unless the lady loves motorcycles.
Some pics of my babies!!
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=5377&id=100000229631425&l=64e04e3047
kuhnkat,
I have fond memories of crossing the Hay Plain in my old Faz with a big Suzuki in my mirrors. He stayed with me to 140 [mph] but 150 was too much windage for him. I later got pulled over by a m/c copper and I remember telling him that if I drove any slower on that long trip that I would go to sleep and kill myself. He only booked me for the minimum.I was going to the first AGP in Adelaide where I met and had lunch with ex Ferrari World Champ Phil Hill from the USA and he drove my old Faz around Adelaide Int Raceway. While there I met Stirling Moss and Fangio.
My life was complete.
Kuhnkat, I didn’t own the things, just drove them racing. I had a 15 year old Humber, followed by a 10 year old Chrysler. I had to have somethinh big enough to tow the trailers with.
If there were any sexy girls around, I’d walk past my cars, pretending they weren’t mine. It didn’t matter too much, really, once you’ve driven an F1 Brabham around Bathurst, the rest is a bit anticlimactic. Perhaps that’s the answer, get Penny a drive ifnone around Bathurst, even a V8 would probably do, & she may become anticlimate. [sorry]
You blokes are mad. Those things are dangerous. A mate of mine, Ron Toombs [Spelling] was pretty good on a bike. He used to tell me I was mad driving cars, because they may roll on you. This while he was nursing the latest broken arm/collar bone etc.
Didn’t get all the way down conrod one year, [69 i think], but I’ll bet he’d rather that, than a nursing home at 85.
Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
Drive of one. Sorry.
Well – looks the thread is about to kark it. Nothing but geriatrics reminiscing about “back in the day”.
I had hoped to get to 1000 comments for Jen but unless someone starts a major fight looks terminal.
Anyway have to go and adjust my roller rockers and balance my Dellortos.
Another hot date awaits.
More heart burn for denialist scum
Science 13 November 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5955, pp. 984 – 986
Partitioning Recent Greenland Mass Loss
Michiel van den Broeke,1,* Jonathan Bamber,2 Janneke Ettema,1 Eric Rignot,3,4 Ernst Schrama,5 Willem Jan van de Berg,1 Erik van Meijgaard,6 Isabella Velicogna,3,4 Bert Wouters5,6
Mass budget calculations, validated with satellite gravity observations [from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites], enable us to quantify the individual components of recent Greenland mass loss. The total 2000–2008 mass loss of ~1500 gigatons, equivalent to 0.46 millimeters per year of global sea level rise, is equally split between surface processes (runoff and precipitation) and ice dynamics. Without the moderating effects of increased snowfall and refreezing, post-1996 Greenland ice sheet mass losses would have been 100% higher. Since 2006, high summer melt rates have increased Greenland ice sheet mass loss to 273 gigatons per year (0.75 millimeters per year of equivalent sea level rise). The seasonal cycle in surface mass balance fully accounts for detrended GRACE mass variations, confirming insignificant subannual variation in ice sheet discharge.
1 Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Netherlands.
2 Bristol Glaciology Centre, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
3 Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA.
5 Delft Institute of Earth Observation and Space Systems, Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
6 Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, De Bilt, Netherlands.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091112141311.htm
And good news for farmers seeking carbon credits
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/15/2743093.htm
Worse than you thought eh, Luke?
And do you really feel that this CPR scheme will achieve anything other than wealth redistribution?
Better go and have fun fun fun while your hot date is still attached to the T Bird.
Any of you smart fellers want to be involved in this?
http://www.co2isgreen.org/default.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1
Some light reading for those of the warming persuasion. Particularly SJT.
http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=433b593b-6637-4a42-970b-bdef8947fa4e&sponsor=
Lukefartard,
the only reason they have to partition it is that it is the only way they can show a section that is WTWT!!!!
If they use the same survey techniques as they recently started on Western Antarctica they would get similar results. NUTHIN’ HAPPENIN’!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sory if that doesn’t fit your POV!!
Come off it drongo; your TV is just another Heartland stooge
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tom_Segalstad
With respect to alternatives to Traveston it amazes me that the Paradise Dam on the Burnett River, about 100km to the north of the Traveston site is never mentioned as a supply for SE Queensland. Its a moderate sized reservoir (300,000 ML), fairly full of water at present and the water is mostly used for low value agriculture. Its reliability as a storage is yet to be tested given it was only completed in 2005 but the Burnett is a substantial river and the Paradise being on the lower part of the river could be expected to be fairly reliable. It certainly seems a better option than the other wacky ideas around for SEQ water of pumping from the Burdekin Falls Dam (1000s km to north), new dams on the Fitzroy system (500 km to north) or dams on the Richmond and Clarence in NSW.
Luke is right in some regards. This thread despite it’s unholy length, is spoilt like most others on the climate in blogsphere as it meanders through decreasing wit (kuhnkat) is mostly devoid of original home grown science or thought
Perhaps Gavin you could give me an explanation as to why Penny Wong said this morning that sea level rise is expected to be 1.1m by 2100 when the most recent report by the Bureau of Meteorology’s National Tidal Centre, issued in June, stated there has been an average yearly increase of 1.9mm in the combined net rate of relative sea level at Port Kembla, south of Sydney and University of Colorado says the current rate globally is 3.1mm/year – and the rate is slowing. Even the IPCC 2007 has stated somewhere around 450mm max.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_global.jpg
Maybe you could also tell me why no “climate science” journalists are challenging her false assertions.
To Jon on “wacky ideas” I had a flash while reading back on the thread and thinking the buck stops here eventually. It follows years of input on the local water issue and lots of casual discussion with former refugees, emigrants or dropins from overseas living in Canberra. Yesterday it was a group of Tongans at my garage sale, today at the Sunday markets, two well settled ladies from the Greek Isles and Maritus.
What do we have in common as escapees from our island birth place? An expectation of good things on the mainland!
In Tasmania we coped a large part of the hydro philosophy left over from winding down the snowy scheme and that flavour in both local and federal politics hung around for years. At some point I twigged the progress gurus on the conveyer belt had over sold the resource well in advance of project completion and decided along with a few others the only way to get off the merry go round (community debt v big biz) was to leave the scene and fight it from outside the system.
It’s easy to convert the peasants Jon. Going way back, a number of my father’s bros were into big government earth moving contracts and many other local families were in the contractor transport biz. We finished up with a fully tied up catchment too big for our braces and very little ongoing work security to boot.
My other ancestor lines, light house keepers, warders, farmers employed by the overseas gentry, Irish famine refugees and so on. Celtic numskulls still living in hope, many of us hey.
Even with a broader catchment, our fickle climate makes it certain we can’t deliver constant fresh supply in most places where demand is artificially high. The alternative is however to set a target of near as possible to 100% recycling. Perhaps too soon for many SEQ residents to bring it on yet but all big biz should have the new regs imposed now.
Fair dinkum, I’m just trying to enjoy grandpa gavin’s efforts at taking the whippersnappers down a peg or 2 and there’s luke, up to his old tricks, dragging out GRACE from under the rock again; GRACE produced some mischief with the Antarctic, especially AGW’s favourite vision of doom, the WAP;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/20/antarctic_ice_loss_overestimated/
As for GRACE and Greenland;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008742.shtml
Now be quiet luke, we’re listening to gavin.
Cohenite has determined the AGW “science” has been relegated to the status of the frisbee.
hehehehe
You bloody beauddy mate.
Janama, & Cohenite; its time you guys realised there is always going to be difficulties in assessing the significance of change in vertical measurements SL, ice loss etc made from platforms orbiting a rather lumpy earth.
It should be enough to say there are no perfect circles in nature and the bird’s eye view we need to focus on are the area changes from a flat earth approach. I maintain Delta A is roughly equal to Delta V
Also it’s too much to expect our ice cover and SL changes to remain proportional to fossil fuel consumption. The impact depends on rate of change associated with possible tipping points. Nature is seldom linear from a distance.
Having discovered yesterday that many of the AGW denialist contributors are simply revheads, tonight on the Darwin story I learnt his major critics were geologists locked into the fossil record. Those guys have form . Jen should turn in her cave. Her 40 days in the desert are up tomorrow, and she now knows this site and her case are unsustainable.
gavin, you say: “I maintain Delta A is roughly equal to Delta V”; then why the necessity for this?
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008JCLI2637.1&ct=1
WUWT has just published a pdf linked list of the top 450 skeptical peer reviewed papers
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/15/reference-450-skeptical-peer-reviewed-papers
Enjoy…
We ought to move onto some other doomsday cult. None of these idiots are coming up with evidence for this one. This 2012 cult has more legs then the global warming racket. Not because anything is likely to happen on any given year. But on the basis that there seems to be periodic catastrophic and extinction events.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event
And that supernovae seems to lead to massive volcanic activity on earth.
You can join the protest here: at last check it was 4609 counted in so far 7306 counted out so far
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx
@ janama November 16th, 2009 at 4:44 am
“You can join the protest here: at last check it was 4609 counted in so far 7306 counted out so far
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/proveit.aspx”
Lol…not quite the “Does God Exist?” backfire here http://uk.alpha.org, but still looking good.
Birdy,
I support the “Hunting Hypothesis” for these exterminations because mankind, even if he didn’t need to kill these huge animals, had plenty of idle time as the result of easy pickings and being inclined more towards circuses than bread it would have been great entertainment.
Also many great myths, propaganda and bedtime boogeyman stories would have been generated by these frightening animals and rising generations would have felt the compulsion and sought the acclamation in that activity.
Does this bring anything similar to mind with modern youth wanting to save humankind based on myth, propaganda and bedtime boogeymen?
In spite of these sad extinctions I am happy to announce that I have just photographed an albino Superb Blue Fairy Wren.
Not your everyday encounter.
It’s shameless self-promotion time. I just guest-posted an updated version of the Whitebark Pines article that Jennifer kindly allowed me to run here a few months ago. If you’re looking for a relatively nontechnical conversation-stopper to counter the wild claims of ‘unprecedented’ global warming in the late 20th Century, this may fill the bill. Here’s a link to that expanded article at Anthony Watts’ blog. http://tinyurl.com/y9jl8c6
Larry,
No shame in that! Good Stuff.
“For some years, we have witnessed a noticeable cooling of the atmosphere, sudden variations in the seasons and exceptional hurricanes or inundations to which France seems to be increasingly subjected”.
Circular No. 18 from the Minister of the Interieur under King Louis XVIII, 25th April 1821.
(The Minister blamed deforestation).
Green Davey,
the more things change the more they stay the same.
http://www.john-daly.com/
Even if Tas has risen 100 mm in the last 168 years, that’s all the sea has risen too.
Birdy,
Would this doomsday cult do?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26355958-952,00.html
“Come off it drongo; your TV is just another Heartland stooge”
gavin,
Why, because he talks plainly?
“IPCC’s “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma rests on invalid presumptions and a rejectable non-realistic carbon cycle modelling which simply refutes reality, like the existence of carbonated beer or soda “pop” as we know it.”
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Jen,
If this has been posted earlier ignore.
E.M.Smith is in the process of dissection of GISSTemp at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
Among his findings of what goes on in the GISTemp calculations was
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
which shows an order of magnitude fall in thermometer numbers for USA from 1177 in 2006 to 134 in 2007
His summary – .
“GIStemp has a fatal flaw in the initial data load that makes it completely useless for any date after 2006. Since the GLOBAL average temperature and the GLOBAL anomaly maps depend on the high percentage of US thermometers in the data set in the past, changing that number by a factor of 10 in the present, and with clear geographical misrepresentation, makes any present usage of GIStemp products invalid.”
Spangled; your John Daly has been out of the loop since an inquiry found it more likely that mark was the high water mark as opposed to the mean. It’s another case of dodgy records re its calibration at the time. Interested folks should read the following-
“Ross’ journal of the event is confusing. It is not clear whether the mark was made of the mean sea-level, or high water. Ross did make two more marks on the Falkland Island on the same voyage, and these were both above mean sea-level.
A paper published in 1889 by Captain Shortt recorded the wording of the plaque, including the time the mark was struck and the height of the sea given by Lempriere’s tide gauge. By taking a measurement of the height of the sea, and estimating what the tides were when the mark was made, Shortt determined that the mark was made near high water”.
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/index.php
Where are we going in 2009?
“The Risks from Sea Level Rise – assessments from Australia & Cape Town”
October 27, 2009 by Dirk Visser
http://www.cpsl.co.za/2009/10/risks-from-rise-sea-level-rise-assessments/
“The National Tidal Centre (formerly the National Tidal Facility) is reponsible for sea level monitoring and analysis for the purpose of deriving trends in absolute sea level and producing national tide predictions, tide streams and related information”
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_obs_vs_proj.html
http://www.csiro.au/multimedia/Climate-Adaptation-Video.html
Spangled; your John Daly has been out of the loop since an inquiry found it more likely that mark was the high water mark as opposed to the mean. It’s another case of dodgy records re its calibration at the time. Interested folks should read the following-
“Ross’ journal of the event is confusing. It is not clear whether the mark was made of the mean sea-level, or high water. Ross did make two more marks on the Falkland Island on the same voyage, and these were both above mean sea-level.
A paper published in 1889 by Captain Shortt recorded the wording of the plaque, including the time the mark was struck and the height of the sea given by Lempriere’s tide gauge. By taking a measurement of the height of the sea, and estimating what the tides were when the mark was made, Shortt determined that the mark was made near high water”.
http://soer.justice.tas.gov.au/2003/casestudy/4/index.php
Where are we going in 2009?
“The Risks from Sea Level Rise – assessments from Australia & Cape Town”
October 27, 2009 by Dirk Visser
http://www.cpsl.co.za/2009/10/risks-from-rise-sea-level-rise-assessments/
“The National Tidal Centre (formerly the National Tidal Facility) is reponsible for sea level monitoring and analysis for the purpose of deriving trends in absolute sea level and producing national tide predictions, tide streams and related information”
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_proj_obs_vs_proj.html
http://www.csiro.au/multimedia/Climate-Adaptation-Video.html
All blog readers should note that its essential to get a good handle on your instrument before quoting it.
Let’s repeat for the umpteenth time, in modern measurement practice we carried at least three gauges to the job and in some cases made something up from first principles like putting an appropriate liquid in a U tube or measuring a weighted string with a ruler. In case some have forgotten; I frequently use the horizon as my primary level.
IMO Captain Shortt’s review carries far more weight than any biased blogger’s view made from outside the old measurement culture
gavin, they’re such dud links; the CSIRO ones especially are just rubbish; The NTC’s latest report is here;
http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf
Have a gander at Fig 15, as time goes on the trends are absolutely flat to miniscule after the intial increase which must be an artifact. Some genuine info about sea level ‘rise’;
http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf
http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/home/files/Cazenave_et_al_GPC_2008.pdf
Note the second link uses luke’s favourite measuring stick, GRACE.
Whenever a govt. agency claims that we have to make huge changes today due to a projected change from climate in the future, it is just tax payer funded science fiction.
The pesky real world data keeps interfering with the pretty models, and it drives them bonkers.
Or, as we see from the true believers here, drove them bonkers.
“Spangled; your John Daly has been out of the loop since an inquiry found it more likely that mark was the high water mark as opposed to the mean.”
gavin,
I’m sure you know this but maybe you are having a senior moment.
In 1841 and for centuries before, tides played a greater role in our lifestyles than they do today. All naval and merchant marine activity was much more tide-dependant because it was only wind, tide and oar propelled.
With no refrigeration, getting fish and farm produce to market in edible condition, lived by tide knowledge.
Admirals and monarchs came and went only if the tide allowed.
Larger proportions of the population made it their business to know more about tides and they had to be calculated very accurately.
High and low tide levels varied from day to day but mean sea level was a constant and by looking at a cliff such as this at low tide you could see at a glance where MSL was any day of the week.
OTOH to get a high tide level you would have to wait for that one highest tide of the year.
MSL is the datum that has been used since well before this period and to suggest that this is a high tide mark is foolish.
Here is a bit more evidence on lack of SLR.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
Yesterday I rang a neighbour of the 1960s who alongside us built a concrete seawall at identical level at the same time.
This wall was built from concrete blocks, reinforced and poured with concrete and it is still in good working order, straight and true.
The tide and flood levels over the years have been recorded on the unpainted concrete courses of blocks and I asked him if in the 46 years he has been there if he has noticed the quoted SLR of around 3 mm per year [around 6 inches] and he claims there has been nothing.
Not very scientific, I know, but if this rise was happening, it would show.
Drongo – here’s a GE pic taken this year of the steps down to the beach that we would use in the 50s.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/steps.jpg
They are exactly the same number of steps relative to the sand, nothing’s changed.
janama,
It’s a similar story from people who have been using concrete tide pools built into coastal rocks and tide levels on old bridges like the Hornibrook Highway etc.
There is still a lot of this infrastructure around that is 70+ years old.
If we were even getting a non-increasing trend, it would be apparent you would think.
exactly.
I’m reaching boiling point now on the BS that is published on climate.
I’m at screaming point!
Janama go ahead and scream. But you need another outlet. Are you an active denailist in your community.? Do you air your views and engage other than on here.? Pray tell. Give us a diary of what you have done this week. Have you come out?
bazza; read this;
http://batr.net/cohoctonwindwatch/LAMAR%20ALEXANDER%20on%20NUCLELAR%20vs%20WIND.pdf
Bazza – there’s no point being an active sceptic in my area – I don’t know one local who believes in AGW, it’s a farming community.
Great article Cohenite – thanks for sharing.
Bazza – I notice you haven’t answered my request to explain how Penny Wong got her 1.1m sea level rise – well Lazlo has answered it on Andrew Bolt’s blog
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
and guess who concocted the deceptive data – Will Steffen!
There appears to be no level to which he’ll stoop to deceive the public.
Spangled; yes I do have senior moments as indicated by my recent double post, sorry guys, but I’m not convinced you know better than anyone else on the blog, what that historic Port Arthur water mark actually indicates. Can we get a consensus here based on the science?
Cohenite’s link to the latest NTC report should give us a valid answer, but where –
http://www-cluster.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60102/IDO60102.2009_1.pdf
As you all know by now I don’t go for vertical SL measurements and IMO the pdf above indirectly supports not only my case for the horizontal approach but also the case for simpler indicators including seaweed lines on the beach. Note too, we have only a very sketchy outline at this point based on a hand full of modern tide gauges.
Numerous documented failures so soon in these new routines must also cause concern and I say that as a veteran in monitoring peripheral devices. Ideally; we should give everything in a big system a thump at least once a day to make sure there is a response.
Calibration used to be my last resort and that could annoy some outside the loop. In any case it may be only a faulty routine that is the problem.
Typical faults with liquid level/density transmitters are the wet leg or dry leg tapings becoming blocked with sludge as in the case with bubbler tubes, No amount of forced balance precision engineering in the D/P cell or fancy electronics will overcome such a primary element failure nor will fancy telemetry help in a transmitter power failure. However prodding the float in a well of rich liquid with a long stick will often break the bonding scum. Daily checks please if you can afford it. Background for those interested in liquid level
http://www.omega.com/literature/transactions/volume4/t9904-12-press.html
BTW although the Port Arthur site offers very calm waters most of the time, I can’t see Spangled doing a fine chisel line from a dinghy right at the meniscus twice a day.
janama; Will Steffen has a wee bit more to stand on than your D H a Bolt
http://www.anu.edu.au/climatechange/content/author/will
If he’s an warmer he’s got nothing to stand on. You are just a liar gavin. Get interested in another doomsday cult since this one has been exposed.
It’s not a wee bit to stand on – it’s a wee bit to hold onto to retain his position and funding.
he’s fiddling the books!! disgraceful!
The cavalry have arrived at last
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/18/2746110.htm
” Newcastle University professor says his research shows it is a myth carbon emissions are causing higher temperatures, blamed for the Murray-Darling catchment drying up.
Newcastle University Associate Professor Stewart Franks is the author of a paper due to be published in the American journal Geophysical Research Letters.
He says his research has found elevated temperatures in the Murray-Darling catchment are caused by a combination of natural factors associated with drought and not carbon emissions.
He also questions theories on evaporation.
“The claims that have been made are that higher temperatures have led to higher evaporation,” he said.
“Our studies have shown that clearly isn’t the case and in fact the claim that higher temperatures cause higher evaporation is actually against the known physics of evaporation.”
Professor Franks says claims about increased evaporation rates and climate change impacts on the Murray-Darling Basin are entirely false.”
Naturally the ABC News ONline hides the article as best it can – don’t want this to get out.
Will Wong and Steffen ever be exposed? I can’t see how anyone could ever call it accidental, or due to ignorance.
gavin,
Here is what Capt. Sir James Clark Ross said in his 1847 book:
“The fixing of solid and well secured marks for the purpose of showing the mean level of the ocean at a given epoch, was suggested by Baron von Humboldt, in a letter to Lord Minto, subsequent to the sailing of the expedition (Ross’ own expedition of the `Terror’ and `Erebus’), and of which I did not receive any account until our return (to Tasmania) from the Antarctic seas, which is the reason of my not having established a similar mark on the rocks of Kerguelen Island, or some part of the shores of Victoria Land (in Antarctica).”
High water marks have never been used as a datum point.
gavin,
Getting back to crude instruments, I can often get more info from a bare patch of dirt on a bush track than I could with a surveilance camera.
With GRACE and other satellite systems dealing out distances in three fifths of five eighths of a human hair it is hard not to laugh when evidence that is sticking out like dogs thingos, is conveniently ignored.
I reckon Jennifer has gone to Copenhagen to acclimatize for the cold weather which will accompany the Big Conference. By the way, why are K. Rudd, P. Wong, and I am sure a barmy army of acolytes, going there at our expense, creating clouds of CO2? What will be achieved? It’s like holding a conference on Y2K.
By the way, it is cold and wet here in Perth. I lit the potbelly last night, and this afternoon, for the first time in November since records began. 25 mm of rain in the gauge today. Should I notify the ABC? Must be that Indian Ocean Dipole. You know, the one that is causing hot dry weather in South Australia. Luke, how are the SSTs in the Timor Sea?
Gods, I wish it was cold and wet here in Canberra….
Franks “Our studies have shown that clearly isn’t the case and in fact the claim that higher temperatures cause higher evaporation is actually against the known physics of evaporation.” hmmm
PeterB, a big patch in my back lawn that was all clover several weeks ago turned pale yellow in this current mid 30’s warm spell. It also happens to all the other green stuff in the MDB every year about now as soils rapidly dry out despite recent rains. Mowing rubbish on the nature strip created a mini dust storm west of Belconnen yesterday.
Similar wilt in veggies was not caused by the breeze as noted by prominent gentlemen opening the wind farm
http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2009/11/18/2746561.htm
Spangles; I nod to your superior knowledge in all things marine
BTW Franks is another part of the Bolt Carter click where most comments are based on their notion of “fraud”.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_fraud_of_wind_power/
janama; the big question is, who is funding them?
gavin,
Been watching the Bungendore WF for a while. I only caught the tail end of the ABC news last night where someone was complaining about preferential funding going to rooftop PV, thus starving large scale projects (of any kind). I have to agree. Factoring in our local feed-in tariff would mean that PV power equivalent to the output of Bungendore would cost 13 times as much.
An ActewAGL door-knocker told me the other day that we, in Canberra, will get power from this farm. While that may be true in an electron sense his employer will not get much in the way of renewable energy certificates.
gavin
‘Similar wilt in veggies was not caused by the breeze as noted by prominent gentlemen opening the wind farm’
You can’t use the wilting vegetable example to explain evaporation, two different things altogether, they will wilt for lack of water even if there is little evaporation.
On the other hand you either are not very observant or never did hang out the washing.
If you did, you’d noticed that they dry a lot faster on a cool day with a strong breeze, than on a warm calm day.
Re that becalmed Bungendore wind farm:
“140 megawatts is being produced …….”
But just not today.
Another observation that you don’t need sophisticated instruments for: since the big climate shift of 1976, wind speeds have reduced on average.
Under the handicapping system for yachts you could always trade off waterline length [speed] for sail area [horsepower].
Prior to ’76 you could clean up by having a long boat with a small sail area but since then you need ever increasing rig size to see you through a long ocean race if you’re going to maintain constant high speed.
Doesn’t bode well for wind energy.
Marcus; unlike janama’s guru I worked in industrial evaporation processes for a least a dozen years doing daily spot checks on continuous wet web drying, heat exchangers, wet & dry steam production etc and imo, I’m an expert at the close line as a direct consequence.
She, also retired as a matter of fact after growing up in Germany is bound to disagree. However I’m the one who lived in a very cold, extremely wet climate long enough to negotiate the installation of electric clothes dryers in all modern prefab homes. Unfortunately I witnessed several old mining houses burn down overnight before that job was completed. Needless to say it was nappies and baby clothes drying on horses in front of wood fires that were the cause.
A few days ago I was reminded of my introduction to evaporation techniques in the food industry by a vintage vegemite jar on offer at the markets. Thin film evaporation of spent brewer’s liquids as a continuous mid 1960’s process was patented then. Consider if you please how the addition of loads of salt helped both taste and evaporation.
Marcus; Vacuum kettles, kilns, smoke houses, incubators in bio research. effluents and so on, there isn’t much I haven’t touched in environment control
gavin, it’s simple; with moisture on the ground insolation will preferentially evaporate rather than warm the air; this is consistent with AGW theory which wants us all to believe that water is an immense positive feedback to CO2; with the evaporation of a wet surface happening latent heat is trnasferred with the evaporated water tot he atmosphere; there, unfortunately for AGW, the moisture uses the latent heat to turn into clouds which provide a negative feedback;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
This paper is long before Spencer and Braswell and Lindzen etc and should have shut the enhanced greenhouse effect right up.
With no moisture on the surface insolation heats both the surface and the immediate air with occasional dire results;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5873/195
Franks’ paper is spot on and about the only thing AGW can throw against it is the mythical monster, the Modoki.
gavin
“there isn’t much I haven’t touched’
I don’t particularly care what you touched or not, I have been reading your posts for a long time, you come across to me as the “crusty old tradesman” who always got the young inexperienced engineer out of bother in the movies.
As I said you are not observant, what is the common thread in clothes dryers and industrial drying processes and what I said about hanging out washing?
The movement of air to carry away the moisture laden air that prevents further evaporation.
I wasn’t talking about drying and evaporation in the Scottish highlands or wherever, in perpetual fog and dampness.
Marcus; a wiki quote “Three key parts to evaporation are heat, humidity and air movement”
“When clothes are hung on a laundry line, even though the ambient temperature is below the boiling point of water, water evaporates. This is accelerated by factors such as low humidity, heat (from the sun), and wind. In a clothes dryer hot air is blown through the clothes, allowing water to evaporate very rapidly” note the bit on kinetic energy too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporation#Factors_influencing_the_rate_of_evaporation
Cohenite; another wiki quote “Evaporation is an essential part of the water cycle. Solar energy drives evaporation of water from oceans, lakes, moisture in the soil, and other sources of water”
Other readers should note; one has to get all these molecules up to speed before they go airbone and leave the pan a bit cooler
Spangled; I got sidetracked finding web images of the “mosquito fleet” that once served Tasmania’s trading ports including tiny Camp Creek on the Inglis River estuary at Wynyard. I often visited some “couta boats” also “permanently” moored there after ww2.
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/resources/fullimage.aspx?OBJECT=photographs&page=11&ID=WYHS_000114&ImageNum=1
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/resources/fullimage.aspx?OBJECT=photographs&page=11&ID=WYHS_000109&ImageNum=1
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/resources/fullimage.aspx?OBJECT=photographs&page=11&ID=WYHS_000113&ImageNum=1
What’s the bet, a gaff rigged ketch or schooner can still sail across Bass Strait in double quick time, if not; in some future Sydney to Hobart?
gavin,
Great spot.
I looked at a farm on the mouth of the Inglis River. River and ocean frontage, 240 acres for $240,000. My missus said it was too far to come and feed the chooks. Cows grazing on the kelp. Gawd! Beautiful!
A good modern yacht will average twice the speed of those old-timers, lovely though they be. I designed and built a 60 foot cold moulded ply yacht with 100% ballast ratio that would do 30 knots.
Spangles; on my reckoning you had to be looking at either the 9 hole Wynyard Golf Course or the original Fossil Bluff farm before it was sold off for real estate some decades back.
http://www.wynyardgolfclub.com.au/info.htm
we once had a golf club “ferry” crossing, via a clinker built row boat between the customs shed shown and a little sheltered jetty on the far side
http://eheritage.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/resources/fullimage.aspx?PLACE=Wynyard%2c+Tasmania&page=10&ID=WYHS_000122&ImageNum=1
I find these amazing old pics on the State library site under “Wynyard” BTW there is a good shot of the Bluff from Table Cape by Frank Hurley on the NLA page
gavin,
It was either on the site of the present golf club or immediately next door [west].
During the big crunch of the early 90s [Paul’s recession we had to have] that magnificent farm was for sale for $240,000.
More snow on the AGW parade…
http;//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33910709/ns/weather/
Com’on snow for Big Al in Copenhagen.
The credibility of the blabfest will plummet to zero if he repeats his grand entrance ( Bali).
But we can be sure Big Al’s ego will get the better of him.
That’s if the airports are not closed with snow!
Ahahahahahahahahaha.
“I’m an expert at the close line as a direct consequence.”
No – you are experienced in it’s operation.
The expert is the guys who designed it.
Ooops correction due for my ‘clothes” line above
Janama; wanna bet I can’t make the vapour fly like steam from a load of spin dried on a deadline in direct morning sunlight after frost?
After listening to an item on RN about “tinkering” I feel obliged to offer this link
http://www.ibys.org/shed/?page_id=7
Essential creativity starts in the backyard and the recent ABC David Williams TV series “Addicted to Money” paid due respect to this culture in the last episode “Peak Everything” tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200911/programs/DO0838W003D2009-11-19T203500.htm
sorry if you missed it
Conscience makes cowards of us all.
That is a dangerous concept in the age of e-mail archives.
Someone at Hadley has had an attack of conscience, and has dumped their e-mail files for the world to see.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/11/bummer-i-didnt-make-the-list.html#comments
Go to post 20, the ‘FOIA’ post.
The download has been mulitply-checked and is virus free, apparently. My corporate detectors, which are updated extremely regularly, think it is OK.
If anyone thinks that the cynical boorish behavior of AGW true believers here is atypical of AGW true believers, download and read the files. Just about any accusation of cynical and deceptive behavior on the part of our AGW friends turns out to be true.
hunter,
This confirms what we always knew.
As blatantly corrupt as it is, I bet it doesn’t change most warmer’s opinions one bit.
They don’t want their religion spoilt by inconvenient truths.
Hunter, I don’t know if t was someone at Hadley, but whoever did it has got a tiger by its soft spot. Luke (group), SJT, and all you other believers with feet of clay, the day is ended. Your science has been shown to be an open conspiracy to deceive, and obfuscate. Everything the cynics/skeptics have been saying appears to be proven true!
It will be all over the web by tomorrow, but what is more important journalists love the controversy. There’s a Pulitzer in this for someone who follows up.
At this writing it can be found on Jeff Id’s, Lucia’s, and Watts’, blogs, and who knows how many other references. Here’s the Watts link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-news-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hundreds-of-files-released/
yes – both WUWT and CA are flooded – very hard to get to see them
here’s an example:
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi Tom
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
travesty!
Kevin
Tom Wigley wrote:
Dear all,
At the risk of overload, here are some notes of mine on the recent
lack of warming. I look at this in two ways. The first is to look at
the difference between the observed and expected anthropogenic trend
relative to the pdf for unforced variability. The second is to remove
ENSO, volcanoes and TSI variations from the observed data.
Both methods show that what we are seeing is not unusual. The second
method leaves a significant warming over the past decade.
These sums complement Kevin’s energy work.
Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of
warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”. I do not
agree with this.
Tom.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We
are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past
two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow.
The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it
smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was
about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was
canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing
weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning:
tracking Earth’s global energy. /Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the
moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published
in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even
more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is
inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC
are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with
ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real
PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the
switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for
first time since Sept 2007. see
so where’s the lukebot?
“so where’s the lukebot?”
He’s still looking for his feet.
The last he saw of them was they were attached to his legs when this story cut them off.
Comment from: janama
so where’s the lukebot?
Emergency briefing at RC?
You can download FOI2009.zip from here and not add further load to WUWT or CA.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=75J4XO4T
Good grief – look at em tossing off. Do you think that serious scientists hating time wasting denialist filth’s guts is surprising. Boring – ya got nuttin’ – most of it’s fabricated bullshit anyway – must have taken the denialist shills years to type it all up ! zzzzzzzzzzzz
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says-leaked-data-is-real.html
IT IS TRUE, see the latest at Bolt, McIntyre, Lucia, WUWT, Jonova etc.
No wriggle room left you poor silly fools.
Luke, SJT, et. al. from the believer community. Losing one’s life long view of the world is difficult. Luke, the data/email commentary in the hacked file is, was and will be real. The ineptitude, collusion and hubris of those contained in that file release are breath taking.
DENIALIST(S)!!!
Sucked in by internet wizards with oil money hey? Beauty of the internet it’s a big free-for-all when it comes to sources and facts.
First place I look for is the source then who is paying the bill but I actually checked the temp before reading this latest lot of droppings.
For those bothered about truth this part of Australia is currently in the grip of an unseasonable heat wave.
BTW It seems none of the majors are running the Had cru story yet so I guess they did some homework too.
Gavin, deny the facts till the cows come home, but the press will have their pint of blood on this one. Gradually, they have been turning, this one might be the tipping point. Without the press, who should be embarrassed by naively following these ?scientists?, there would have been no AGW story. They will turn on themselves like sharks in a feeding frenzy. Soon!
The silence is deafening from the believers. C’mon SJT. Your gods are dead.
Gavin, Your name’s sake, after reading the file, is an obvious sock puppet for AGW promoters.
Luke, Please, at the end of the day have enough self-respect to just shut up.
The major media are always behind, in the age of internet.
Dream on, if you think this has no legs.
By the way, the file was not hacked. It was leaked by an insider. Someone with a conscience. Someone apparently rare in the AGW community.
Anyone who says this archive is simply noble scientists dealing with pesky denialist scum is simply dishonest. These AGW rats are to climate science what Madoff was to investment advising.
This quote about how AGW promoters simply rewrite history to make it fits is especially informative:
“Author: Geoff
Comment:
How to do science:
At 06:25 28/09/2009, Tom Wigley wrote: Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. …..”
Nothing like ‘smoothing away’ inconvenient data to make your conclusion a bit clearer, no?
You smug schills, posting here day after day about how skeptics are corrupt: stuff it.
Real or not these private email musings are just that. interesting background chat!
meanwhile “A hot air mass continues to reside over the southeast of the continent and this combined with northerly winds directed by a high pressure system in the Tasman Sea has brought record maximum temperatures and Severe Fire dangers for the ACT during Friday”
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN10035.shtml
CoRev – you really are having yourself on mate if you think this means anything at all. Seriously you people are a major worry to civilised society. There is no evidence of widespread anything – all we have are evil little elves spreading mischief. And nobody needs to hack denialist servers to get “the dirt” – it’s abundantly clear from the way you conduct yourselves what you stand for and your methods. No further insight needed.
And it’s just too bad that the global atmosphere doesn’t read emails eh?
In fact RC sums it up well what it doesn’t represent. Ya got nuttin !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Gavin changes the subject from the uncomfortable email-gate, and Luke goes into defensive mode by attacking.
Luke, are you one of the emailers? Are you potentially implicated in the fraud, data tampering, collusion and unethical scientific behavior? I did notice CSIRO referenced, any of your mates included?
Look, the argument for AGW action has been made because of the claims of unprecedented temp increases. Those behind those claims are called out in these emails as ethically challenged scientifically.
Crawling into a cave of denial isn’t the solution. Nor is attacking the messenger. That’s what got P Jones, M Mann, Briffa, et al in trouble. Your path to enlightenment and redemption is clear. Make a clean break. Admit how wrong you have been, and hand in hand we can forge that better world. Oh, almost forgot as we skip down that primrose lined lane. :>)
Comment from: gavin November 21st, 2009 at 4:35 am
meanwhile “A hot air mass continues to reside over the southeast of the continent and this combined with northerly winds directed by a high pressure system in the Tasman Sea has brought record maximum temperatures and Severe Fire dangers for the ACT during Friday”
So, weather suddenly becomes climate when it suits heh?
Luke,
Please do continue. Please show us all how great and pure you and yours have been.
You know, you sockpuppets have finally picked the right logo: An hysterical twit watching his world cave in.
That you do not even self reflect for a moment while major leaders of the AGW promotion community are shown to be lying, misleading, destroying data, feigning results, corrupting peer review, etc, etc. etc., only shows that while you may be legion, you all are at the ned the losers.
Marcus,
AGW promoters and schills have always depended on being able to switch easily back and forth between ‘climate’ and ‘weather’ and they get confused.
gavin continues along his addled reminiscing path; no fool like an old fool.
How to explain luke who occasionally pretends to be fair-minded about this guff; I went over to deltoid and attempted to explain the legal ramifications of misrepresentation which has led to reliance by others on the misrepresentation with consequent loss and unnecessary expense; anyway was accused of smearing by a potty mouth called Janet Ackerman [not your lady-friend by any chance luke?]; gave up and came back here to see the utter, pathetic DENIAL by the ususal acolytes. Consider this, the hockey-stick is the centre-piece of AGW because it purports to show that current temperature and climate is exceptional; the HS is shattered but it was based on data from CRU as were the 3rd and 4th IPCC ARs; in AR4 after reading through chapter after chapter of dodgy science and, plucked from someone’s backside, confidence levels that prove nothing, we come to CHP 9, the attribution chp where the scientists sign off on mankind as the cause of the proven[sic] effects described in the other chapters. And what names do we find there Jones, Santer, Stott, many of the e-mailers now caught up in this manifest FRAUD.
So we have the finished product, the HS, revealed to be a dog’s breakfast; now the data which was associated with the HS and every other aspect of this bs, is revealed to have been deliberately doctored and obfuscated. People are going to sue and prosecute and I’m going to help them.
Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee Hee
This stuff is pure gold. Bring on the Royal Commission. It should have everything: whistle-blowers, perjury, jail time, amnesia, and bottles of whiskey and service revolvers.
Seems the University of East Anglia is also a hotbed of Marxists – so the politics of AGW are pretty obvious. http://www.keynesatharvard.org is useful background material for this mob. AGW was always a Fabian ploy.
Alleged CRU Emails – Searchable
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/index.php
Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails
I wonder if Penny and Will Stiffen have discussed this yet?
Fly on the wall, anyone?
I can see David patting her hand as we speak.
You guys make me smile.
Sure, it seems somebody odd has been creeping round behind the scene in academic circles and that person is probably still out of the loop So what? Gutless and faceless I hope they remain.
What have you got? Nothing that refutes all the horizontal measurements like SL that sure isn’t going backwards and well documented glacial retreats everywhere.
CoRev; have I ever deviated from my pet theme above based on personal observations or supported the AGW camp while depending on academic endeavours in general?
hey Gavin – here’ s an exchange between Mann, Curt Covey, and Monckton.
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/emails.php?eid=776
Bishop Hill has a pretty fine summary
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html
Minor correction, many are ASSuming HACKED.
May have been an inside job.
Hacking = criminal activity
Inside Job = Whistle Blower = (in US) PROTECTED ACTIVITY!!!!!
Anyone know particulars of law in Aussie, Canadian and English territory??
Just a reminder from a computer geek since 1973 NEVER WRITE ANYTHING IN AN E-MAIL, OR OTHER COMPUTER FILE, THAT YOU DO NOT WANT MADE PUBLIC!!!!!!!!!!
Lukefartard,
Does the term USEFUL IDIOT strike a familiar chord??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavin,
your horizontal measurements are WRONG!! We knew THAT BEFORE this data dump!! Sorry if you are not able to figure it out. Do you also find the term USEFUL IDIOT familiar??
kuhncat “your horizontal measurements are WRONG”
So; where are your horizontal measurements?
data dump?
What an ignorant sod!
Wouldn’t it be good if the mainstream media would pick this (Hadley tricks) up? Fat chance… too much money to be made by towing the PC line
Here’s another gem featuring Trenberth, about the only AGW scientist I half respect”
http://algorelied.com/?p=3177
“Kevin says … “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t”.”
Seems Schmidt, Mann and Schneider are scurrying into damage control.
I wonder if any of them have considered telling the truth. It was Schneider who alleged that scientists should be prepared to lie to the media in order to get the message across.
There is a hockey stick see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/release-of-cru-files-forge-a-new-hockey-stick-reconstruction/#more-12968. There have been some murmurs in MSM. I think it will increase, Phil Jones has confirmed they are authentic and SM has already connected particular emails with his communications. On another matter it looks like if the ETS gets up in OZ then it may do severe damage to the libs and 4 major power stations will go into administration within weeks. Following that they will be asset stripped. This will mean blackouts hugely increased prices and business closures. Its about debt and asset value.
Roger,
I’m sure Tony Jones and/or Robyn Williams are making arrangements for a big round table on this right now in great detail.
Just to keep us all “in the loop” in case we miss anything.
D’you think I should send them an email in case they missed it?
Janama; as I glanced at both your links I got round to thinking each had merit in the general issue of us relying on too few references and in particular the face value of old temperature records such as they were.
The backchat as indicated by those emails is no surprise. I have often said here; readings collected prior to say the 1960’s or the Geo Phys year could have instrument errors in the order of 2C at zero and +/- 2% or more of range. Even with the best gear available through the 1960’s to industry and research we struggled to keep temperature errors in most systems to better than 1C on average over our operating ranges. BTW the same 1 or 2 % applied to other common measurements, level, density, flow, humidity, pressure, ph, voltage and so on.
Change the climate society for a mo and I could verify a similar daily battle between other researchers and practitioners, right through the various branches of engineering and science involved with developing leading edge technology.
Fellows: It’s no big deal
“Fellows: It’s no big deal”
I’m sorry gavin, but if you think that all the billions that have been wasted and all of the trillions yet to be wasted is “no big deal” then you are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Jones has personally gathered up a tidy portion of this and stands to get a lot more as a result of team generated IPCC SPMs.
Most Australian states have nominal Whistleblower protection legislation; in SA it is called the Whistleblower act; in NSW the Protected Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW)(‘the PDA’); but whistleblowers are still not treated well, just google Gillian Sneddon.
As for CRU, there is considerable overflow to Australia:
From: Adam Markham
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, n.sheard@uea.ac.uk
Subject: WWF Australia
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 09:43:09 -0400
Cc: mrae@wwf.org.au
Hi Mike,
I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF
Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so
far.
They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative
approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular,
they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events
beefed up if possible. They regard an increased likelihood of even 50%
of drought or extreme weather as a significant risk. Drought is also a
particularly importnat issue for Australia, as are tropical storms.
I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public
splash on this they need something that will get good support from
CSIRO scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).
One paper they referred me to, which you probably know well is:
“The Question of Significance” by Barrie in Nature Vol 397, 25 Feb 1999,
p 657
Let me know what you think. Adam
Even RC consider it a “big deal”.
gavin,
‘similar daily battle between other researchers and practitioners, right through the various branches of engineering and science involved with developing leading edge technology.”
Fellows: It’s no big deal
Gavin, you don’t seem to understand the difference between professionals arguing and bickering about details of research and the “climate scientists” discussing different ways to hide deficiencies in their method.
You are also missing the fact that the AGW crowd is involved in a massive social engineering effort going on at the moment, costing billions, unlike some researchers you were referring to.
I’m afraid it is a big deal if we take costly measures on wrong advice!
In addition to all this there are 12,000+ !!!delegates from 192 countries + numerous NGOs descending on Copenhagen.
What a blabfest!!!!
Don’t worry they won’t have a hope in hades (warmists) of getting anything sorted out among that lot.
Just checked in – how’s the circle jerk going. Found anything yet denialist scummies?
Guys – mainstream media impact =0.0 – a great big yawn …
Impact on research = 0.0
Cohenite
Why are WWF so pally with Mike Hulme of UEA? The Prince Philip is nominal head of WWF, so a political connection is quite possible. It helps to realise that while we sheeples are banned from “designated national parks” unless we pay a fee, government and its agents are free to enter.
Luke, please hose off before entering here – emerging from Tim Lambert’s cesspit requires it. OSH regulations demand it, but then those are only for us sheeples, I suppose.
Luke,
You’re even more biased than the ABC let alone the MSM so you can get back in your box.
I sent this to the Audience and consumer affairs to test the toothless tiger:
“This story has been in several overseas media announcements including the BBC and it has potentially damning consequences.
This is very relevant to the climate change argument that is currently raging in Australian politics yet it does not rate a mention with you.
Is that because it is relevant to the wrong side of the biased ABC’s argument. [Tony Jones, Robyn Williams etc.]
There are many avenues on this link that you can explore to get the whole story.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_to_search_inside_the_warmist_conspiracy/
That’s ok Luke….the shit has hit the fan on the blogosphere 100.0%.
It’s pretty unremovable stuff too.
We don’t really expect mainstream media to pick this up because they’ve been pushing your tripe for so long the quantity of egg on their faces would be horrendous.
We wouldn’t want your AGW b/s to suddenly go away too Luke.
I would miss having a laugh at you naive gullible believers.
Louis; I don’t know why Mike Hulme is pally with WWF and Prince ‘grey goo’ Charles; but since heads of state are no longer sui juris they can be sued like the rest of us mere mortals.
And BTW, I just sent Nick Minchin an email telling him he’s on the right tram and one to Malcolm telling him to get his arse into gear and block the bill.
Everyone with any commonsense should do likewise. Also one to MacFarlane.
Cohenite,
Cutting to the chase, what’s the probability of a class action?
Well Louis, you could ground a class action in either public policy contravention through lack of due diligence or through actual damages such as increased rates, power bills and the like but the real issue is who are you going to sue; the government, which government, local, state, federal, or selected ministers; green groups, collaborating businesses or corporations, the scientists or selcted private individuals. There are many possibilities with local councils imposing on private rights such as at Byron bay and some Victorian coastal councils. then there is this;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_your_house_it_could_be_a_green_crime/#commentsmore
The WUWT Hockeystick – that’s pretty funny.
It even has a halloween warm period. I wonder what the big story on Halloween was?
Here’s Nov 1st CSIRO tries to gag emissions trading scheme critic, Dr. Clive Splash.
That’s not a surprise is it. Monckton on Glen Beck? That might be it.
So why don’t you get Doc Splash to pull a “hack” on CSIRO.
He can’t be that fond of them right now.
He has the access….
This is an interesting email to Monckton and Singer
From: Curt Covey
Subject: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.
To: Christopher Monckton , Fred Singer
Cc: Jim Hansen , mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Clifford Lee
In-Reply-To:
“Christopher and Fred,
Now that the latest IPCC WG1 SPM is published, I can venture more opinions on the
above-referenced subjects.
It is indeed striking that IPCC’s estimate of maximum plausible 21st century sea-level rise
has decreased over time. The latest estimate is 0.5 meters for the A2 emissions scenario
(not much higher from the 0.4 meter estimate for the A1B emissions scenario, which the Wall
Street Journal editorial page has made much of). On the other hand, the IPCC seems to have
taken a pass on Hansen’s argument. The IPCC says their estimates are “excluding future
rapid dynamical changes in ice flow . . . because a basis in published literature is
lacking.”
In this one respect (sea level rise) I agree with today’s Journal editorial that the
science is not yet settled. Unfortunately, the editorial runs completely off the tracks
thereafter by (1) comparing 2006 vs. 2001 surface temperatures, among all the 150 or so
years on record, and (2) asserting a “significant cooling the oceans have undergone since
2003” based apparently on one published data-set that contradicts all the others. It is
not appropriate to cherry-pick data points this way. It’s like trying to figure out
long-term trends in the stock market by comparing today’s value of the Dow with last
Tuesday’s value.
Re high-resolution paleodata, I never liked it that the 2001 IPCC report pictured Mann’s
without showing alternates. Phil’s Jones’ data was also available at the time. Focusing
so exclusively on Mann was unfair in particular to Mann himself, who thereby became the
sole target of criticism in the Wall Street Journal etc.
It now seems clear from looking at all the different analyses (e.g. as summarized in last
year’s NRC review by North et al.) that Mann is an outlier though not egregiously so. Of
course, like any good scientist Mann argues that his methods get you closer to the truth
than anyone else. But the bottom line for me is simply that all the different studies find
that the rate of warming over the last 50-100 years is unusually high compared with
previous centuries.
Summarizing all this, the latest IPCC does back off a bit from the previous one. It says
on Page 8, “Some recent studies indicate greater variability [than Mann] in
[pre-industrial] Northern Hemisphere temperatures than suggested in the TAR . . .” The
wording is perhaps insufficiently apologetic, but I find it hard to object strenuously to
it in light of the main point noted in the last paragraph.
If you want to discuss any of this further, let me know. I attach my latest presentation
— and would appreciate seeing both Christopher’s report mentioned in the Journal editorial
and Fred’s comment on Rahmstorf’s article published in Science last week.
Best regards,
Curt
to which he get this reply
From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Stefan Rahmstorf , Gavin Schmidt , Caspar Ammann , Ben Santer , “Raymond S. Bradley” , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , James Hansen
Subject: [Fwd: IPCC and sea level rise, hi-res paleodata, etc.]
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 20:13:54 -0500
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Curt, I can’t believe the nonsense you are spouting, and I furthermore cannot imagine why
you would be so presumptuous as to entrain me into an exchange with these charlatans. What
ib earth are you thinking? You’re not even remotely correct in your reading of the report,
first of all. The AR4 came to stronger conclusions that IPCC(2001) on the paleoclimate
conclusions, finding that the recent warmth is likely anomalous in the last 1300 years, not
just the last 1000 years. The AR4 SPM very much backed up the key findings of the TAR The
Jones et al reconstruction which you refer to actually looks very much like ours, and the
statement about more variability referred to the 3 reconstructions (Jones et al, Mann et
al, Briffa et a) shown in the TAR, not just Mann et al. The statement also does not commit
to whether or not those that show more variability are correct or not. Some of those that
do (for example, Moberg et al and Esper et al) show no similarity to each other. I find it
terribly irresponsible for you to be sending messages like this to Singer and Monckton. You
are speaking from ignorance here, and you must further know how your statements are going
to be used. You could have sought some feedback from others who would have told you that
you are speaking out of your depth on this. By instead simply blurting all of this nonsense
out in an email to these sorts charlatans you’ve done some irreversible damage. shame on
you for such irresponsible behavior!
Mike Mann
Michael E. Mann Associate Professor
Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC) Department of Meteorology
Just checking in re the CRU hack.
It wouold seem to me that:
Impact on credibilty of the alarmist science/greeny cause.. immense.
Calls to now clean this whole thing up…high.
Calls to make more transparent the University R&D funding mechanisms …high.
Calls to review and clean up the 17 th century Peer Review secret boys club…immense.
Credibility attaching to the next IPPC report if they dont change the way it operates …zero
Pressure to enure that only those papers that have passed a stringent pre review process are considered by the IPCCv2, including the release of all data …immense.
Internal calls on both Jones, Briffa, Mann and Pachuri to resign…. immense.
Likelihood that not all heads of state will attend Copenhagen …high
Lets hope that there is good that come out of this ..because just sweeping it under the carpert wont work.
Marcus “you don’t seem to understand the difference between professionals arguing and bickering about details of research and the “climate scientists” discussing different ways to hide deficiencies in their method”
Sorry mate; I did, and still do understand “the difference between professionals arguing and bickering about details of research and the “climate scientists” discussing different ways to hide deficiencies in their method” because your key word “hide” is only an opinion on the process of “dealing” with accademic complications in general analysis.
However some of this alledged email exchange could be judged as childish in the extreem. I can only guess those accademic complications were overwhelming at times but beware as a matter of fact, on any subject we censor most of the swearing in mainstreme media.
As a matter of fact we could say these unfortunate folk were muttering in a huddle behind the stage. Again I say in the practice of implementing new policy for advances in technology I used the phone a lot in achieving the desired outcome. Such emotional exchanges don’t need a file note!
For example; lack of suitable equipment was common place world wide as radio networks changed from analogue to digital. Social engineering costing billions is also common place across the spectrum of our modern expectations. Transport, health and education rival communications for both the user and the public purse.
IMO the environment is still in our Cinderella department.
gavin
Move over Kevin Rudd!
Janama
Mike sure is a sweet talker aint he? Almost as nice as his fan club.
here’s a good representative example.
Take away quote; “… it might be unpolitical to say that you’ll be happy when someone died, or that Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts are pricks and assholes, but that doesn’t make the statements a scandal. I personally was happy when former Senator Jesse Helms died, and I will probably enjoy a drink of expensive scotch when Marc Morano, James Inhofe, and Steve Milloy kick the bucket. And I’ve got no problem calling someone like Joe D’Aleo a liar or Steve Milloy an oxygen thief. If that makes me a bad person, well, I’m OK with that….”
Gavin,
haven’t heard your discussion with Dr. Moerner yet. We are waiting…….
Marcus,
“You are also missing the fact that the AGW crowd is involved in a massive social engineering effort going on at the moment, costing billions, unlike some researchers you were referring to.”
Even I don’t think Gavin is so stupid that he misses the import of the e-mails. He is just performing his USEFUL IDIOT role to the best of its IDIOCY!! As a USEFUL IDIOT he will never allow even one minor point to be scored as the edifice implodes on him and other USEFUL IDIOTS!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
here’a cool article – is this the start of the end of AGW?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
Cohenite,
Good grief – these building regulations are draconian – I wonder what WA has in this area. I shudder to think. I am already concerned with the regulation we have to comply with in the OSH area, and the NT, the idiotic mine management plans. We seem to have arrived at a socialist state by increment.
Blogsphere remains extremely silly in this dogmatic approach to mere fallen crumbs from some boffinville table. I guess the dog pack won’t ever stand up and lick the plates, sad.
kuhnkat; Me and your Dr Moerner on tree rings perhaps?
The google oz gave me this blog and this comment in a long winded debate following the guest post ‘Working to Develop More Reliable Methodology: Keith Briffa’ on a subject I’m rather keen on, tree rings!
Luke: “Now what evidence is left? Moerner after 4 years finally admitting faking a documentary by setting up a tree near the shore by hand. Tree with still green leaves: gone. Its roots remains: probably gone. Australians: gone. Moerner: gone. Witnesses: probably unavailable or increasingly untrustworthy. Documentation: faked by Moerner – else: nothing”.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/10/working-to-develop-more-reliable-methodology-keith-briffa/?cp=3
A better question is why I bother discussing AGW questions on this blog? I simply don’t need too after considering one or two key issues, how do I know what’s going on and do I need support from academia??
Today at the market I overheard a comment about some place that was suffering from 45C heat last week. My first question was if other thermometers were checked on the day and this lady answered “yes a few and one was reading 46” on an adjacent property. I later recognised her as a regular fresh peach seller around this time of the year so I asked her husband “was it a record” then how their trees coped “more water from an even deeper gouge” He had grown up there and recalled some monster rains and floods that flushed the old diggings frequently enough to stop permanent dwellings being built where they are going up today.
There could be more than one alert observer here who does their own homework, so I usually stay a while in hope.
Gavin – perhaps this latest episode isn’t going to bring the AWG wall tumbling down but as the world continues to defy the predictions of the unsceptical scientists the more their case deteriorates.
It’s not going to change the already sceptical nationals, and the sceptical liberals or even the sceptical laborites, but it is slowly seeping through to the unsceptical.
A possible fiasco at Copenhagen could be the final straw.
Here’ the latest Washington Post report.
In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
Stolen e-mails reveal venomous feelings toward skeptics
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.
While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate — nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal — public debate over the debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain’s Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.
In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.
“There’s an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors,” he said. “They’re saying, ‘If you print anything by this group, we won’t send you any papers.’ ”
Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.
Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have “the makings of a very big” scandal. “Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research,” he added.
The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web sites ranging from The Washington Post’s to that of London’s Daily Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skeptics to U.S. news organizations, some likening the disclosure to the release of the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.
Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.
“It is incontrovertible” that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. “The question to me is what to do.”
“It’s certainly a legitimate question,” he added. “Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked.”
In his new book, “Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth’s Climate,” Stanford University climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider details the intense debate over warming, arguing that it has helped slow the nation’s public policy response.
“I’ve been here on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career,” writes Schneider, who was copied on one of the controversial e-mails. “I’m still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these days, is still not a done deal.”
Just before CRU-gate the Guardian published a report on the latest effusion from CSIRO and CRU, yes that one, aka Global Carbon Project (GCP), proving again that the globe has an ever decreasing capacity to take up CO2. The same report also referred to a new paper by Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol in GRL, no less, vol 36., doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
Knorr’s paper strongly supports my own in EE (at http://www.timcurtin.com) where I make very similar points against GCP/CSIRO’s Canadell & co – inadvertently of course, as mine only came out a couple of weeks before his. Knorr’s work is highly sophisticated, much more so than mine – but there is a lacuna, to coin a phrase, namely determinants of the biotic uptakes of CO2 emissions, and their role in expanding world food production.
I also think Knorr misses the point about Canadell et al: they are trying to find evidence to support their long standing belief that there in an inherent absolute limit to absorption of CO2 by land and sea biota. This goes back to the grossly mistaken Wigley (a star of the leaked emails from CRU at UEA) & Enting claim back in 1993 (CSIRO), that because there clearly is a cycle in the absorption of CO2 by all living matter, from tomatoes to us, this has to apply globally as we all grow old together – and are never replaced. While I am painfully conscious of loss of appetite and hence of my uptake of CO2 embodied in bread & cheese or fish & chips etc, since my op if not before, I note that my son is probably at his max. level of CO2 uptakes, steaks and loads of chips, (he’s a ranked squash player), but that his son has some way to go match his Dad’s uptake!
Incredibly, the Wigley assumption (known as Michaelis-Menten when applied to individual life forms) that we are all in terminal decline simultaneously is the basis of his MAGICC model which is used to churn out ALL the IPCC’s projections of the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by 2050 and 2100. For by assuming away ALL increases in CO2 uptakes by the biota after 2000, as MAGICC does by its inbuilt use of the hyperbolic [i.e. leveled off curve whereby uptakes of new CO2 emissions are by definition ZERO] Michaelis-Menten function (see my paper, pp.1100-1), it more than DOUBLES its projected rate of growth of atmospheric CO2 from the actual 0.41% p.a. since 1958 to over 1% p.a from 2000-2100 (but for which as Knorr shows there is no evidence).
For Luke, you may not think much of E&E, but where it leads GRL follows!
When all this “experimenters bias” has only produced 0.7c for the last century and at least half of that can be written off as being due to other causes, it really shows that their alarmism has absolutely no legs but it has generated so much pointless expense, division and waste that they need to be brought to account and publicly investigated.
James “Mike sure is a sweet talker aint he?” his language sure sounds like Luke or are all these people the same? I wonder if Jennifer will search for his email address in all these emails? Jennifer rates a mention by the way. Must away now to lay in wood and coal for when the ETS is passed.
Since it is now established beyond doubt that the AGW bs is predicated on lies and obfuscation it is no surprise that gavin asserts tha Moerner faked the tree evidence in the Maldives; in fact the tree was evidence which was destroyed by the alarmists;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/#more-6338
Again no surprise when the Age, a repository of green propaganda, can publish junk like this;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_the_age_drowned_its_readers_in_spin/#commentsmore
Our man this side of the tasman is getting a handle on it……
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
I was re-reading Ross McKitrick’s (of M&M fame) explanation of how they demolished the hockey stick. He claimed Mann used an algorithm that ‘mined for hockey sticks’. Guess he couldn’t forget he is a geologist (bit of humour for Louis).
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf
Anyway, McKitrick also revealed that information in the files Mann sent them indicated he knew of one significant error, yet published anyway. The IPCC completely missed it, prompting Mac to suggest watchdogs for any future reviews, and they should not be climate scientists.
Some of the errors in the hockey stick analysis would be humourous if they weren’t so blatantly dumb. Mann used bristle cone, a type of tree that for some reason has proliferated in the 20th century. In other words, it probably grows because there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere and not because it has warmed. When the bristle cone data is removed there is no hockey stick. Another proxy used data from only two trees, but that did not bother Mike, he extrapolated. I mean, how do you date back 1000 years using two trees? Craig Loehle doesn’t even think tree ring data is reliable since warming can cause dryness and create smaller rings.
Why were they using proxy data in the modern era anyway? Had they not heard of satellites, or radiosondes?
I don’t know why anyone has taken this guy seriously. In the study he did with Stieg, they did not even bother to check the legitimacy of their data. One station they used was covered with four feet of snow. No wonder Antarctica was found to have warmed.
The gauling thing, if I have it right, was that Mann referred to Singer as a charlatan. Mann is also with the Journal of Climate, as an editor.
Gordon
Michael Mann is a geologist? I hope not, but I need evidence on this.
“Are you potentially implicated in the fraud, data tampering, collusion and unethical scientific behavior? I did notice CSIRO referenced, any of your mates included?”
gee I don’t know CoRev – I thought exposing denialist scum for the charlatans that they are would be worth a knighthood – how long have been a lying denialist turd anyway? And so it’s true that you aren’t a wife beater?
I reckon Rudd should pass legislation making all sceptic parties illegal. The sooner we deport all denialists to Christmas Island the better. The IOD solution !!! hahahahaha
I’m sorry Luke, I’ve been content with just reading this blog for the past few days but your last 2 responses take the cake. At least Gavin is valiantly using reasoned argument to try and deny the apparent evidence before him but you come across as someone who has finally cracked.
“how long have been a lying denialist turd anyway? And so it’s true that you aren’t a wife beater?”
and
“I reckon Rudd should pass legislation making all sceptic parties illegal. The sooner we deport all denialists to Christmas Island the better.”
are the shrill and incoherent ravings of a demented child throwing a tantrum, now take yor medication and go to bed before you say something really stupid.
Luke,
Please keep talking. You clearly fit this role quite well. You even look the part:
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index.jsp?cid=9898
Yes, everyone who questions you is clearly a corrupt liar, and of course AGW is too important to be bothered with little things like truth, honesty or integrity.
And those great guys who get caught lying and shading the data, why they are just doing what needs to be done.
It is those pesky denialists who need to be jailed or worse who are the problem. You transparent putz.
Derek “At least Gavin is valiantly using reasoned argument to try and deny the apparent evidence before him”
hey I don’t deny those emails nor their importance to those outside the IPCC program suspicious as they are in the run up to Copenhagen. However I deviate from the backchat here by offering posts on the general subjects of measurement, dubious temp records pre 1960’s, data analysis and so on, also observations that support the main theme of climate change.
Typical –
“Adelaide has experienced the first spring heatwave ever recorded across the entire Adelaide temperature record back to 1887 with 8 consecutive days in excess of 35°C from Sunday 8 November to Sunday 15 November”
http://reg.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/sa/20091117recordsaheatfirsthalfNov.shtml
“Maximum temperatures across South Australia for the first half of November have generally been 6 to 8 degrees above the monthly average, with overnight minimum temperatures generally 3 to 5 degrees above the November monthly average”.
More; details and sources for Canberra, Hobart, Melbourne, Wagga Wagga
“The November 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave is a heat wave currently occurring in the southeastern Australian states of South Australia, Victoria and southern New South Wales. Daily maximum temperatures during the heat wave have been roughly 10 °C (18 °F) above average in many locations. Capital cities Adelaide and Melbourne, have recorded temperatures over 35 °C (95 °F), and some regional towns recording temperatures above 40 °C (104 °F).[2] Above average temperatures in the region began in late October and are still persisting as of 16 November 2009.
Many locations through the region have broken temperature records for November. This November heat wave is the second heat wave experienced in the region within a 10 month period, the earlier being the 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave in January and February 2009, to which 374 deaths have been attributed. Whilst this first heat wave was far more intense, the more recent November heat wave has been more extensive and long lasting”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2009_southeastern_Australia_heat_wave#Consequences
Derek, that couple I mentioned today growing and selling peaches are quite convinced we have experienced climate change in our region. I go one step further and relate AGW to CO2 based solely on the fact we measured a lot of flue gas around Melbourne at a time when local industry had to get smarter overnight.
Dumping carbon as soot had to stop world wide as it was THE indicator of rapidly growing waste sources around all cities. CO, CO2, methane etc are much harder to see and measure at the source let alone the atmosphere on the whole. The impact of this matter is what the fuss is about but no one has a good handle on it yet, least of all; the skeptics who are always found on blogs.
gavin,
If the AGW alarmocracy has simply wanted to do something effective, like lower soot emissions worldwide, it could well have been done by now.
But then, they would not be alarmists, but reasonable people.
The fear mongering AGW promoters, at least until now at least, have been obsessed with CO2.
Trying to imply otherwise is not every credible om your part.
Focusing on a region of Australia to make AGW hysteria more credible does not seem like a winning strategy, by the way.
Hunter; I suggest you are unaware of what process occurs when we lower soot world wide and just what areas are affected by climate change but I would be most interested to know how you arrive at your conclusions above.
BTW my soot thing was a trap for those with no experience in combustion control. For your info; any measurement of gases in turbulence is quite difficult even the precice difference between inside and outside a home on a very hot day
Gavin,
Thanks for the reasoned response. I live in the Adelaide hills, so I experienced the heat wave first hand (without air-conditioning at the moment) but this week has been relatively cool and wet. I had to run our (wet back) combustion heater last night to heat up our solar hot water system and I’ve never had to do that in Nov. Mind you, we’ve only been in the house for 3 years so that can’t really be used as a precedent.
Anyway, we hear a lot about record high temps and the nightly weather men/women always tell us when today’s temp is above ave but almost never mention when it’s below ave, no news in that.
At the start of the heat wave they were telling us that it could be the hottest since 1800 and something, its only the fact that it lasted so long that it was the hottest/longest on record.
If all of these records that keep being broken go back so many years ago, what caused the high temps back then?
Cheers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac
So much for the ethical principles of the climate science fraternity.
The sooner the Commonwealth Auditer General gets off his arse and investigates this the better.
Peer Review is a shonk desighed to keep the game under their control, and so is the way a select few get the most out of R & D funding, and the way that funding isnt then audited wouldnt be allowed in any other sphere.
Time to come clean.
Derek; thanks in return.
I was going to add more on the measurement approach but it’s worth a note now on lows v highs. As a former professional instrument tech I’m as much concerned with the lows as the highs since they are a quick guide to system sensitivity v amplitude in any event.
This week we should be concerned with what the boffins make of those “natural” events in the UK. They may not give us extremes in temperature however.
All this second hand opinion won’t do as a substitute for knowledge. To be even partly qualified to comment in judgment on the academic processes leading up to Copenhagen one must have done some studies in the physics of turbulent gases as well as understanding the art of practical measurements in the field.
Loose data is all we had before satellites and snap shots from above today still require links to the former to be part of the overall dynamic model. There is no certainty at any point so establishing trends is a nightmare.
My position is all about feeling change as it happens with the best intention based on experience and not waiting for stats in support of our primary reaction. We should be working in a time frame of only several generations where most direct experience is grounded.
The idea of the devil takes the hindmost in some common legal stoush is pure nonsense.
We get quality info only when all the relevant technologies and their associated standards are mutually recognised across the board. However in practice I focused more on functionality than traceable absolutes on paper in any client’s search for probable trends that needed immediate actions. It’s often the speed of change that’s most important.
saturday night live and al gore 🙂
Hunter – how can someone like you – a little ranter – seriously preach on truth and integrity? Pullease.
And how about this to demonstrate the sheer level of stupidity of comment here “Focusing on a region of Australia to make AGW hysteria more credible does not seem like a winning strategy, by the way.” unreal mate – unreal !
And Hill puts up Tim Ball as “source” – hohohohohohohohoho – you’re not getting any better are you? Might as well seek Goebbels view on PR. And more bunk from Hill – like a dog returning to his vomit again pretending that R&D funding isn’t audited. We’ve been over this before boyo. Usual denialist scum modus operandi. Just sprout b/s and then repeat it over and over.
Derek – how old are you – try asking an intelligent question for once e.g. if there is a trend in temp records? or warm days?
Come on Luke, weve been saying for ages AGW had no clothes and you have been frantically holding on with fingertips and nails. But that you still can t see it has no clothes and is riddled with fraud , agenda and hyperbole, is really quite sad.
So we know they deliberatlely manipulate data and the peer review process. We know teh IPCC and yet you want to stand up for them?
sorry that was not supposed to be sent yet!
We know the IPCC is political and set out with an agenda and the reoprts were manipulated to push this agenda. We now know many of the scientists have deliberatly set out to fake science. hOW AN EARTH CAN YOU SUPPORT THESE PEOPLE. THEY HAVE DESTROYED THE CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCTISTS…….something I and many here have been saying for years.
Come on surely you are sceptical now? Science is supposed to be about
“truth”, clearly climate science is only worthy of “pseduoscience”.
Well said Toby,
For those of the warming persuasion to be defending this long-standing proceedure of these “scientists” is simply desperation and denial.
What do you reckon Luke; Toby and spangled showing all the signs of record heat stress -poor devils.
Well Walker you thorougly obnoxious little cretin, how about this list from Bishop Hill’s site
“In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.
• Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
• Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
• Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
• Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
• Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
• Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
• Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
• Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
• Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
• Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
• Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
• Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
• Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
• Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
• Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
• Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
• Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
• Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
• Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
• Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
• Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
• Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of …..”
If these emails are true, then it is surely prima facie evidence of just how shonky climate science is.
Witholding of data, tax evasion, manipulation of the peer review process, destruction of data already under FOIA etc etc
No amount of bluster from Walker and his cohorts of igorance is ever going to change this.
remember when the BBC posted an article saying there had been no warming for 10 years?
well this is what happened in the rat’s nest.
At least Tom has some principles whereas Mann want’s to manipulate the BBC.
Bazza, time to take off those blinkers and see what we have been seeing for years. Isn’t science supposed to be objective and bias free? Nobody could read those emails and not see the bias and lack of objectivity, to say nothing of the blatant manipulation of people, data and the peer reviewed process. If you seriously can see no wrong in those emails, then you need to work on your critical thinking skills big time.
“I suggest you are unaware of what process occurs when we lower soot world wide”
gav,
What shade of “soot” would that be?
Derek,
I used to live in the northern parts of SA and it was probably one of the hottest places on earth at times.
I’ve watched a bird fly out of a tree and drop dead from the heat. That was 50 years ago with temps at 50c [122f].
And that was in the bottom of the waterbag.
I’ve been doing some experiments with thermometers lately, comparing under-verandah temps with stevenson screen temps and if you keep the thermometer away from the shaded wall of the verandah it is comparable to a SS but if you let it rest against the wall it is often cooler than the SS. [More air temp and less wall temp]
On that basis the old 19th century records could have read even hotter in SSs.
So much for the BoM tossing out a lot of early data because they reckoned it was too hot by not being in a SS.
What was that 1878 temp again?
Isn’t it sad to see the warmers at Doltoid et al bleating about the criminality of the leaking but thoroughly excusing the corrupt activity the leaking exposes.
Poor old SOD will never be the same again.
Those seeds may eventually take root.
Viv Forbes puts it well.
GW is man made after all! LOL.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/man-made.pdf
I love seeing The Believers in denial.
Lukefartard,
When did you stop your self abuse??
Oh, that’s right, you can’t with so many mirrors around!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This should cheer them up – not!
The senate is discussing it now
listen here
http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/asx2/hms943a.asx
Couldn’t resist dropping by to have a little ROTFL over the CRU Climategate scandal.
Luke, will the real Denialists please stand up? BA HA HA HA HA HA ha AH…cough, cough… Whew! Don’t worry, I’m OK, just let me catch my breath….
;-))) pure Karma.
Both “President of Earth” Gore and his five-star Generalismo Hansen have advocated climate change civil disobedience. I wonder if this is what they had in mind?
And bloody thank God, Al invented the Internet! Rock on, Virtual Earth Night, A new digital breed of monkey wrench gang rises from the code to strike at the high cathedral of the evil climate-myth empire. Let the rebellion began, this one will be televised on Youtube. Free the data, free the code!
Without the Internet by now we would all be green serfs working collective farms in a zero-growth economy guarded by brown, er, greenshirts hoods, bully-boys sort of like Luke, (if he wasn’t so obese and wracked with chronic sclerosing cholangitis that he can barely navigate the greasy carpet ruts worn between his frig, toilet and the CRT, much less wield a cattle prod properly…Actually, you know, in the kind of Marxist Green Utopia that Useful Idiots like Luke advocate, his kind are usually the first to have their carbon pollution sequestered in the pit mass graves…)
So, Jen et al, keep speaking truth to power. Demand transparency and reproducibility in science and the peer review process.
The end game for the AGW apocalypse fraud has well and truly begun and not a moment too soon.
Later, dudes, I got a monster truck rally to attend.
Over on Steve Mc’s mirror site, and several other blogs, they are looking at the computer code that was released in the file.
AGW??? How about junk code!!!
We may never know if it was EVER real!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked!
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/global-warminggate-what-does-it-mean/
“The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.”
No way, Lies, I tell you, Lies, financed by Big Tobacco and the Single Flush Toilet Cartel!!!
“The emails suggest that the authors manipulated and “massaged” the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.”
But Gavin wants to change the subject “…to the dubious temp records pre 1960’s, data analysis and so on, also observations that support the main theme of climate change.” Uh-huh…ROTFL, pathetic weasel.
“The emails suggest that the authors co-operated (perhaps the word is “conspired”) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK.”
Climategate has only just begun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI
Free the data! Free the code!
Stage II is starting – the code people are getting into the code that was hacked
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13
woops – didn’t see your post kuhnkat
Hi All,
Well isn’t it great to see the unfolding of this modern Operatic tragedy, involving vast sums of money, decption, pathos, world power, huge egos and humour.
None more humorous than to see the Galah Luke flushed from his hollow branch, by the Bushfire of reverlation and truth.
Tail feathers burnt off.
Left wing badly damaged and bandaged.
Can now only fly in ever decreasing circles but still squawking obscenities to all who disagree with his lost cause.
Just beautiful!
SJT and Sod are also strangly quiet.
We still have to get some sense into Turnbull, if this nonsense is to be stopped here in Aus.
Pikey.
Stage III: An Independent Inquiry?
“Last week an apparent hacker obtained access to their computers and published in the blogosphere part of their internal e-mail traffic. And the CRU has conceded that the at least some of the published e-mails are genuine.
Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.
There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. (oh, sure, as if…) But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6927598.ece
Stage IV: Luke tops himself by ODing on Chips with chicken salt.
Now its Clowns Inc. but what a silly circus. The tragedy is it’s only a side show. Nothing on the ABC, sad hey
It’s really pleasing to see the circle jerk continue – keep going guys you might start up an harmonic and cause an earthquake – you guys have nothing – if you had some serious allegations of organised conspiracy put it !
But alas all you have is a series of disconnected colourful comments – – mild compared to the sort comments you get daily from the denialist goon squad that is camped out here.
Media pickup – virtually zero. Impact on Copenhagen zero. Science impact zero.
ABC news tonight “Just one more piece for Copenhagen to consider”
“A new study has found the east Antarctic icesheet, which sits behind Australia’s Casey Station, has lost billions of tonnes of ice in the past three years”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/23/2750931.htm
Let’s repeat: It’s often the speed of change that’s most important
Gavin – wolf – wolf – please produce the evidence that sea level rise in increasing.
G’day Spangled,
Yeah I’ve noticed that we seem to get more than our fair share of 40+ days in SA considering how far south we are. I have seen Bagdad hit the 50 mark on a number of occasions on SBS weather but they may be climatised to the heat over there. Temps in OZ go up and down like a yoyo.
I put a thermometer under the veranda at my school last summer against the fibro wall and it got up to 48C one day but this was one of the same batch that I told Gavin about so it was probably more like 46. But from what you said, the wall may have had a cooling effect.
Hey, if you keep talking about stuff from 50 years ago, Louis remembers burying that diamond during the Archean era and Gavin helped set up the thermometers for the first fleet, does that mean that we are mostly a bunch of old farts with nothing better to do than blog?
Hang on, a minute. Do you two (Gavin and Luke) actually hallucinate that because the state-owned and directed dinosaur media
doesn’t scoop the biggest scandal of the new century — a trillion plus dollar fraud on the people of planet Earth –that tomorrow we’ll all wake up and it will be climate apocalypse fear mongering as usual? Put.. The.. Bong.. down…
Dudes, ya don’t read Pravda to hear the latest in Kremlin scandals. ROTFL.
Copenhagen is already over. The ETS bill in the US Congress is now dead and buried. China and India, well, let’s just say they’ve given you the proverbial middle finger. Bob Brown is now past his use by date. The Gig is up, kids. The Science is settled and it’s a fraud. So now is the time for direct action. Legal action.
In fact, this whole act of civil disobedience was probably arranged by the Chinese .gov in order to expose the shonky Anglo fraud before Copenhagen could establish a one-world eco-government that would interfere with China’s ascendancy and guarantee third world poverty for billions for the next half century. Gotta love it when totalitarian former Maoists come to the rescue of a formerly proud and free west. A bit disconcertingly ironic though…
And it doesn’t matter if Turnbull sells out to avoid a double dissolution. Carbon trading ponzi accounting is now as doomed as Enron. The scam is up, mates. The bubble of suspended disbelief has popped. Yeah, it won’t all collapse tomorrow. It will be deliciously slow and painful…
This is one of those gifts that will just keep on giving for years.
As someone with a passing interest in Oz media coverage (or lack of it!!!) re the leaked/hacked emails, I can only wonder when some industrious reporter will realise that one of the principals in so many of those notes can be reached via a local phone call at Monash University.
That would be Neville Nicholls.
Australian science makes another grab for infamy in the person of Tom Wigley, who figures prominently in the string of emails reproduced by Janama above.
And for Kiwis, there is Jim Sallinger, who figures in many equally unsettling rounds of correspondence.
If any reporters read this blog — as opposed to doing no more than taking sensationalist dictation from whichever man of science condescends to patronise you — a call to Nicholls would definitely be in order.
Gavin,
Interesting news about Antarctica. I want to talk about that but lets get some perspective first.
a) “”That’s contributing to half a millimetre of sea level rise per year.””
b) The generally accepted volume of ice in Antarctica is approx 30million cubic km, 57 billion tons equates to say 63 cubic kms(the boffins can correct me here if you feel it’s necessary) so we have about 1/10000% mass difference/annum.
So at that rate it will all be gone in what, 10,000years? Assuming that rate won’t change of course.
Now I’m just a high school teacher doing these calculations in my head (not my strongest talent) but you get the overall idea.
Now to be a bit divisive here, I have to say something about our standard responses to some of these sort of news items.
Someone will probably quote other studies that show a positive mass balance or discredit the Grace satellite or something or say that Antarctica can’t melt ’cause the daytime max never gets above -15C etc.. We get the same thing about the Arctic ice sheet as in it’s bigger than last year so GW isn’t happening after all. There has been a lot of stuff here thrown up as proof that the planet is in fact cooling, glaciers are growing and sea levels aren’t rising and I wonder why some of us try so hard to make these points.
If AGW is incorrect and there was a MWP and RWP and warmer is better as many here have suggested(myself included) shouldn’t our response to melting ice caps be “hey great, it’s about time we got out of this infernal ice age”?
And I know some feel it’s all about the accuracy of the science but I think sometimes we can’t see the wood for the “everything they say must be wrong” trees.
It’s also funny how we can say “GMT is a false concept” and then use a drop in GMT to prove that GW has stalled. I have to admit that I’m in that camp and I find the use of a GMT oddly comforting even though I don’t believe in it.
I guess the reality is that if the political and ecconomic stakes weren’t so high, we could all take it a bit less seriously.
Gavin,
You clown.
As an “Old Codger, (according to Luke), like yourself, please do not keep destroying the perception of some wisdom associated with age.
The Antartic Ice Shelf has been growing in recent time.
Look up the records yourself as you seem to have infinite time for this.
I have not the time to assist you.
If all you can do at this site is “parrot” the nonsence from “our ABC,” more correctly the ALPBC, you are bringing nothing new to this discussion and you are without reason.
Frankly, I appreciate intellegent argument but detest your pathetic BS.
If you are going to add anything of interlectual importance to this debate then lets not sprout untruth.
No one at this site gives a “Gumnuts Arse” what you or I have done in the past, but we are interested in rational discourse, backed up by facts.
You Sir are not giving us this.
Luke:
Science impact.
Devastating!
Pikey.
El Creepo. We Own All Your Base:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APgg9LYbLu0&feature=related
Free the data. Free the code.
Spangles; going back, good luck with your home veranda v Stevenson screen thermometer experiments. I offer the same advice re your thermometers as I offered Derek. You need at least three of known performance between ice water and boiling points before you start. Instrument errors are more likely seen this way
However if any of these are old fashioned liquid in glass with air only bulbs or max min U tubes, they should be calibrated against another standard in a volume of controlled air. to avoid liquid immersions. It may be worth using a decent kitchen digital as your go between. With my collection in mind, I listen to the weather segments often enough to gain confidence in my own readings as the day goes by Btw I don’t bother with screens outside, as there is a convenient shady corner by our kitchen window.
Pure soot is as black as the Ace of Clubs or Spades. Other likely solids could be fly ash and very dry creosote after its condensation.
Gavin,
You know what I love about soot? The first gram of Fullerenes (C60 spheres) to be synthesized was worth about $12,000 from memory, and you know where you can find them by the bucket load? You guessed it, soot.
I was once a tent (humpy for those of you who know the term) leader on a kids camp and we used kero lanterns for light. One night ours was set wrong and when we got up in the morning the whole of the inside of the glass was filled with a solid(sort of) plug of soot which felt like medium density foam rubber. It actually bounced. There was probably a thousand bucks worth of buckyballs in that sooty sucker.
BTW I also know that soot on ice accelerates melting so I get your previous point.
Ding dong the witch is dead, witch is dead, witch is dead
luke and all is shit is dead, luke is dead, luke is dead.
the evil has gone Jennifer – time to come home.
just click your red shoes. 🙂
janama
I’m afraid it won’t change a thing.
AGW never was about science, it was about an ideology, control of people.
Scientists and “science” was a good excuse, and they were-are willing participants in the fraud. For plenty of money of course.
I just watched Tim Flimflan on lateline with Tony Jones. I don’t think he sounded convincing at all . Tony’s Questions were somewhat probing and I would have expected more from Tim . If anything he made the point there is so much we don’t know !
Then why are we rushing to throw our economy over a cliff.
Jennifer,
Please do not despair.
The greatest thing about the eomail archive that was leaked is no the damning e-mails.
The greatest thing about the archive is the code.
That is getting processed now. The early results show the deliberate fraud that we have all suspected.
Your country, led by earnest people, who have been manipulated into AGW fraud, will soon have a change of heart, if not a change of government.
The madness that is enviro-extremism is peaking right now.
Marcus,
You are right of course. AGW is all about power. Political power.
Luke,
The only honest thing you have said in quite some time is this, in reference to the e-mails:
“impact on climate science, zero”
Climate Science, as being led by the likes of you and those exposed in the e-mails, has no interest in the scientific process, the truth, integrity or ethics.
So of course, finding out from a tiny release of data, that fraud is pervasive in your field would have no impact.
Please keep clacking your ball bearings together, Capt.
Bunyip 7.28pm – “I can only wonder when some industrious reporter will realise that one of the principals in so many of those notes can be reached via a local phone call at Monash University.
That would be Neville Nicholls.”
Not only Neville at Monash –
Apparently the Australian Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre now has a policy not to deal with anyone associated with Climate Audit –
Phil Jones said the following on 6/19/2007 4:22 AM:
“….
2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.”
Fair enough. Seems to be in the scientific spirit. But perhaps the same industrious reporter might not understand the subtle nuances of science and might even turn up on young David’s doorstep and ask him WTF he meant.
Jen, believe me when I say I will miss your well written and logical articles. If there is any way for you to find the time I sincerely request that you continue. If that is not possible then, my best on your future!
Derek Smith “….I’ve noticed that we seem to get more than our fair share of 40+ days in SA…”
I noticed the same thing on a camping trip last summer, and during a trip across the Canadian prairies in the fall. CO2 warming could not possibly cause that kind of temperature rise, especially in the short term. Lindzen has claimed that surface temperature could reach 72 C without the convective wind currents that cool the surface.
We have a place in Canada called Lytton, in the province of BC. It is the hottest part of Canada, in summer months, yet it is only 150 miles NNE of Vancouver, which is the most moderate climate in Canada. Last summer, while I was passing through Lytton, the temperature was 40 C in the shade, yet a thermometer there, placed in direct sunlight, can rise to a whopping 56 C, according to a local. In Vancouver, just 150 miles away, the temperature was 20 C.
Why is an area 150 miles north of another area, at the same longitude, twice the temperature? It’s the same Sun, and the farther north you go, the cooler it should be. The answer obviously lies in what Lindzen is trying to tell us. Lytton is in an area of desert where the Fraser River meets the Thompson River. As you go further north and south along the Fraser, the vegetation is not desert-like, but a few kilometeres east along the Thompson, it is pure desert, with sage brush. In Spences Bridge, where it measured 56 C in the sun, about 40 km east of Lytton, there are small cactii growing.
This has nothing to do with CO2. Pat Michaels explains it in one of his books, either Meltdown or The Satanic Gases. When hot, moist air rises, it condenses and releases the heat as rain or snow. The dry air then falls into regions, forming deserts. That’s why it can be lush and moist on one side of a mountain range and desert-like on the other side. It is quite conceivable that weather patterns change over time since the systems that cause them, high in the atmosphere, like the jet stream, shift themselves. That changes the pattern of convection currents, causing warming/cooling, and creating climate shifts like droughts.
What we are facing in climate science, is a load of non-climate scientists calling themselves climate scientists. Many of them are mathematicians (Schmidt), geologists (Mann) and even biologists (Schneider). About the only legitimate climate scientist in the CRU scandal is Kevin Trenberth, and he is annoyingly smug with his pronouncement that AGW is a fact, even though he admits the warming stopped. Then again, he is a Kiwi, and having lived in NZ for a year, I know how damned stubborn ‘SOME’ of them can be.
I think the thing to be noted about the heat in SA is that the PDO changed sign recently. It has brought some strange weather systems to our end of it and who knows what it is doing on your end, especially to ENSO.
G’day Gordon,
In SA we get those pesky high pressure systems hovering at the east of the continent that blow over thousands of km’s of interior OZ which is mostly dry to desert-like. That gives the air plenty of time to heat up by the time it gets to Adelaide.
That heat wave we had recently had the same conditions but the high was stalled in the Tasman plus there seemed to be little or no moisture coming down from NT which is heading into its wet season. My thinking is that it was an anomaly and unless the same thing happens again next year, I wouldn’t be looking for a trend.
BTW, that day that it was 48C in the shade at my school I put a thermometer on some dirt in a large pot in direct sun and it got to 72C. Gavin might be able to tell us whether taking readings in direct sunlight can be accurate considering thermal properties of the glass etc.
Cheers.
It’s often said one can fry an egg in direct sunlight. I say it can damage your mercury thread thermometer as it “boils”.
We can also say the Stevenson Screen as a contraption tends to regulate air flow as it regulates light when placed out in the open, thus we have a basis for the first stage of an aggreement in climate monitoring science.
Just filing this here:
“Just so you know, your name comes up quite a bit in these hacked emails. you should download them and read them if you haven’t already. Look at the one labeled “1256765544.txt” when you download them from http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails%2C_data%2C_models%2C_1996-2009
Regards,
Mark”
Jennifer,
I hope that you’re not saying what I think you’re saying. Although Anthony’s and Steve’s blogs are the best on the topic of climate change, yours is the best on the more general subject of science-based environmental policy.
I know that your plate is full at the moment, because of the writing project, among other things. Your hiatus is very understandable.
After the book is published, I hope that you return to blogging. You have a lot to contribute. If your time is limited, scaling back a bit could be an option.
Yes, in Australia, the forces of darkness–as in shivering in the dark–appear to have the upper hand. But history will show that these legislators done a tremendous disservice to their constituents. And good chroniclers can hasten the awakening of the sleeping elephants within the Australian electorate.
There’s also the rest of the world to consider. Please don’t throw in the towel.
Regards,
Larry
gavin “It’s often said one can fry an egg in direct sunlight. I say it can damage your mercury thread thermometer as it “boils”.”
There was a film on the net (or was it TV??), where someone directed sunlight through a lens and burned through a slab of steel. It was a pretty skookum lens, mind you, but the solar energy burned through the steel like a hot knife through butter. We’ve all used a lens in the sun to start wood burning, but I’d never thought it could get hot enough to melt steel.
Been listening to a climate science discussion on ABC 666 radio with guests Will Steffan and Will Grant from ANU. In passing they covered the email issue but I picked up on an interesting challenge from a caller named Ian. He raised the question of cooling via convection v radiation with the situation of two cars out in the midday sun, one closed up, the other with windows open – I hope it’s recorded here later
http://blogs.abc.net.au/canberra/canberra_mornings/index.html
Signing off the host mentioned the ANU climate change debate tomorrow
“Too hot to talk about: Why is Australia still debating climate change?”
“The event will be a Q & A style event zeroing in on how climate change is communicated to Australians – the spin, the noise, the clutter as well as the facts”.
http://news.anu.edu.au/?p=1806
For a preview of the event watch Dr Will Grant discuss the issue of climate change on ANU Channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQLy0LJgyc
Derek Smith “That heat wave we had recently had the same conditions but the high was stalled in the Tasman….”
Since Oz is at the eastern end of the ENSO system, I’m not surprised. According to non-fiction I have read about sailors sailing single-handedly through the Tasman, it is pretty wild and unpredictable.
We set a record of our own in Vancouver during late July. It was 32 C, beating the previous record circa 1960. When you consider that 25 C is a very hot day in Vancouver, that 32 C had us all moaning. The official explanation was that winds normally bringing cooling breezes from the ocean were reversed, and that we were getting hotter air from the Interior.
The Pacific Decadal Oscillation just changed direction and I suspect it has a lot to do with that. The heat wave went right over to the prairies in Saskatchewan, some 1200 miles inland. They were getting 32 C temperatures at the end of September, an unusual condition. Another 1000 miles east, in Ontario, they complained of a cold summer, while we were melting in the west. If it is the PDO behind the warming, it has far-reaching effects. Then again, the extremely cold weather in Saskatchewan during the winter is caused by cold air sweeping down from the Arctic, over 1000 miles north.
Jennifer, it is sad to see you call time on this blogging caper. This site has been the first I looked at in the morning, for many years.
Thanks for being a rational voice in the environment debate, especially when you first started, as there were few alternatives to the greenies propaganda a few years ago.
Best wishes with your future endeavours. Hope you return to blogging one day.
Larry “yours is the best on the more general subject of science-based environmental policy”
In Jennifer’s defence she puts up with the likes of me and one or two others who can take on the far side just for the hell of it.
In reality this blog has exposed me to the fact that climate “science” is still evolving and the “practice” is far from agreed even at this stage of the climate “change” debate
Its this long winded war that forces the likes of our ANU chiefs above, Dr Will & Prof Will to look again at their communication
We should carry on!
Paul, Larry et al
Thanks for your comments.
I don’t feel I am throwing in the towel … but I do feel I have done my bit.
And yes, especially at a time when to quote Paul: when I first started there were few alternative to the greenie propaganda.
Since I began this blog, and especially over the last couple of years, there have been a lot of people who have got organised and angry. There are alternatives now including Jo Nova’s site and WUWT. Yes, they don’t necessarily cover the non-AGW stuff, but hopefully they will in the future.
I might keep updating old posts as I did today here http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/09/leading-uk-climate-scientists-must-explain-or-resign/
And let us celebrate what we have achieved… a network of information exchange at a critical point in history.
And who knows what the future holds…
Jen,
You have to follow your bliss wherever it takes you. Someone once said if you come to a fork in the road, take it. I’m sure what ever you do you will make a success.
This website has given me hope—a rational light at the end of the tunnel when the whole academic establishment and our polity was descending into madness. I know this blog played a similar role in the lives of many others, many close to the levers of power, learning and policy creation and implementation. The effects of this blog upon the various environmental debates cannot be measure, yet shouldn’t be underestimated. Your blog has worked as a clearing house and support network for POVs utterly disenfranchised and marginalized, yet vital to the intellectual health of our democracy. Through the exposition of ideas little available elsewhere in the media Jen’s blog has nurtured the furtive intellectual lives of a salient creative minority. The full effects of this blog even if it ends today will be still be blossoming in the cultural life of our nation for years to come.
The greatest error of our age is the idea that a healthy democracy can prosper without the citizens being fully informed of all sides of whatever the current urgent debate is about. Our media intelligentsia have cast aside their journalistic ethics and assumed the role of censors believing that in their infinite wisdom and virtue they know best what should be allowed to reach hoi polloi ears and eyes. Thus, we have a wildly misinformed Australian lay public polling in favour of surrendering personal liberties and submitting to onerous taxation as penance for their imagined crimes against the weather! Our parliament believes fine weather can be legislated from Canberra!
This is simply the most important and influential environmental blog in the Southern hemisphere, a lone voice of reason in a wilderness of collectivist group think. As such, it’s hard to imagine continuing the battle to insert rigorous scientific method, transparency, fidelity to field observations and intellectual honesty into the major environment debates of our day without this blog leading the way. Yet, it’s perhaps harder still to imagine this blog continuing without the guidance of Jen’s wisdom and tolerance for the chaos of the free exchange of ideas.
All the best for the future Jennifer, you’ve worked hard over a reasonable period of time.
Now perhaps this fraud is disintegrating with the leaked email scandal known as CLIMATEGATE getting more coverage every day.
Even moonbat concedes that he should have been more careful about his research and he also calls for the sacking of phil jones.
Surely even dummies like rudd and Turnbull must follow suit before they make complete fools of themselves?
Wes – “we own all you bases” – well done. I laughed.
Love this comment from Janama “luke and all is shit is dead, luke is dead, luke is dead.” – need one say more ? Said at a time when there is literally a flood of new information. But intelligence has never been a mainstay here.
I say again – your are all very much deluded if you think “climategate” is even a climategate. You all clasp your little hands so tightly and hope it’s a climategate but alas it’ll all be fish and chip paper soon. Nothing has changed. Climate science is incredibly angry with the sophistry and deceit of the climate movement. The comments are far from surprising.
All this pontification though by Wes about honesty and ethics is utterly nauseating given the standard by which sceptics conduct their affairs. It’s an affront.
Remember I have only endorsed the science and the science process. In your mindless hurried attempts to “win” you have forgotten that a world of 6 billion going to 9 billion is already severely impacted by climate variability. In the end the global atmosphere will integrate the physics of greenhouse and your sceptic views won’t matter in all of this.
So remember what you said as it all changes around you. As the droughts in sub-tropics get worse/more frequent and the Arctic becomes open ocean. Remember what you all said and how you conducted yourselves.
And to my good friend Jen – disagree totally but fully respect your right to say it.
Janama,
Comment from: janama November 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 pm
For us confused Munchkins who only drop in occasionally, I think you should clarify the timing of your post.
Jennifer,
wherever you end up, thank you for your enormous contribution to sanity.
George believes he got it wrong!
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/11/23/the-knights-carbonic/
After years of following the climate debate it all boils down to one simple test. And this is well reflected in the CRU Climategate emails.
If the medieval warming period (MWP) was warmer than today even though CO2 level were much, much lower than today, then the AGW hypothesis explains nothing.
Turns out that Vikings had dairy farms and were exporting cheese to Europe along well-documented trade routes FROM GREENLAND. Get it, Greenland? Today the very valleys where the Vikings raised DAIRY CATTLE are solid permafrost backed by glaciers. Greenland has no export dairy industry and hasn’t since the Earth’s climate began to cool about 900 years ago and forced the Vikings to abandon their farm settlements.
At the same time elephants seal were forced to abandon their southern breeding sites on the main body of Antarctica as the fossil record shows. So the MWP and subsequent cooling was global. Most importantly, the MWP was warmer than today with our much higher level of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
According to standard scientific method, a hypothesis is only as good as its implications and predictions. The AGW hypothesis states that CO2 is the dominant forcing factor in climate evolution. The more CO2, the warmer the climate regime. Therefore, the climate 1,000 years ago before high modern levels of atmospheric CO2 must be cooler than today for the AGW hypothesis to usefully predict observed data. Yet it was demonstrably warmer in the past.
Logically the AGW hypothesis has been slamdunk falsified, because it can be shown that the past 2,000 years of the Earth’s temperature record in no way correlates to the rise (or fall) in CO2 concentration. Note that this is not to say that a “greenhouse gas effect” doesn’t exist, it obviously does, just that it is in no way among the dominant phenomena forcing climate evolution.
An objective searcher for an empirically-based hypothesis of what really drives climate must now return to direct observation to construct a new hypothesis which makes predictions that anticipate known observations, such as features like the MWP, the LIA and why modern warming stalled mid-20th century and early 21 st century. (In retrospect, it now seems obvious that this task is probably far too great for any one “just-so” hypothesis and will require a syncretic, holistically unified theory that is probably well beyond both the state of our info and observational technologies and our grasp of complex system analysis.)
What is so damning about Climategate is that it shows Mann, Jones, Briffa, et al deeply understood the MWP was utterly devastating to the credibility of the AGW hypothesis and so conspired to create and cherry pick a data/code based “narrative” where the MWP was nothing more than a “minor blip” as Al Gore called it. They also attempted to smooth the latter Little Ice Age, so that modern warming would appear to be coming off a thousand plus years of climate stasis. Once placed in that fantasy context the AGW hypothesis appeared to function as a useful explanation.
One can well be forgiven for being fooled by the CRU conspiracy and the media’s one-sided reporting. I certain was. Yet now that the facts are exposed, to continue to believe the Earth is going to suffer an apocalypse due to carbon induced warming is more than just irrational, it’s the denialism of our post-AGW world.
Janama, sadly monbiot does not think he got it wrong, it is his attempt at sarcasm and scorn for and of “deniers”.
Personally I think Wes has summed it up nicely.
I think you only have to listen to the response of people like Luke to realise that we truly are dealing with a religion. Even when it can be shown that data has been manipulted, the peer review process corrupted, blatant bias, the conscious removal of the MWP, RMP,MWP, etc etc, Luke continues to scream denier.
Luke you are in denial if you are not concerned for the future of science and the fact that you can t see the huge dent this puts in the credibility of climate scientists and the IPCC.
To me its ironic that so much about what we “deniers”have been saying about politics having corrupted the scientific process has recently been confirmed.
Hundreds of millions of dollars spent trying to prove the lie about co2 being a pollutant, and yet they still can t convince so many people. Anybody who is in “denial’ has self interest at heart, and yet I doubt any sceptic on this site is being paid in anyway for their opinions, and yet the pseudoscientists ( yes insult meant Luke…about the climate scientists), with their huge flow of funds can not see their own self interest. The same goes for all those carbon credits being traded and the businesses that support an ETS seeing a new “gravy train”. Their is where the problems lie.
The truth doesn t need lies and exagerations, it should speak for itself. Science should be about “truth”, clearly climate science is not.
Jen, good luck with whatever you decide to do. This site has been very enjoyable and informative to follow. Thankyou.
Jennifer,
I know that you enjoy writing. After recovering from the burnout, I hope that you do some guest posts on other blogs. If you have some specific ones in the mind, please let us know. I’ll make a point to spend more time there.
If you ever take a vacation in Northern California, I volunteer to give a guided tour of my informal climate change research ‘laboratory’ at Roundtop Lake. In my guest post, I neglected to mention that it’s near some of the best wildflower areas in the Northern Sierras. And they’re usually at their peak in late July or early August, shortly after the snow melts. You have my email address.
I wish you the best of luck with your novel.
Regards,
Larry
Toby – simple utter waffle. .
As usual you’ve confounded climate science (and a very broad area of science as Wes lunges desperately at a few points) with the policy responses. Very illogical. As useful as telling your oncologist that they’re ugly.
And more uninformed Euro-centric drivel from Wes – not addressing the mega-droughts that plagued the USA, China and Africa.
Toby to simply focus your entire argument on the Hockey-Stick is simply myopic.
This isn’t a science based blog. It’s simply a political arena. And you’ve all heard the arguments now 100 times.
Pretty well all of you aren’t interested in learning anything. All you’re interested in is feeding your confirmation biases and denying utterly everything.
You all actually believe that there is a massive international conspiracy in one area of science that links multiple organisations, across continents and 100s of scientists. Just say that to yourself rationally…
So if that’s the perceived sum up – well believe whatever you like. But in the end – you’re not sceptics – you’re simply denialists ! And is about religion – the religion of denial.
Luke – you’ve been ranting on this site for years now and everything you’ve posted shows you are the ultimate acolyte for the religion of AGW!
Now go away – you’ve got nothing to new to say.
I really liked your post Wes.
I jsut saw Dr Will Grant discuss the issue of climate change on ANU Channel on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnQLy0LJgyc.
What a cop out!…”I am not a climate scientist myself so I defer to them…”. Climate “science” is not rocket science, it is remarkably banal, rests on a very slender experimental basis usually requiring 100% CO2 in the experiments instead of the actual 0.04%, and has absolutely zero statistical evidence for its core hypothesis that the radiative forcing of increases in said CO2 is more than 50% responsible for observed global temperature change. If Dr Grant lacks the interest or capacity to undertake that level of elementary due diligence he has no right to be employed by ANU. But he is not alone, as most if not all the other luminaries at tomorrow’s love-in are no better.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/climate_science_corrupted.html
Well Luke Walker you fraud, thats just what the evidence and practice shows. viz the CRU data and emails, plus the above historical write up. It was all pre ordained by the original science carpet baggers, like Tolba, and that religious nutter and manipulator Houghton, et al.
What a farce.
Jen,
A great experience posting here and all the best for the future, whatever it might hold for you.
Well, the thread is winding down, Nick has made a quizzical appearance and luke has maintained his incoherence and rather unfair perspective to the end; I and I know many others have waded through many of his scientific links and often been pleasently surprised at how many have been contradictory towards the tenents of AGW. I’ve always kept an open mind about the ‘evidence’; but after CRU the verdict is in.
There is no proof of AGW; that human emissions of CO2 are putting novel strain on the climate system has no merit whatsoever; the only scrap of evidential substance to AGW has been Engelbeen’s assiduous presentations of ^CO2 = ACO2, and even that is irrelevant given CO2’s imperceptible effect on energy flux in the atmosphere.
The real issue, which has been masked by a misanthropic green ideology, is how humanity should interact with nature; the prevailing green ideology demands drastic reductions in human encroachment, for any reason, into pristine nature. Despite enjoying Spangle’s many anecdotes I am not a fan of nature for its own sake; that is a lesson well learnt from my formative years on a farm which had no power and little diversity; nature can be as barren as any cement As far as I am concerned what benefits humanity is the number one priority; no doubt part of that priority is having a healthy living space and standard of living; prosperity is the key and it benefits both humans and nature; and energy is the key for prosperity along with an equitable distribution of wealth and opportunity; both these essential elements are only present in the West; unfortunately so to is ennui and a decadent self-loathing; both these qualities infect the green movement which now has a formidable hold on the key infrastructure of the West; politics, education and unfortunately, science.
It’s a shame Jen has to move on; she has a valuable asset here; perhaps if someone were prepared to take legal and scientific responsibility for the site some arrangement could be made in which the brand name could be preserved without sacrificing the goodwill, as it were.
Luke said…
” So remember what you all said as it all changes around you. As the droughts in sub-tropics get worse/more frequent and the Arctic becomes open ocean. Remember what you all said and how you conducted yourselves.”
Ahahahahahahahaha .That last comment was a bit rich eh Luke. People here seem to show admirable withstraint when subjected to the torrent of abuse dished out by you.
So I want you to remember as the years go by and nothing out of the ordinary climatically happens, remember us older guys telling you that man has about as much effect on the earths climate as a moth thrashing around inside a glass jar.
On finding this thread I was tempted to comment on what I thought may be happening in the wilderness. Perhaps there was a different light after 40 days and a personal restructure is a good thing. We should carry on but elsewhere and in a different vien.
“The real issue, which has been masked by a misanthropic green ideology, is how humanity should interact with nature….”
Anti ennui hey cohenite; this is your big chance to run the next blogsphere vacancy
Jennifer,
Just a note to say I am saddened by your decision to no longer contribute to this site which you founded and did so much to establish and maintain.
Personally and I believe most who have used this blog to communicate their views will be the poorer for its demise.
I really appreciated the opportunity to use this as a base to seek some truth in the Murray Darling Basin debate.
I will be forever grateful for your help in assisting me with this.
While I had approached many MSM organisations and spoken with several well known journalists. The response was always ” we know what the problems are” and that is what we are going to report.
Truth was never important.
While we may not have always agreed totally on issues, I respect your sincerety and professionalism in matters that are dear to my heart.
You have shown courage to be at odds with big Government, when the supposed “concensus” has been established in the Media; of which you are of course a part.
To be at odds with Government policy is a dangerous place to reside.
I dedicate my poem ” The Getting of Wisdon” to your future endevours.
There is a copy on this site.
Good luck and may the truth be always with you.
Luke Mate,
I doubt very much I will be around to see your “Doomsday” predictions eventuate.
Not because I intend to drop off the perch any time soon.
Simply because you lack the appreciation that this world and the flora and forna that proliferate it, have remarkable adaptive powers, that can compensate for change.
While I recognise your interlect and skills, never lose sight of the fact that the real test of intellegence is:
The capacity to adapt to changing circumstances.
Remember Plan B, that you so ruthlessly attacked.
You see Luke this is NOT about winning. it is about the pursuit of truth.
It is only when man has truthful and verifiable data that he can make decissions in the interest of future generations.
You have every right to demand that claims are scientifically supportable.
However you have NO right to abuse those who would reasonably question hypothetical claims yet to be supported by verifiable data.
I will watch with interest how this thread develops and may pose some other thoughts if their is interest.
Pikey.
Jennifer, we haven’t met but I want to thank you dearly for this site. As a recent reader and then blogger here, I have found this to be a treasure trove, especially for a layman like myself and I will be eternally grateful that I visited if just for the briefest of time. I visit many of the other similar sites but none have the openness, tolerance, warmth or flexibility of yours. All the best and I look forward to reading your book.
If this site truly is winding down, I want to say to everyone whom I have encountered here that I have appreciated and mostly enjoyed reading your comments here, there has been so much wisdom and knowledge written that I often feel insignificant. It is doubtful that I would have had such an opportunity in my ordinary world.
Special mention must go to Spangled, Cohenite, Gordon, Ron and Gavin for your friendly correspondence and especially to Louis who has led me down a path of new discoveries that has just begun, thank you.
P.S. if this blog keeps dragging on , I’m going to feel like a complete twit.
I’ve been thinking along the lines of Cohenite and Pikey too.
Have you ever noticed that Bob Brown and the Greens, who represent about 3% of Australian votes get about 30% of the time on most political topics on ABC news? An outrageous show of bias on the part of the ABC? In part, yes, but rhetorically it also makes sense since the Greens represent what Arnold Toynbee called a “creative minority.” That is they are driving debate ways the majority can’t and therefore politically punching well above their actual weight.
The same is true of Jennifermarohasy.com. This site must get less than 1% of the ABC’s traffic, yet as a national asset, as a voice and focal point of a creative minority it punches an order or so of magnitude above its weight. Jennifermarohasy.com is the seed of an ecological counterculture driving debates in directions utterly unimaginable by the mainstream media and often years ahead of the curve.
If the ABC has their funding slashed there would be little loss of unique information to the Australian public, Foxtel or some one would simply fill the vacuum created with pablum of at least equal value. But if the guiding light of a creative minority stumbles there is no guarantee that a national destiny is not forever forsaken. A hope and direction lost never to be recovered.
Cohenite is right, jennifermarohasy.com is too big of a national asset for Jennifer to just waltz off stage right. If Jen must leave, then she has to walk the site to a new name and then sit back stage as a mentor for a while to keep the brand and the network going under new tutelage.
Derek Smith,
Why thank you very much for your kind words – I hope you and your students will man the next scientific paradigm shift – my generation will try to sink this false one to make room for the reappearance of proper science.
I originally came here because Tim Blair’s moderator wouldn’t let my posts through.
What was her name?
Anita? Victoria? Andrea?
Meh, can’t remember.
Was I too extreme? Too middle of the road? Too combative?
Probably too boring.
Since then Jennifer’s blog, with its wide range of topics, has helped me sink one eco-squishy radio talker named Bruce, and two environmentalist newspaper editors, Stuart and Tom.
Not a bad haul.
One notable exchange with the defunct radio guy
BRUCE
“Have you ever read JenniferMarohasy.com?”
JAMES
“Hey that’s good stuff, Bruce. Thanks.”
I’d been beating him over the head with your stuff for months.
Well I couldn’t just come out and tell him.
Dipsticks like me, we got to hold on to whatever slinder advantage we can find.
Now what am I gonna do?
See you all think Jennifer has moved on to more productive pursuits, and from her point of view, no doubt she has.
But you all are forgetting the most important question;
HOW IS THIS GOING TO EFFECT JIM?
I’m losing my edge.
Like today’s dilemma, we have a river chock full of sea lions, so that the native fish are being eaten to the edge of extinction.
If your lucky enough to hook a trout, it’s an iffy thing that you get it on the boat before one of the seals take it. Over a hundred miles inland from the ocean and you have to fight off sea lions.
The authorities answer was to cut off water deliveries to the farmers. See they’re convinced that the fish are scarce because of farm irrigation.
After putting thousands of farmers out of work, and thousands of acres to lay fallow, the DF&G boys tested and found that the extra water the farmers didn’t get had no effect on fish populations.
How do you begin to answer such stupidity?
Jennifer would know.
But I’ve lost my edge.
Dear Ms. Marohasy –
Much to be done. Darkest before the dawn, etc.
Best wishes.
TA
Thanks Jennifer for the many insightful things you have said over the time I have been looking at this blog. This is a time when things are really changing. I have said many times here that the questions are simple and the amazing thing is that such crap is believed. I have never thought it was about science but about politics and manipulation. This has proved so true with the latest revelations. Note whoever did this hinted there may be more.
I doubt this was a hacker I think an inside job. Their tracks looked to have been covered well. I expect someone had read the emails and decided to expose a group of people thought they could control the world. They thought they were a secret society yet what they did was in fact public and visible to many managing the IT infrastructure. They would have deleted these emails most likely but in systems I have worked for they are kept anyway for many years. Seven by law and probably hanging around on backup tapes for much longer than that. So Luke stuff you have written in emails is still out there waiting to be discovered and publicized on the net I hope that makes you feel comfortable. If it was me that outed you would never discover who did it.
“It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.” …..
“There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released(2,3), and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request(4).” George Monbiot
Suddenly there is doubt from the extreme of the extreme. Flannery is suddenly saying oh of course there is uncertainly.
And still Luke sticks to his guns like the pathetic excuse for a human that he is. He peddles this crap because he is paid to or he has the intelligence of a boulder.
There has much scientific discussion here but it does not matter a jot if the other side is only about winning the argument for some other audience. It is warmer now than a hundred years ago yup about and anomaly of 0.2 degrees. So much argument about so little. Jones, Briffa, Trenbarth, Schmidt etc know that winning means political manipulation not science.
Looks like the Libs will fall apart and there will be a double dissolution instead of an ETS here in OZ. By that time Copenhagen will have failed and we will be close to a further financial meltdown. The GFC is not over it very well might get much worse. Both the AGW and the GFC relate very closely to a religious faith in computer models.
The opposite of skeptical? Gullible! beautiful wish I had thought of it.
PS It is not my website but beware it can kill you! Lets make it the next great scare AGW is now the walking dead. How long before it falls over.
PPS Bye
“You see Luke this is NOT about winning. it is about the pursuit of truth.”
Yes Ron – could not agree more and that is the last thing so called sceptics aka denialists are really interested in is the truth. The abuse and dishonest manner in which they have conducted themselves is apparent.
A fair assessment of the risks has been sabotaged at every turn.
DHMO – you are a threatening little grub – and typical of a denialist scumbag to resort to threats. Utterly vile and typical. Does it strike you that if I were paid to represent a position I might do a more calculated less emotional job of it? Do you hear me advocating the daily government line – no. What you are about mate is suppressing free speech.
If you think a few colourful emails is going to have much effect on a major global science effort you’re kidding yourself.
Luke, the reason so many on this blog are now telling you to go away is not to suppress free speech. Nobody tells Gavin, Bernard SJT and others, even Sod to go away, just you. In the past you have contributed to debate and discussion with passion but mate, lately you have become just an irritating noise like fingernails on a blackboard with your shrill, maniacal attacks and accusations.
You were actually quite reasonable for a while there but it appears that you couldn’t maintain such strict self discipline and fell back into your perhaps true self.
If the warming never returns, I hope that you can simply acknowledge that you were wrong and move on.
Hollow words Derek. Utterly hollow. Take off the sunnies matey and read what your colleagues have written over the years.
But the social context of all this is really quite fascinating.
“The theft and use of the emails does reveal something interesting about the social context. It’s a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science:
Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance.
Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers.
In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers.
Extraordinary and, frankly, weird.
Climate scientists are naturally upset, exasperated, and sometimes goaded into intemperate responses… but that was already easy to see in their blogs and other writings.
They don’t call it a war on science for nothing, folks. ”
Spencer Weart … on the CRU hack
My suspicion Luke, is that in the not too distant future most of those thousands of respected scientists are going to be somewhat miffed about being manipulated by the “chosen few” who held so much sway over the climate change community. I’ve read numerous accounts of researchers adding a pro AGW sentence to the end of their papers just to make sure it gets published. It’s like the political correctness movement which had so many people intimidated that they were all afraid to say anything in case they offended someone. Sooner or later people start to stand up for themselves.
Don’t forget, thousands of respected scientists, actors, politicians and academics supported the eugenics program.
It looks like Australians with integrity are starting to stand up and be heard about the crooked climate scientists:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/even_monbiot_says_the_science_now_needs_reanalyising/
Jennifer,
Despair is never called for. Remember that even in the worst of dictatorships, truth finds a way out.
AGW promoters are boorish, misleading and rude, but they are penny weights in the history of suppression. One FOIA file being covered up was released. How much other garbage will we find out about these charlatans?
Luke,
These leaked e-mails are the banal writings of people who have convinced themselves they can do anything they want with the data, the code, the peer review process you worship, the press, the politicians and the tax payer’s money, with no regard to truth or integrity or the scientific process.
I know you wish it were about tobacco, or big oil, or evil denialist scum. It is not. It is about a bunch of extremely well tax payer funded scientists who have been misleading a lot of people over many years.
Including, most especially, you.
Jennifer,
Do I win a prize as the 1000th poster on this thread?
;^)
Hunter, I’ll send you a slightly used (up to Nov) Ronald Reagan calender.
Hows that? Better then getting poked with a stick, right?
James Mayeau,
How about a donation to Jennifer, to help her see her way through this extended walk about?
;^)
Thanks Jennifer. Good luck with the writing…. Well you lot, enjoyed reading you.
IMO It’s really been about writers and books from the beginning. Let’s be honest now
Interesting snips from the drifting battle for resources
“Statkraft drives coffee machine on power of salt”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,26386893-5009760,00.html
“Coalminers say they’ve been shafted by Rudd’s carbon scheme”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/coalminers-say-theyve-been-shafted-by-rudds-carbon-scheme/story-e6frg8zx-1225803452041
“While mining giants BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, which produce a big proportion of the nation’s coal, decided not to step into the debate yesterday, the lobby groups they help fund were quick to go on the offensive”.
“Clean coal unviable, says Macfarlane”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/10/2738075.htm
“Mr Macfarlane is no longer sceptical about humans causing global warming but he is now sceptical about carbon capture and storage, something he championed as resources minister in the Howard government”
“In the short-to-medium term, obviously we will use gas,” Mr Macfarlane said.
“We could burn gas at the same emissions as clean coal but half the price, because gas is so clean. But in the longer term Australia will, like all our other economic partners, need to consider nuclear.”
In the light of the ETS compromise we could see a growing difference between libs and labs on policy re nuclear v carbon capture. Who can best represent nuclear at the big end of town round next election time?
The Nationals?
It’s worth tabulating this – Hunter and Derek actually believe (and one really has to pinch yourself to make sure one is hearing this right) – that there is a cohesive, organised, subversive, global movement run by one particular branch of science that is international, multi-institutional and global.
How absolutely weird and creepy. You actually believe that – but maybe there’s just a few – a secret splinter cell – but that’s a few 100 authors that seem to keep publishing. Oh yea – and all the world’s journals and all the science peak bodies are also secretly in on the act. And and and – they’re doing it for “the money”. Woo hoo….
So pinch yourself guys – and say is this what I really truly truly believe !
Now guys – when history reads these pages – they will ask – what drugs were these denialists on?
Newtongate:
If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.
And and and – after this Janama ran through the streets ranting that “Newton” is dead. Yup he sure is.
And hey what does Trenberth really think –
“It is incontrovertible” that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. “The question to me is what to do.”
“It’s certainly a legitimate question,” he added. “Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html
WHAT ARE YOU the March of Dimes? If I had it I would have given it. In case you missed it Californians are getting rolled by the climate changers. You all passed an ETS today by hook and crook. Should have gotten rid of Turnbull when he first uttered the word carbon.
I mean when the first sylible crossed his lip.
It should have gone “My name is Turnbull and car—–”
And the rest of you should have yelled him out of the country.
I can’t help myself much less anybody else. You’ve only just started on this path. We have been livin the nightmare since 2006. 25% unemployment. Ello.
The paper says only 12 %, but they aren’t counting everybody, and in their own profession the figure is 50%!
Five to six years before the recession is over – the radio lady just said. Oh Joy.
On Radio National today Professor Matthew England from the University of New South Wales says in support of a new report on Arctic ice loss; SL > 2M i.e. IPCC was slightly conservative-
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/
wait for the update – sorry
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/11/24/2752509.htm
Luke, now what are you gong on about? Misdirection?
Unless you can contradict Wes George’s conclusions, you’ve got nuttin!
Also on ‘our’ abc Will Steffen, rabbiting on about the revised IPCC findings – Arctic ice free by 2030 [I’ll have some money on that in the summer of 2030] and sea rises of 2 meters due to the GRACE [!!] findings of more ice melt in Antarctica; and then Steffen saying, if the sceptics want to criticise these findings they should publish in a peer-reviewed magazine, the same ones that Mann and Jones control or intimidate. The only thing accelerating is irony.
This isn’t a conspiracy in the sense of old ratbags out the back huddled together conspiracy; it is an unfortunate convergence of otherwise divergent views [money, greens, Malthusians, inner-city elites etc] which don’t mind travelling together for the time being; sort of like the disparate islamist groups who if there isn’t anyone else will revert to blowing each other up; so to with the Alarmists.
Jen: how much to stay? What else, someone assuming legal responsibility for content perhaps? Thread topics subject to your approval but otherwise you’re at arms length?
“he same ones that Mann and Jones control or intimidate.” why be a lawyer Cohers when you could by verballing in the police force. That’s why you can’t be trusted.
And so now you’ve actually disagreed with all your fellow travellers here – “it’s not a conspiracy – it’s a convergence” !! hmmmmm – you know who your old ratbags in a huddle are don’t you. Check your meetings !
And sceptics do indeed publish in “magazines” – it’s called E&E. Find under “fiction”.
Meanwhile while denialists deny and waste time – the case is firmly put
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf
congratulations Hunter on being 1,000th
tripe, junk and rubbish to the end, eh luke; this farrago of a lie, Copenhagen Diagnosis, which surely deserves to be litigated states that the current sea level rise from only land ice melt is more than than the sea level rise as found in Ablain and Cazenave corrections to Jason.
Luke,
Not saying that, Luke. As usual, you choose a simple and incorrect answer.
But what if I was? You certainly say skeptics are in a conspiracy, and you are the first to point out that we are not nearly as clever as you. So if your guyss wanted to make a cohesive conspiracy to do something, certainly people as smart as you obviously could pull it off, no?
But I am not making any such accusation, as you know.
I am suggesting, and the e-mail evidence shows, that a group of people in climate science have gotten so absorbed in being right and well paid that they have done what people throughout history have done who are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong: behave as the record show they have done; lie, disparage, cheat and mislead.
You know this of course, and that is why you are so urgently trying to distract from the issue and to your ever more hysterical behavior.
The issue is not E&E. The issue is not denialists. The issue is liars like you who have never ethically engaged on the issue ahving kidded yourself into thinking that those who question you are so unworthy that normal rules do not apply.
You have had a good run, but all good runs come to an end.
Sorry mate. it is not working.
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body.
Deadline to sign up by: 24 February 2010
The details of the petition:
The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is a “leading centre” for the investigation of “manmade global warming” and government policy relies on the integrity of these statistics. Several claims have been made: that data was “cherry picked” to make the 20th century temperature rise look exceptional in historical terms; emails suggest the unit has colluded in “tricks” to “hide the decline” in a high profile scientific journal, and this unit has colluded in active, secret and highly political campaigning through the website “realclimate”.
The preparation of climate statistics require many judgements: stations move & sites become surrounded by urban sprawl (urban heating) & a judgement must be made of the size of the offset to apply to the global temperature record. The University accepts most emails are genuine so it appears the Unit has been acting in a highly partisan way incompatible with that of a neutral body preparing and interpreting government data. We call on the PM to suspend all further use of the climate research unit until all pertinent allegations have been investigated and any action (if any) has been taken.
If you are a UK citizen, expat, or resident, here is where you can add your name to the petition.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/UEACRU/
Jennifer,
Thank you.
It is a high honor and fine privelege.
Watching Luke melting down only makes this even more special.
Jen, please reconsider, and put up the occasional new thread, not least because you earned all those honourable mentions in the CRU cache. Without your blog that cache might well never have been released, so never say “The struggle naught availeth”.
For example, here we have Pierrehumbert in the NYT: “…this illegal act of cyber-terrorism against a climate scientist [sic, i.e. Jones] (and I don’t think that’s too strong a word) is ominous and frightening. What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?…”
Yet “deliberate monkeying with data” while hiding behind IPR is exactly what Jones and the rest of his team both at CRU and GISS have been doing for the last 20 years, and Jen’s Blog is one of the very few (the only one down under that I’m aware of) that has allowed any challenging of that monkeying. Just check out Lambert’s Deltoid and Quiggin’s blogs for closing of the ranks to protect the CRU’s monkeying right now – and go to the ANU’s CCI’s love-in today for more of the same.
“Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal — for nearly three years — to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “Climategate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer code, and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
All of that material, and that sought for years by CEI, goes to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation, and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/competitive-enterprise-institute-sues-nasa-in-wake-of-climategate-scandal/
Free the Data! Free the Code!
Andrew Bolt in his article today writes
“WHAT DOES THIS ALL MEAN?
It doesn’t mean all global warming science is bogus. But it does mean the “consensus” of scientists you keep hearing of may not exist.
It means the IPCC reports cannot be trusted to be balanced. It means “peer review” is too often “mates’ review”.
It means sceptical scientists have not had the hearing they deserve, and leading warmist scientists have not been honest or frank.
It means that claims we’ve never been hotter are false or unproven.
And at heart it means global warming theory is too weak to accept, being contradicted by a decade of climate.
Even Tim Flannery, the alarmist who claimed global warming could cause Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide to run out of water by last summer, now admits – after reading some of these emails – that “the computer modelling and the real world data disagree”, since “for the last 10 years we’ve gone through a slight cooling trend”.
He confessed at last: ” We don’t understand all of the factors that create earth’s climate.”
When even Flannery says that, tell me why Kevin Rudd says the science is still good enough to hit us with a colossal tax on gases to “stop” a warming that’s actually stopped?
Heed this fraud. End this farce.”
I am sure most of use here would agree with his sentiments.
What is abundantly clear to anyone who can think is that there is doubt, there is no consensus and a government that introduces an ETS without acknowledging this doubt must be held for account….both at the ballot box and in the courts ( wishful thinking I expect, but big business should challenge the case for an ETS in court….no way AGW would hold up).
“I am not a Crook.”
-Richard M. Nixon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M
“…For instance, in May of 2008, the school received a legal information request for correspondence of an East Anglia researcher, Keith Briffa, involved in the preparation of the most recent scientific report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, known as AR4. Two days later, according to the alleged correspondence, Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, sent out an email to colleagues asking them to delete any such emails.
From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI:04:11 2008
Date: Thu May 29 11
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
According to Hazel Moffatt, a partner in the litigation and regulatory department at the law firm DLA Piper in London, deleting emails subject to a FOI request is a criminal offense in the United Kingdom, punishable with a fine. “It’s quite naughty to do that,” said Ms. Moffatt….”
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/11/in-climate-hack.html
“…over at RealClimate.org, Gavin Schmidt, a modeler for the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been downplaying the leak. Schmidt wrote: “There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research … no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”
ROTFL…Yeah, Gavin, that’s what it’s all about, a handful of conspiracy nutjobs. Riiiiiiight…
Just keep on digging, Gavin. Luke why don’t you grab a shovel and give the mate a hand!
On ABC Brisbane they’ve just announced a poll showing 52% believe the government should wait until Copenhagen is over before legislating an ETS – only 34% were against.
meanwhile over at the ABC Karoly is taking a wolloping!! 🙂
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2751952.htm
janama,
In my fondest hopes I did not beleive that AGw would collapse in a great showdown like this.
I thought it would jsut sort of slink away,with the profiteers counting their loot, and the world economy limping on.
Instead we are getting this great show of self destruction, as the promoters only dig themselves deeper and deeper, relying as we see in our own little wannabe, Luke, on misdirection, hystrionics and temper tantrums to keep people from actually conisdering the e-mails.
I think the politics of AGW are dying by the second. I can only hope the careers of each and every one of the scammers who have been selling it for decades get wrecked as well. they have been parasites of the worst sort. I wonder if Copenhagen will be little more than a shopping trip for the spouses of hig level political hacks and climate parasites.
Truth is, I think even the hardcore know that the idea of a climate catastrophe was bogus from the start. People have glommed on to apocalyptic clap trap from the most ancient of times.
Copenhagen Diagnosis.What a line up of the usual soivs that is .
Anything with Michael Manns name on it has to be suss for starters.
Even if all the prophets of doom are absolutely correct in all respects we are still left with the obvious comment. If Australia is less than 1.4% of the problem, then there is nothing we can do to save anything.We will have zero effect on the temperature.
To bankrupt the economy for a null outcome ie no return, are the actions of complete fools and incompetents, as well as an egotistical fool of a PM,whose real agenda is a need to strut stages of the word like Charlie Chaplins spoof on Hitler.
We are run by idiots
Malcolm Turnbull (Leader of the Opposition in Australia) thinks he’s on an episode of the Apprentice. He came from a business background and treats his party as its employees to push around. He bullied them last night into agreeing into a watered-down ETS.
However, if Turnbull opposed our Prime Minister properly, like his party wanted, then he could have been our next PM. The House of Cards that is AGW is soon to fall and he could have been the champion in the aftermath.
Kevin Rudd or nothing – doh.
blah blah blah
wow 252 signatures ! woo hoo
Poor Luke reduced to blathering. Must be back on the meds again.
I’d like to dedicate this next tune to all the ‘Chefs’ at CRU!
Here’s an interesting article regarding the code used by the chefs at CRU.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11…y5761180.shtml
luke you are an imbecile!!
What a bunch of old codgers – 252 signatures – and what the Aussie anti-ETS petition 2,500 signatures. Holey doley. That’s raw political power at full revs.
Gee guys you might be on a mass movement here . HOHOHOHOHOHO !!
Looks like the Yanks are getting a bit pissed off over CRU climategate. And who knew that RealClimate.org was in the bag all the time??? The CRU crew are gatekeeping realclimate comments??? Christ, this is hilarious.
Luke’s right: “It’s weird and creepy!”
—-
“…So it’s no surprise when another e-mail refers to an attempt to keep inconvenient scientific findings out of a UN report: “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” Think of all of this the next time you hear someone invoke the authority of peer review-or of the UN’s IPCC reports-as backing for claims about global warming.
This scandal goes beyond scientific journals and into other media used to promote the global warming dogma. For example, RealClimate.org has been billed as an objective website at which global warming activists and skeptics can engage in an impartial debate. But in the CRU e-mails, the global warming establishment boasts that RealClimate is in their pocket.
I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through…. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
[T]hink of RC as a resource that is at your disposal…. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics don’t get to use the RC comments as a megaphone.
And anyone doubting that the mainstream media is in on it, too, should check out New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin’s toadying apologia for the CRU e-mails, masquerading as a news report.
The picture that emerges is simple. In any discussion of global warming, either in the scientific literature or in the mainstream media, the outcome is always predetermined. Just as the temperature graphs produced by the CRU are always tricked out to show an upward-sloping “hockey stick,” every discussion of global warming has to show that it is occurring and that humans are responsible. And any data or any scientific paper that tends to disprove that conclusion is smeared as “unscientific” precisely because it threatens the established dogma.
For more than a decade, we’ve been told that there is a scientific “consensus” that humans are causing global warming, that “the debate is over” and all “legitimate” scientists acknowledge the truth of global warming. Now we know what this “consensus” really means. What it means is: the fix is in.
This is an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but it is not just scientific fraud. It is also a criminal act. Suborned by billions of taxpayer dollars devoted to climate research, dozens of prominent scientists have established a criminal racket in which they seek government money-Phil Jones has raked in a total of £13.7 million in grants from the British government-which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers. It’s the most insidious kind of fraud: a fraud in which the culprits are lauded as public heroes. Judging from this cache of e-mails, they even manage to tell themselves that their manipulation of the data is intended to protect a bigger truth and prevent it from being “confused” by inconvenient facts and uncontrolled criticism.
The damage here goes far beyond the loss of a few billions of taxpayer dollars on bogus scientific research. The real cost of this fraud is the trillions of dollars of wealth that will be destroyed if a fraudulent theory is used to justify legislation that starves the global economy of its cheapest and most abundant sources of energy.
This is the scandal of the century. It needs to be thoroughly investigated-and the culprits need to be brought to justice.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/24/the_fix_is_in_99280.html
Read the whole thing. Realclearpolitics is a political venue which rarely covers climate issue Unlike in Australia, almost every American has heard of climategate by now. So you can forget a US cap-n-trade anytime before Obama’s third term in office….heh.
Yeah, well turnbull is back in so the ETS will pass and that will constitute ratification BEFORE Copenhagen of ANY agreement reached at Copenhagen [there are constitutional reasons for this but I can’t be bothered explaining them]; the economic and social paradigm shift will begin in Australia and it will be painful, all for tainted science, misanthropic ideology and political opportunism. I hope you are content luke.
Spot on Cohenite… and lets not forget that for a country that represent a mere 1.4 % of the porblem, we will have no effect upon the most dire of apocalytic outcomes that the crazy scientists say might happen.
There may not be a conspiracy between them, but they are both certainly manipulative and incompetent as their own code shows in the CRU files
…and all this so this pretentious little creep can strut his stuff like some modern day Hitler, in Copenhagen.
The country will slowly go down the gurgler.
“criminal racket”, “organized scientific fraud”, “which they then use to falsify data and defraud the taxpayers” Wes – have some spine – go say that in England.
See if you get sued into oblivion !
You see Wes you’re confusing rhetoric with science. Just having a big rant isn’t science. Perhaps you could be signature #253 ?
Ahh, Luke, chill mate. Sit back and enjoy the show. It will be all over in, like, a few grant cycles….heh.
—-
Iowahawk Geographic: The Secret Life of Climate Researchers
Narrator:
Our very planet depends on them. Yet they remain nature’s most elusive scientific species, inhabiting some of the world’s most delicate and daunting academic environments. But thanks to new breakthroughs in high speed cameras and email files, metascientists are finally beginning to understand their mysterious behaviors and complex social interactions. Tonight on Iowahawk Geographic: step inside the Secret Life of the Climate Researchers.
French Horn Fanfare Theme
Fast-cut montage of walrus mating with polar bear, astronomer peering through telescope into neighbor’s window, cheetahs chasing penguins on the Serengeti, scientists filling out NSF grant proposals
Dah dat dat DAAAH dat, dah daht duh dah dee-dah dee dah-dah!
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html
Tim Curtin November 25th, 2009 at 9:09 am wrote:
Jen, please reconsider, and put up the occasional new thread, not least because you earned all those honourable mentions in the CRU cache. Without your blog that cache might well never have been released, so never say “The struggle naught availeth”.
I second the motion. One option is to let someone of proven ability take the helm for awhile. I nominate Neil. He has a very sharp mind, and has contributed a lot to your blog.
Another good choice would be cohenite, who is probably more current than any of us on AGW issues.
Thanks again, Jennifer. In case you haven’t noticed, you have a big fan club.
Lukefartard spewed,
“…that there is a cohesive, organised, subversive, global movement run by one particular branch of science that is international, multi-institutional and global.”
Nothing new here. Lukefartard makes up everything he says and he makes up what others say that he then makes up more trash to respond to. Yup, watching Lukefartard melt down rivals Chernobyl!!!! No huge explosion, just poor design, poor controls, poor construction, and STUPID actions by the operator(s).
“….There is a multitude of small but frightening stories in the massive files,” Ball writes. “For example I’ve known solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for a long time. I’ve published articles with Willie and enjoyed extensive communication. I was on advisory committees with them when Sallie suddenly and politely withdrew from the fray. I don’t know if the following events were contributing factors but it is likely.
“Baliunas and Soon were authors of excellent work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Several scientists challenged the claim that the latter part of the 20th century was the warmest ever. They knew the claim was false, many warmer periods occurred in the past. Michael Mann ‘got rid’ of the MWP with his production of the hockey stick, but Soon and Baliunas were problematic. What better than have a powerful academic destroy their credibility for you? Sadly, there are always people who will do the dirty work.”
Indeed, Holdren’s emails show how sincere scientists would be made into raw “entertainment”….
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17183
Wes – I saw a doco on Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon and their work on the MWP – they had hundreds of scientists writing to them with their individual research papers proving the existence of the MWP.
It was one of the main reasons I’ve never trusted Mann.
Wes, I hope you don t mind I just posted your link and quote on the australian letters blog.
I, like, totally agree, Janama!
Why? Because paleoclimatology, that is the reconstruction of past temperature records through various proxies, including historical accounts, is the only real test of the AGW beyond the historical record… short of waiting for another 20 or 40 years to see how the models pan out.
A hypothesis has to make predictions that can be tested to be considered a useful statement of science!
The AGW hypothesis predicts higher temperatures in 2050, but that’s a prophecy that cannot be tested and therefore isn’t hard science no matter how hi-tech the computer models are.
Yet AGW hypothesis does make rock solid predictions or implications for the PAST climate record that CAN be tested. Real Science! Hallelujah!
This is why the crucial paleoclimatological work of Mann, Briffa, Jones at CRU are the ultimate lynchpin of the whole AGW hypothesis. The whole edifice of Climate Change Alarmism dances upon the pinhead of the paleoclimatological temperature reconstructions of the CRU team.
It’s not rocket science: The Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis (AGW) posits the more CO2 in the atmosphere the warmer the climate becomes.
Therefore since atmospheric CO2 concentrations are at record highs not seen in thousands and thousands of years, the climate MUST be warmer than in the last couple of thousand years. Right? That’s called an “implication of a hypothesis.” And in real, old fashion empirical science based on observation and experiment, it is important that a hypothesis make predictions or have implications that can be tested or compared directly to observation.
If today’s temperatures aren’t the warmest in a thousand years, then the AGW hypothesis is simply falsified. Back to the proverbial drawing board. That’s how science works and progresses.
The CRU climategate scandal reveals that Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, et al understood that for the AGW hypothesis to have any value at all its implications must conform to the proxy temp record of the past.
Unfortunately, paleoclimatology is a very young and inexact science and the data gathered appears to at every step in the process to have been compared with the AGW hypothesis. Tree rings, ice and lake cores and historical accounts which didn’t fit the hypothesis were ditched and every “trick” to bend, hide, flatten, stretch and tilt the T-record was made until, TA-DA we were presented with Mann’s notorious Hockey Stick graft. Then every effort was made to conceal or muck up the code, delete evidence, deny “unfriendly” researchers access and even subvert the peer review process.
Instead of modifying the AGW hypothesis to fit the data, they modified the data to fit the hypothesis. While this sort of fraud isn’t entirely new in the history of science, I believe it is symptomatic of how deeply post-modern relativism has corroded even the hard sciences to the point where CRU could feel moral OK with treating past T-records as a “narrative” to be massaged to conform with what they regarded as sociopolitical justice rather than as sacrosanct empirical data in the service of purely unbiased high science.
CRU eliminated the MWP, (naughty Willie and Sallie, tsch, tsch) flattened the LIA to create an fake “climate stasis” of the last 1,200 years out of which modern warming could soar off like, well, a hockey stick.
In fact, there is plenty of evidence that it was warmer in the middle ages than today, then it dramatically cooled and most of modern warming was simply a recovery out of the Little Ice Age. Modern warming clearly begins before the Industrial revolution had gained serious steam.
If the supporters of the AGW hypothesis wish to remain credible then CRU must immediately release all the data, meta-data and all the code they have in their possession and allow third, and fourth parties (more the merrier) to reconstruct and repeat their processes in total transparency online for the whole bloody planet to watch.
CRU must now relinquish control of the paleoclimate “discourse.” They’re busted.
BTW, If the AGW hypothesis can withstand proper scientific reproducibility and scrutiny, I’d be pleased to fly to the far westie burbs and buy Luke heaps of beer (assuming he’s of age and his local pub serves only in plastic cups) and admit that I was soooooo wrong.
Sure, Toby, get the meme out.
😉
w
Wes – if Mann was a genuine person pursuing his craft it would be observed in the hacked emails. Unfortunately we don’t see that do we…..he’s vicious.
Larry; your no 3 would first have to come out, then deal with our local situation from the helm with out coping his own law suit in the process. On the other hand Jennifer could wise him up a bit since imo he above all on the far side seems to have the time to get right down into it. BTW our climate minister claimed yesterday that on the whole she refers to local science. So; what’s wrong with this from the top?
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi
“Australia’s climate is changing”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/
“The chance that the average December-February maximum temperature will exceed the long-term median maximum temperature, is between 60 and 70% in the west of WA and in a broad band extending from the north of the NT across most of Queensland to the northern border districts of NSW”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/temps_ahead.shtml
“Climate changing faster than expected: scientists-
Now, 26 international scientists have collated the most recent data and observations, and they have found that climate change is accelerating beyond expectations”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/25/2752579.htm?site=news
“Will Steffen from the Australian National University has welcomed the update and he has called on scientific critics to put forward their work”.
Gavin – do we really have to put up with all these scare campaigns?…… really?
I’m so sick of it!
Steffen is a disgrace; the update that he refers to says that sea levels are increasing due to the alleged increase in Antarctic melt at a greater rate than they are actually rising; the actual rate of sea level increase over the last 5 years havs been established by peer reviewed analysis of Jason data in 2 studies by Ablain and Cazenave. As well every other study over the last few years has shown that the Antarctic ice mass is increasing despite regional heating in the WAP. This is just rubbish.
Gavin
You are a charlatan
Fuck off
Gavin, this from the above article;
“There will be those who say, ‘Well this is just more doom and gloom’ and so on, but you have to ask, do those people come from the main credible scientific community?” he said.
“There are a lot of people who are scientists but are they part of the credible, reputable climate change science community?”
Yeah, like Mann Jones and Briffa?
“And second of all, if they dispute this, have they taken their evidence and published it in the peer-reviewed literature, in the prominent journals? And the answer is no, you can’t find it there.”
Hmmm, where have we heard that before?
Sorry Gavin but you’ll have to find some more believable articles to convince this jaded crew that the jig isn’t up.
Luke, I just realized that the reason you keep defending these crooks is that you know what they did and you agree with it. You don’t care about the lies, fabrication and manipulation because you approve of them. For you and your righteous quest, the end justifies any means. You would have fitted right in with the Spanish inquisition, cheering on as the “heretics” were burnt at the stake.
You are a zealot Luke and it’s time you admitted it.
Derek – you are a brainless twit aren’t you “You don’t care about the lies, fabrication and manipulation because you approve of them.” – yes I do that’s why anti-science dark age sceptics need to be defeated – where shall we start Derek – faux sceptics = denialist scum = lies, fabrication and manipulation. Wake up !
Just keep walking around with your head up your bum with the lynch mob in that great denialist conga line. And keep the brain switch in the “off” position – don’t want any critical thought processes intruding do we?
And goodie Wes is back with his interminably long essays. So boring.
Wes – you really a twit.
“This is why the crucial paleoclimatological work of Mann, Briffa, Jones at CRU are the ultimate lynchpin of the whole AGW hypothesis. The whole edifice of Climate Change Alarmism dances upon the pinhead of the paleoclimatological temperature reconstructions of the CRU team.”
No it’s doesn’t you stupid dope. Try the PETM. “Ultimate lynchpin” – what a moron you are. The only pinhead is you matey.
“It’s not rocket science:” well yes it is boofhead – the feedbacks and interactions are most complex.
Wes you just a soapbox for right wing drivel. In this whole area of science you’re pig ignorant. Try not pretend otherwise eh? It’s nauseating.
Louis,
Good to finally have you back, how was the trip? Anything interesting to share?
I’ve started reading the “electric sky” but haven’t had time to get passed the first few chapters (spent too much time on this blog) but I’ve mentioned a few things to my physics students about electric currents in space and have used a more questioning approach with my year 10’s when talking about origins of the universe.
I tried using the story you told about aborigines in the Kimberly’s but I’m afraid most of them didn’t get it.
Cheers.
Luke,
You know you are losing, and you know you are a loser.
You don’t really understand what you are saying. If you did, you would not act as you do. You just bray like a little jack ass, kicking out at anyone who gets in your way.
Derek; besides being a retired professional from the world of measurements that actually count for something, I’m also offering some of my experience in political campaigning around environment issues and their like. It’s not something I do for change sake either.
Janama; in the practical sense I go looking for extremes in order to get a handle on them early. It’s simply good engineering to know what you are up against before sorting both sides weaknesses and strengths
Wes “Instead of modifying the AGW hypothesis to fit the data, they modified the data to fit the hypothesis” Did you notice Bom offers raw data and modified data from it’s sources? It’s just a couple of hundred years here that needs an explanation though.
Fielding becomes flippant with the last dozen Heartland style imo at the core of the false grass roots anti AGW campaign. The last minuit email dump was indeed intended to look like a slime trail to Copenhagen from the AGW side but it bogged in blogs like this where most writer types wouldn’t know a good data clean up if they saw one! Tree rings, LIA, MWP all speculation from here. What about our own paleo stuff?
This is about brinkmanship. At this stage of the game I sense a few other hardened campaigners going white round the gills with fear as the good climate science rolls on and the more astute public gets right behind it. The federal Liberals meantime are falling over each other in their scrambled retreat from the issue. BTW NZ passed their ETS but nobody else here noticed. Even Gunns have updated their forest policy in 2009 to include climate change
FYI…
“The inspirational Fred Singer has been our guest for the last two days. Here are a couple of items you may be interested in for your excellent blog:
Fred has kindly written a short piece for us on Climategate: http://blog.iea.org.uk/?p=954
Also, here is the link to Fred’s appearance on the BBC’s Daily Politics show: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8374523.stm
Richard Wellings
Institute of Economic Affairs”
some light relief 🙂
Luke – you have become the new Denier scum!
even warming crusader George Monbiot complains about the new deniers:
Janama they’ve always been the true deniers because to them AGW is a matter of fundamentalist faith, so facts don’t matter.
These people are just fanatically stupid and the facts of CLIMATEGATE and the ridiculous, useless, nonsense of the ets means nothing to their blind mania.
We are about to spend countless billions of dollars that will have a zero effect on climate while china, india, brazil etc continue to build at least one major CF power station every week for years to come, making our cut from 1.2% to 1.14% embecillic.
This grand gesture will be overtaken in a matter of weeks by the new bigger emitters above.
If they want to throw one thosandth of just 1 of those billions in my direction I’m sure I can make much better use of it than flushing it down the toilet.
You’re such a sleaze Janama – a real little ranter.
Here is what Monbiot fully said – you denialist scumbag. Amounts to a small road bump. Ya got nuttin’
“But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory?(8,9) Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed. Luckily for the sceptics, and to my intense disappointment, I have now been passed the damning email which confirms that the entire science of global warming is indeed a scam. Had I known that it was this easy to rig the evidence, I wouldn’t have wasted years of my life promoting a bogus discipline. In the interests of open discourse, I feel obliged to reproduce it here.
“From: ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Sent: 29th October 2009
To: The Knights Carbonic
Gentlemen, the culmination of our great plan approaches fast. What the Master called “the ordering of men’s affairs by a transcendent world state, ordained by God and answerable to no man”, which we now know as Communist World Government, advances towards its climax at Copenhagen. For 185 years since the Master, known to the laity as Joseph Fourier, launched his scheme for world domination, the entire physical science community has been working towards this moment.
The early phases of the plan worked magnificently. First the Master’s initial thesis – that the release of infrared radiation is delayed by the atmosphere – had to be accepted by the scientific establishment. I will not bother you with details of the gold paid, the threats made and the blood spilt to achieve this end. But the result was the elimination of the naysayers and the disgrace or incarceration of the Master’s rivals. Within 35 years the 3rd Warden of the Grand Temple of the Knights Carbonic (our revered prophet John Tyndall) was able to “demonstrate” the Master’s thesis. Our control of physical science was by then so tight that no major objections were sustained.
More resistence was encountered (and swiftly despatched) when we sought to install the 6th Warden (Svante Arrhenius) first as professor of physics at Stockholm University, then as rector. From this position he was able to project the Master’s second grand law – that the infrared radiation trapped in a planet’s atmosphere increases in line with the quantity of carbon dioxide the atmosphere contains. He and his followers (led by the Junior Warden Max Planck) were then able to adapt the entire canon of physical and chemical science to sustain the second law.
Then began the most hazardous task of all: our attempt to control the instrumental record. Securing the consent of the scientific establishment was a simple matter. But thermometers had by then become widely available, and amateur meteorologists were making their own readings. We needed to show a steady rise as industrialisation proceeded, but some of these unfortunates had other ideas. The global co-option of police and coroners required unprecedented resources, but so far we have been able to cover our tracks.
The over-enthusiasm of certain of the Knights Carbonic in 1998 was most regrettable. The high reading in that year has proved impossibly costly to sustain. Those of our enemies who have yet to be silenced maintain that the lower temperatures after that date provide evidence of global cooling, even though we have ensured that eight of the ten warmest years since 1850 have occurred since 2001(10). From now on we will engineer a smoother progression.
Our co-option of the physical world has been just as successful. The thinning of the Arctic ice cap was a masterstroke. The ring of secret nuclear power stations around the Arctic Circle, attached to giant immersion heaters, remains undetected, as do the space-based lasers dissolving the world’s glaciers.
Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.
The co-operation of these governments requires unflagging effort. The capture of George W. Bush, a late convert to the cause of Communist World Government, was made possible only by the threatened release of footage filmed by a knight at Yale, showing the future president engaged in coitus with a Ford Mustang. Most ostensibly-capitalist governments remain apprised of where their real interests lie, though I note with disappointment that we have so far failed to eliminate Vaclav Klaus. Through the offices of compliant states, the Master’s third grand law has been accepted: world government will be established under the guise of controlling manmade emissions of greenhouse gases.
Keeping the scientific community in line remains a challenge. The national academies are becoming ever more querulous and greedy, and require higher pay-offs each year. The inexplicable events of the past month, in which the windows of all the leading scientific institutions were broken and a horse’s head turned up in James Hansen’s bed, appear to have staved off the immediate crisis, but for how much longer can we maintain the consensus?
Knights Carbonic, now that the hour of our triumph is at hand, I urge you all to redouble your efforts. In the name of the Master, go forth and terrify.
Professor Ernst Kattweizel, University of Redcar. 21st Grand Warden of the Temple of the Knights Carbonic.”
This is the kind of conspiracy the deniers need to reveal to show that manmade climate change is a con. The hacked emails are a hard knock, but the science of global warming withstands much more than that.
http://www.monbiot.com“
‘I have seldom felt so alone. Confronted with crises, most of the environmentalists I know have gone into denial.’ George Monbiot.
Luke – the emails showed the Hubris of the CRU crew – but it’s the code that shows the end of AGW
FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
introduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren’t documented. Every time a
cloud forms I’m presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as
Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-hide-the-decline-codified/#more-13197
Outstanding fuckwittery Janama – you’re one this blog’s greater morons. There is this thing called “multiple lines of evidence”. A century of frost decline in the Australian summer cropping zone that needed to be addressed by plant breeders.
And golly gee isn’t it funny that when you look at SSTs or the pattern of the satellite data you get the bloody same story.
Mate are you actually mental?
“Altering the migratory and reproductive patterns of the world’s wildlife has proved more challenging. Though we have now asserted control over the world’s biologists, there is no accounting for the unauthorised observations of farmers, gardeners, bird-watchers and other troublemakers. We have therefore been forced to drive migrating birds, fish and insects into higher latitudes, and to release several million tonnes of plant pheromones every year to accelerate flowering and fruiting. None of this is cheap, and ever more public money, secretly diverted from national accounts by compliant governments, is required to sustain it.”
Come on banana pj’s – stop being so utterly pathetic.
Reality –
(1) bugger all signatures on petitions – just a bunch of geriatric codgers having a sook – missing the Cold War
(2) Turnbull survives
(3) Obama going to Copenhagen
(4) All AGW agencies still in business
(5) More papers on AGW issues coming out every week
(6) Denialists in such a lather that an earthquake is imminent from the group wank harmonic resonance
deflect deflect deflect cries the Darluks – avoid the code!!!
it appears New Zealand has it’s own CRU style problems and surprisingly there is a direct link back to CRU.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf
Hey Darluk – check this out
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/crus_source_code_climategate_r.html
C’mon janama; give us something original
Note; the world moves on regardles of hicups in building towers of beliefs
here’s something original gavin from our own Professor Plimer
“Posted By Ian Plimer On November 25, 2009 @ 12:49 am In . Column1 01, Europe, Science, Science & Technology, US News, World News | 164 Comments
In the geological past, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six ice ages, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content was higher than at present. It is clear that the colorless, odorless, non-poisonous gas called carbon dioxide did not drive past climates. Carbon dioxide is plant food, not a pollutant.
Humans have adapted to live on ice sheets, deserts, mountains, tropics, and sea level. History shows that humans and other organisms have thrived in warm times and suffered in cold times.
In the 600-year long Roman Warming [1], it was 4ºC warmer than now. Sea level did not rise and ice sheets did not disappear. The Dark Ages followed, and starvation, disease, and depopulation occurred. The Medieval Warming followed the Dark Ages, and for 400 years it was 5ºC warmer. Sea level did not rise and the ice sheets remained. The Medieval Warming was followed by the Little Ice Age [2], which finished in 1850. It is absolutely no surprise that temperature increased after a cold period.
Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.
There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.
Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.
The answer to this enigma was revealed last week. It is fraud.
Files from the UK Climatic Research Unit were hacked [3]. They show that data was massaged, numbers were fudged, diagrams were biased, there was destruction of data after freedom of information requests, and there was refusal to submit taxpayer-funded data for independent examination.
Data were manipulated to show that the Medieval Warming didn’t occur, and that we are not in a period of cooling. Furthermore, the warming of the 20th century was artificially inflated.
This behavior is that of criminals and all the data from the UK Hadley Centre and the US GISS must now be rejected. These crooks perpetrated these crimes at the expense of the British and U.S. taxpayers.
The same crooks control the IPCC [4] and the fraudulent data in IPCC reports. The same crooks meet in Copenhagen next week and want 0.7% of the Western world’s GDP to pass through an unelected UN government, and then on to sticky fingers in the developing world.
You should be angry. Very angry.”
are you angry gavin??
Friends and non-Friends,
It looks like the ‘smoking gun’ of the CRU hack has been discovered, not amongst the emails, but within the code used to generate global warming ‘evidence’.
This turned up at L’Ombre de l’Olivier, http://www.di2.nu/200911/23a.htm where they’re talking about the code released as part of the alleged hack:
“The real disaster is in the *.pro files. Try a search on ‘decline’. It is unabashed data manipulation . Here is a sample(flattens a warm 40’s period and warms the recent parts):
;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
;
Just crazy.
debreuil | Homepage | 25.Nov.09 – 0:08 | #
Now we know the kiwis have been doing it as well!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
what a joke, and what a disaster for science.
Luke your inability to even acknowledge the problems contained in these leaks, and your sprouting of RC dogma, really does you no credit at all. If this is not sufficient to turn you a little sceptical and at least agree it raises doubts over “facts” like the MWP were cooler than today, says much about your critical thinking skills.
Janama’s Plimer quote is worth repeating:
(Janama do you have a link for Plimer’s article?)
“Unless I have missed something, I am not aware of heavy industry, coal-fired power stations, or SUVs in the 1,000 years of Roman and Medieval Warmings. These natural warmings are a dreadful nuisance for climate alarmists because they suggest that the warming since 1850 may be natural and may not be related to carbon dioxide emissions.
There was warming from 1860 to 1880, 1910 to 1940, and 1976 to 1998, with intervening periods of cooling. The only time when temperature rise paralleled carbon dioxide emissions was 1976-1998. The other warmings and coolings in the last 150 years were unrelated to carbon dioxide emissions.
Something is seriously wrong. To argue that humans change climate requires abandoning all we know about history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, and solar physics. This is exactly what has been done.”
sorry wes – should have posted it
here it is 🙂
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-alarmism-is-underpinned-by-fraud-pjm-exclusive/?print=1
toby – if as suggested NZ hasn’t warmed why has Australia?
Most of these comments miss the whole point of the debate. It is irrelevent what the temp does or is ice melting or not. The only debate which needs to be had is “what real evidence, not computer models, can be produced which clearly shows that Carbon Dioxide is the major driver of global warming. If there is insufficent evidence of this, and this appears to be the case because I have never seen it produced anywhere, then we do not need to spend billions of dollars controlling CO2 emissions.
Below is post #22 at RC
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/
—————————–
Gavin, I’m amazed at your endurance — get some sleep, dude! Well done with the responses, and hang in there. I suspect this whole thing is going to backfire… of course, that could just be wishful thinking on my part. 😉
The important thing to remember in the response to this is to try to keep everyone’s eye on the ball. The laws of physics are not going to change because somebody hacked somebody’s email. That this is even being discussed just goes to show that “reality is what you can get away with.” — RAW
Gavin, I’m going to pass on some words of encouragement that a very wise person once gave me in trying times. They may seem a bit odd, but perhaps you will find some use in them. It is worth remembering that, given the circumstances, scientists studying climate at this juncture are likely among the most important humans extant. You will be held to a higher standard, and maybe that’s OK, because when the stakes are this high, you can’t make a lot of mistakes. Keep in mind that you are genuinely, without hyperbole, here to save the world.
Anyway, some words of wisdom from an old friend:
“You are a Jah Warrior, a Light Messenger. You are here to spread love and light in the world. You need to remember who you are and why you are here!”
Comment by Eli Snyder — 23 November 2009 @ 2:31 AM
—————–
Wow, that says it all. These people are fanatical nutters who think they are “among the most important humans extant” because they are “Jah Warriors, Light Messengers” chosen “here to save the Earth.” (Remember Gavin only posts the comments he agrees with!)
When you finish ROFL, recall the history of messianic cults, especially apocalyptic messianic cults, it usually get pretty sticky towards the end. These people have the potential to be dangerous if they were ever to achieve serious political power.
For instance, I don’t know how many times impotent little Luke has commented that we all should be rounded up, imprisoned and have all our rights to free expression stripped. Sure an idle threat from a pathetic and isolated lonely kid, but then you could have said the same thing walking past a National Socialist whimp in the streets of Berlin in 1933 — It’s the same delusional personality type manifest across the ages.
Also notice Eli’s revealing definition of reality: “Reality is what you can get away with.” That must be CRU’s motto, in Latin of course.
Fortunately Eli got it backwards, it was the bloody hacker who likely saved the friggin’ planet from this goon-squad.
Lukefartard,
now that you have stomped your little feet, held your breath, beat your little fists on your little chest and squealed with indignation that ANYONE could possibly doubt your divine wisdom on disastrous anthropogenic climate change, it boils down to just normal old climate change.
You rant about treelines, frost, habitable zones… Unfortunately for you and your buds, these do not change in synch as would be required by GLOBAL issues. It warms in Australia, cools somewhere else. Gets more rain here, less rain there. CO2 goes up, plants grow better, animals, including humans, eat better and expand. Yet, the climate still shifts around with little regard for pissants like you and yours and me and mine.
You are a pathetic little rude idiotic loudmouth who has had his pacifier taken away. Learn to live with it or kill yourself. The climate will take no notice.
Janama, well I guess it raises question about how much Australia has warmed as well!? I am actually inclined to think temperatures have increased over the last 100 years…..but they have come off a low base due to the LIA, and there have also been roughly as many periods of cooling as warming and they are of similar magnitudes. I also think that Australia had an usually wet period last century which was not normal and we are now reverting back to the norm. That said we have had some freaky warm weather which is clearly related to air mass movement/ lack of movement and I would suggest can not be used as examples of climate change.
The NZ link is just another example of scientists feeling the need to ensure the data fits the story.
Wwhat I do know is I have been sceptical of all global temperaure “averages” and have had gut feeling that I can t trust the numbers being provided by individual stations for a long time.
I lost my faith in climate scientists about 6 years ago…having started out believing in AGW.
From the National Review (in the US)….
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzI2OWQzODMzYzNmY2Y3YTdkZDE4NTQ4MTgwZDljY2Y=
Eine Decliner Nachtmusik [Mark Steyn]
More from the tree-ring circus of Climate Research Unit “peer-reviewed” computer code:
Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
Hmm. All sounds very scientific. By the way, the CRU may be in East Anglia but it gets money from the U.S. Department of Energy and the EPA — which means you, Mr. and Mrs. America. Which makes it a domestic news story. Sadly, many U.S. newspapers evidently lack the resources to cover the story, but a reader copies me a letter he sent to the New York Times offering to help out:
Dear Mr. Broder,
Very nice article today on the upcoming Copenhagen meeting. I’ve heard about the cutbacks at the NYT and I guess it’s gotten so bad that they no longer allow internet access to reporters. So my news tip is that apparently, there’s some kind of development regarding the scientists behind the global warming data, involving emails or something like that. Some of the papers in the UK are reporting on it and even a few here. If you are not permitted to go online to find them, I could email you a few examples in pdf format. Even better, I could download the file containing the emails and other documents themselves, burn them onto a CD, mail the CD to you, and then once you had access to the primary source material you and your colleagues would be able to do your own reporting and investigating. None of this is to imply in any way that this stuff I’ve heard about could have any possible relevance to a meeting aimed at a global warming agreement based on conclusions based on data that may have been — let’s call them ambiguous. Just thought you might be curious is all, and I’m always happy to help out when I can.
Gee, maybe we should burn a CD for the ABC too.
Toby – a poster at WUWT remarked:
The official Australian temperature record is also based on significant “adjustments’ of raw historical data.
The main adjustments were made by Torok and Nicholls in 1996 and then a few more adjustments were done by paul Della-Marta in 2000.
to my knowledge this process has never been properly audited, but from a few stations that I have checked I see that there is a similar lowering of temps in the early part of the records and a raising later on.
All the data can be found in this folder.
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
here’s Torok’s paper.
http://134.178.63.141/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf
and here’s Della Marta’s
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Della-Marta2004.pdf
this is also interesting.
http://www.giub.unibe.ch/~dmarta/publications.dir/Nicholls2004.pdf
Toby, you are on the right track. There is no valid statistical baseline mean temperature for Australia in 1900 when most stations were at >Lat 30S, and it is only quite recently there has been a reasonably even latitudinal spread (see http://chiefio.wordpress.com) north and south of 30S. Worse than that is the constant lapse/elimination of very many of the older stations, and introduction of new ones with very short histories.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574556883319744094.html
The Copenhagen climate-change deal is crumbling, but no matter: Australia’s Labor government wants to pass its very own cap-and-trade bill this week, even though it won’t curb global warming but will raise energy prices and cost thousands of jobs.
That’s the crux of the Carbon Reduction Pollution Scheme that the Senate could vote on as early as today. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has framed the vote in moral terms, calling it Tuesday “a fundamental existential question for the future,” and asking policy makers to put the “national interest first” and political party interests “last.”
Mr. Rudd’s appeal to emotion is the only way to justify the passage of the bill he’s staked his government’s credibility on, because the economics sure don’t support it. Australia emits only 1.5% of total global emissions. By asking companies to pay for carbon permits starting in 2011, Mr. Rudd will make Australian industry unilaterally less competitive, without any appreciable global benefit. Meanwhile, Australian consumers will pay more for everything as energy prices rise across the board.
To its credit, the Senate, where the Labor Party doesn’t hold an outright majority, rejected Mr. Rudd’s first version of the bill in August. Mr. Rudd responded this week by buying the silence of the most affected industries through cash payouts, extended transition periods and an agricultural exemption. Camberra may also throw in loan guarantees and other protections in case—whoops—the bill puts certain firms like electricity generators out of business.
It’s unclear how much this green utopia will cost the Australian public, given Canberra hasn’t released any comprehensive economic modeling of the revised scheme’s total cost. It’s also unclear how the plan can still be “revenue neutral,” as Mr. Rudd originally promised, given the government nearly doubled the amount of compensation payments between the first and second iterations of the bill.
All of which makes it even more incredible that Liberal Party leader Malcolm Turnbull, who until now has stonewalled on supporting the deal citing the economic cost, has jumped onboard this train wreck. Declaring that the opposition “saved tens of thousands of jobs” Mr. Turnbull threw his weight behind Mr. Rudd’s plan Tuesday, adding that the move demonstrates the Liberals’ “genuine and sincere commitment to action on climate change.”
To its credit, the Liberal Party’s conservative wing revolted yesterday and called for a leadership vote, which Mr. Turnbull survived. But that had more to do with a lack of credible challengers than anything else. At least the Liberals are finally rediscovering their principles.
Meanwhile, Australians find themselves guided by politicians committed to cap-and-trade even as the rest of the world backs away. That may be leadership, but it doesn’t mean it’s good for Australia.
Toby:
All Australian stations are available from NASA GISS here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Here are some examples:
Tenterfield
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945560000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Melbourne
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501948680000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Bathurst
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501947300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Alice springs
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501943260004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Roma
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945150010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Broken Hill
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501946890000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Adelaide Airport
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501946720004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Broome Airport
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501942030004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Darwin Airport
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501941200004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Charleville
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501945100004&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Parks
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501947170000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Dubbo
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501947190000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Tamworth
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=501957620000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
BoM has an elite data site pool called the Reference Climate Station Network;
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/reference.shtml
When you examine the temperature history from many of these sites you find a history completely at odds with the mean national temperature history;
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=tmean®ion=aus&season=0112
Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There’s a consensus that it’s going to change, so they’ve decided to keep us in the dark.
–James Taranto
Cohenite et al: Thanks to EM Smith here’s an interesting list.
“So who is Far Gone?
These are the station records that are dropped. The format is the 9 digit StationID (5 of Station, 3 of substation, 1 of modificaton flag), the Station Name, then 3 letters (the first one will always be a blank for Australia, it is the USA Brightness Index for USA stations only), the Rural Urban Suburban flag, the single letter GHCN brightness flag (ABC) the 3 digit country code, then the invarient text “ dropped”.
[chiefio@tubularbells STEP2]$ cat AUSSIE.DROPPED
941020000 TROUGHTON ISL RA501 dropped
941170000 MANGO FARM RA501 dropped
941190000 GARDEN POINT RA501 dropped
941370000 JABIRU AIRPOR RB501 dropped
941400000 MILINGIMBI AW RA501 dropped
941440000 ROPER BAR STO RA501 dropped
942010010 DERBY (KOOLAN ISLAND) RA501 dropped
942200000 TIMBER CREEK RA501 dropped
942290000 WAVE HILL RA501 dropped
942360000 ELLIOTT RA501 dropped
942480000 CENTRE ISLAND RA501 dropped
942560000 MORNINGTON IS RA501 dropped
943190000 TELFER RC501 dropped
943200000 BALGO HILLS RA501 dropped
943740003 ROCKHAMPTON A UC501 dropped
943870000 BUNDABERG AER SB501 dropped
944010000 KALBARRI RA501 dropped
944040000 PAYNES FIND RA501 dropped
944140000 ENEABBA RA501 dropped
944400000 YEELIRRIE RA501 dropped
944440010 MENZIES (DIEMALS) RA501 dropped
944610010 WARBURTON RANGE AUSTRALIA RA501 dropped
944660000 KULGERA RA501 dropped
945420010 DALBY POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
945690010 CALOUNDRA SIGNAL STATION RC501 dropped
945750000 ARCHERFIELD UC501 dropped
945810010 BEAUDESERT COMPOSITE RA501 dropped
945820000 MURWILLUMBAH RA501 dropped
945950000 CAPE BYRON RB501 dropped
946110000 MOORA RB501 dropped
946250010 PINGELLY (PINGELLY POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
946740000 LEIGH CREEK A RA501 dropped
946750000 ADELAIDE UC501 dropped
946750010 ADELAIDE REGIONAL OFFICE UC501 dropped
946760000 ARKAROOLA RA501 dropped
946790010 BUNDALEER FOREST RESERVE RA501 dropped
946890010 STEPHENS CREEK RESERVOIR RA501 dropped
947120010 BOOROWA POST OFFICE WAS 07 RB501 dropped
947160000 GOULBURN SC501 dropped
947260010 BLAYNEY POST OFFICE RB501 dropped
947270010 GULGONG POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
947470020 MITTAGONG POOL RB501 dropped
947710000 CESSNOCK SB501 dropped
947760010 NELSON BAY MONTEVIDEO PARADE RC501 dropped
948280000 PORTLAND AIRP RA501 dropped
948290000 HAMILTON AIRP SA501 dropped
948320000 WARRNAMBOOL A SA501 dropped
948420010 APOLLO BAY POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
948450010 FORREST STATE FOREST RA501 dropped
948450020 COLAC (ELLIMINYT) RA501 dropped
948490010 AVOCA POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
948620010 YARRAWONGA POST OFFICE RC501 dropped
948690010 WANGANELLA (ZARA) RA501 dropped
948800010 WARRAGUL POST OFFICE RC501 dropped
948800020 NOOJEE RA501 dropped
948800030 WOODS POINT RA501 dropped
948950010 RUTHERGLEN POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
948960000 ALBURY AIRPOR SC501 dropped
948990000 CORRYONG RA501 dropped
949120000 BAIRNSDALE AI RA501 dropped
949150000 PERISHER VALL RA501 dropped
949220010 GUDGENBY RA501 dropped
949230000 COOMA RA501 dropped
949260020 CANBERRA CITY UC501 dropped
949680005 LAUNCESTON AI SB501 dropped
949690010 DELORAINE (ASHLEY HOME) RA501 dropped
949780010 PALMERS LOOKOUT RA501 dropped
953100000 PARABURDOO RB501 dropped
954000000 THREE RIVERS RA501 dropped
955120020 GOODOOGA POST OFFICE RA501 dropped
955330000 TEXAS (POST O RA501 dropped
956140000 KARNET RA501 dropped
956180000 WAGIN RA501 dropped
956270000 HYDEN RA501 dropped
956450000 MELALEUCA RA501 dropped
956600000 ANDAMOOKA RA501 dropped
956640000 WHYALLA AIRPO SB501 dropped
957580010 SCONE SOIL CONSERVATION RA501 dropped
957730010 WALCHA POST OFFICE RB501 dropped
957740010 NARARA AGRIC RESEARCH STATION RC501 dropped
958170010 PENOLA STATE FOREST RESERVE RA501 dropped
958710010 DOOKIE AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE RA501 dropped
959080000 THREDBO RA501 dropped
959600010 DEVONPORT EAST SC501 dropped
959790030 MOUNT WELLINGTON AWS RB501 dropped
959890010 BICHENO COMPOSITE RA501 dropped”
For Who had a Fair Go see http://chiefio.wordpress.com
Well, Tim, you gotta admit that really is man made warming.
I try to avoid politics but this is too good. The Liberals have come to realize not a moment too soon that the party’s best interests don’t necessary coincide with Malcolm’s.
Malcolm doesn’t want a double dissolution because he can’t win (so soon) but if the Libs collaborate with Labor to pass this utter fraud ETS then when it comes next election and the electorate wants to punish the bloody morons who pushed the ETS down their throats, Labor and their propaganda arm, the ABC, will remind voters that only with the help of the Libs was it ever passed.
The Liberals must established an identity as the party of principle, rather than one that can be bought with bribes to Big Coal. That’s political suicide and the ABC will surely remind voters of the corrupt deal the Libs accepted for their support.
The Libs must wash their hands of the ETS and define themselves as a true opposition and coalition too. Or wake up tomorrow and smell the coffee and the toast that has become of their future. (Note: It’s OK for Labor to be corrupt, that’s the norm and they control the media spin, but if the Libs take dirty money even if from Penny Wong and Rudd, they’re dead meat.) The ETS is a huge trap for the Liberals.
Turnbull must be sacrificed. The double dissolution election must be fought, and probably ultimately lost by the Coalition, but then they will have taken the scientific, economic and ethical high ground away from Labor come the next election.
Kevin ’07 tide is a turning.
Q: How many denialist scumbags does it take to change a light bulb? A: None. The light bulb isn’t broken and it will recover by itself and sitting in the dark is better than in the light.
Tim Curtin
Would you know the new station names replacing the ones in the list?
Or where can I look them up?
Marcus, try this;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=meanT&period=annual&state=nsw
Luke,
You don’t get to tell everyone what it takes to prove you are wrong.
IRT your humor, do kep your day job.
BTW, you lose.
To all rational people here,
Australians can breathe a sigh of relief. The AGW promoters seem to have failed, at this important point, in their ability to impose their bad policy ideas on you.
Cheers,
Well the original post above needs another update – I shall wait now and see whether the ETS is indeed defeated. Indeed the ETS has still not passed the Australian parliament and it looks like it may indeed cost Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the opposition here in Australia, his job.
To quote Wes above: “The Liberals (representing classic liberals and conservatives here in Australia) have come to realize not a moment too soon that the party’s best interests don’t necessary coincide with Malcolm’s.”
I am hoping that indeed it will all be scuttled – at the very last minute by some principled men.
In the years I have been visiting this blog I have only once found the urge to comment, in no small part because regulars are so much better-versed than I.
Now, however, I have to ask a question.
Why do intelligent people ever bother replying to Luke?
Ignore him and he just might go away. It would make these threads more pleasant, and the loss of his salty language would be a plus as well.
Hunter – the global atmosphere doesn’t give a fig for what you or the Liberals think. Nor does the concept of win or lose mean anything either. It’s a war on science, without end.
Tony Abbot on changing times:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/nation-held-hostage-to-ets/story-e6frg6zo-1225804353196
Jen, with any delay the ETS should fail. Our Cap & Trade Bill is extremely unlikely to pass now. Regrettably we might need to trade the equally foolish (and fast growing unrecognizable) health care bill to save us from C&T.
Regardless, if passed, it will be an issue in your next elections. Passing something that has such lack of public support is politically foolish.
RogerF, I agree. Ignore Luke, although I have to admit occasionally he gets under my skin, and I weaken.
Luke,
Is your problem at root, that you think the atmosphere does in fact think? And that you believe you know what the atmosphere thinks?
Perhaps you believe that noise in your head is more than the sound of the wind whistling through it?
The only documentation we have of a war on science are by the promoters of AGW, lying to to pretend that they have conclusions they know are not supported by the facts, corrupting the peer review process, creating code to mislead people, stonewalling, etc.
That you have glommed onto their side implies that you, too, are waging war on science.
And, ETS lost in Australia. You lose. Rationality and truth looks to win. No wonder you are so upset.
Cheers,
Roger,
I absolutely agree and am now using that tactic myself. I also agree with CoRev that Luke is like jockrash or chickenpox, really REALLY annoying and the short term solution is to scratch that dammed itch but you know that if you can stop scratching, the disease will go away.
Turn of phrase sour puss Huntsbum.
As usual your dim intellect prevents you from separating anthropogenic climate change and an ETS. Goes like this – “I don’t like an ETS and the politics around AGW annoy me”
“Ergo – AGW must be wrong then by definition.”
Errr – nope ! Really dumb in fact. Just right wing hillbilly thinking.
Your oncologist tell you that you have cancer.
Your response is to tell them that they are ugly. Emotionally satisfying but doesn’t change things.
Jennifer on the ETS “I am hoping that indeed it will all be scuttled – at the very last minute by some principled men”
There are comments around in the media that the ETS should be scrapped in favor of a strait carbon tax and imo the Greens would end up supporting such a scheme. Also as I expected Barnaby Joyce has talked about the nuclear alternative in some other carbon reduction scheme. This leaves the Liberals behaving as they are, exposed to a dynamic split in their public support at the next election.
Malcolm Turnbull is right, they can’t go forward without a policy for tackling climate change be it the amended ETS or something similar and his chief negotiator Ian Macfarlane likewise holds that view after extracting considerable concessions late in the day.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2752601.htm
The wreckers moved in after this interview
Jennifer; It’s my considered opinion your “principled men” will wind up in a party on their own housed in a rusty old shed overlooking an abandoned pit if they can’t acknowledge the need to act unilaterally on climate change before the next election when ever that is.
Jennifer,
I’m still a bit confused. On the one hand, I’m very glad that you’re still participating. On the other hand, the thread title is unsettling. Do you plan to close down the blog in the near future? Or do you plan to keep it going, but in a more open-ended format?
Assuming the latter. Please change the thread name back to Walkabout or to anything less ominous than An End. We may also want to emphasize the community aspect a bit more than we have in the past. One thing in the back of my mind was Nature tourism tips for Aussies interested in visiting the US, with a special emphasis on Northern California, where I live.
I’ve done some surfing on trekearth.com and treknature.com, and have seen some fascinating photos from Australia. Nature tourism tips from Aussies would also be interesting to read.
GAVIN
“party on their own housed in a rusty old shed ”
I’d rather vote for a party of principle “housed in a rusty old shed”
than for a bunch of hypocrites. There are many in the Labor party who don’t subscribe yet follow the party line.
Just because you believe in man caused CC , means nothing to us who don’t.
The climate always changed will change in the future, and so far I have not seen a shred of evidence that we had anything to do with it. And may I add, I do not get all my info from blogs!
——————-
as to “separating anthropogenic climate change and an ETS. ”
if one does not believe in the anthropogenic bit in CC why on earth would one want to have an ETS?
Defies logic, but then what’s new!
Larry,
It takes much time to research and some thought to construct and then post new threads at this blog. And to the many who have contributed posts – the amount of time is much reduced on my part – but often there is still checking and editing.
I feel that during a critical time for me, and also for more discussion on environemntal issues more generally including climate change, this blog has played a role, including in having a small influence on public opinion, at least here in Australia.
More recently my situation has changed. And it looked like both sides of parliament here in Australia were going to go along with AGW and the emissions trading scheme (ETS) without further critical debate.
But in just the last few days the political situation has changed radically here in Australia with some key politicians taking a stand on the issue of AGW and ETS. This has forced the mainstream media to at least stop with their normal reporting that AGW and the ETS are fact and a done deal, respectively.
This gives me hope – for both democracy and science.
As regards this blog, I have no intensions of closing down this or other threads so discussion can continue on key issues. I remain unlikely, however, to post new threads at the main page at least for the foreseeable future so it is ‘an end’ of sorts.
Marcus – you amaze me – why would you not believe in an ETS yet believe in AGW – simple Australia going it alone for no global climate impact? effect on the economy. Versus costs of adaptation.
Golly gee – do you think serious AGW believers think solutions are simple. Why Barry Brooks as a greenie has devoted vast parts of his bravenewclimate blog to nuclear power over the last year.
I am surprised that the inmates here think both issues are logically compulsory.
Luke? ….“serious AGW believers”……ROTFL
Well that says it all doesn’t it? Luke insightfully cuts right to the crux of the CRU Climategate scandal.
Luke “believes” in AGW, just like a serious Catholic believes in the infallibility of the Pope.
TO ALL “SERIOUS AGW BELIEVERS” :
WE SKEPTICS DO NOT “BELIEVE” IN HYPOTHESIS, ONLY ITS USEFULNESS IN MAKING PREDICTIONS THAT CAN BE VERIFIED BY REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION BY INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTIES.
Got that? It’s called the “scientific method” and is radically opposed to systems of faith, at least in the sphere of the empirically measurable world.
Obvious if you are a “serious believer” in a particular dogma, you might not be willing to turn over your secret codex to “non-believers.”
Or as Phil Jones famously emailed Warwick Hughs, “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …”
Phil Jones is a “serious AGW believer.”
Don’t any of you commenters bad mouth my pal, Luke, the “serious AGW believer” for he provides this blog with a seriously comprehensive window into pre-Enlightenment ignorance.
Priceless, Luke is.
Wes not at all. You are the archetypal religious doubter. Your comprehensive science deficit, political proclivities, and penchant for conspiracies has blinded you to a considerable pro-case literature with many interlocking pieces of evidence. Incomplete but enough to take a risk minimising posture. My “belief” is based on a rational assessment of the science with all it warts and difficulties – yours is not. A complex science that is actually “rocket science” unlike your trite comments implying it’s all just so simple. In terms of Phil Jones comments – yep why would cooperate with the mischievous?
Wes you’re simply antediluvian.
Luke, You spend a lot of time calling people names, but really, “nah, nah, you’re so dumb” really isn’t very convincing unless you back it up with a list of logical reasonings for why that person is so dumb.
For instance, you say that Phil Jones refusing to reveal the methodology and data behind his research is proper given the fact that those who want to try to reproduce his work are up to “mischievous.”
My reply might well start with “Luke, you are totally clueless,” and that’s not very convincing until I point out that the most basic ground rule of science is that all research be reproducible by any third party. And if a scientist will not allow “mischievous” third parties to a transparent review and reproduction of his original work than it isn’t science at all and has no place in the literature. Obviously, one scientist’s mischief is another’s rational counterpoint.
This is just the fact of how science has progressed for the last 350 years. The system is fundamentally adversarial rather than collective tribal groupthink arriving a consensus to be “believed” without question. If you don’t serious believe in the scientific method, then please Luke tell us how it should work? How would you change science?
Personally I find it mind-boggling that you don’t seem to understand that the most fundamental requirement of scientific research is that it be reproducible by those that are NOT “serious believers” in the research they are reproducing.
Or do you think that Phil Jones should only pick his mates to have a look at his black box data then give the rest of us a thumbs up if it’s OK?
Phil Jones has to keep his research top secret, away from the public, because there are baddies out there? We should just trust that he got it right? Is that how Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein proceed with their own theories? Or maybe Charlie and Albert didn’t have any sceptics to deal with????
Luke, these are serious questions for serious AGW believers to consider. And with Climategate your time is up, kiddo.
Jennifer. This lot is debunked. Why not turn your critical skills to the more serious matters, currently summed up under the Rubrick “2012.
You see we have a CO2 shortage. In that we could double the level. Double it again. And double it once more and still be fine. We halve it even once and we will all quickly die. That sounds like a shortage to me.
But not all aspects of this so-called “2012” business are entirely phoney like this 20 year CO2-bedwetting curse has been. And we would need your objective moderation to pull this thing apart, and find a few things NOT to worry about. Phony crises undermine real concerns.
I managed to make a pretty good connection between supernovae, and disproportionate volcanic activity, just on a single afternoon with google. I would be happier if you could debunk me and me not get carried away down the wrong path. For the record I don’t place a great deal of credence on the date 2012 itself. A little bit but not a great deal.
“I feel that during a critical time for me, and also for more discussion on environemntal issues more generally including climate change, this blog has played a role, including in having a small influence on public opinion, at least here in Australia.”
Don’t be modest about it. For a good chunk of 2008 it was the best libertarian blog in Australia and the best climate science blog in the world. Thats why you got the boot Jennifer. It wasn’t because you weren’t effective. It was because you were ONLY TOO effective and the mob could not let it go.
They got Patton and McCarthy because they could not afford not too. Same sort of deal here.
“My “belief” is based on a rational assessment of the science with all it warts and difficulties ”
So run it by me department-of- Luke. I’m smarter than you’ll ever be so if you are full of shit I’LL TELL YOU!!!
And then you won’t have to worry about trace gasses no more. I will find you you jerk. All you little Luke sluts.
“And with Climategate your time is up, kiddo.” ROTFL ! Do go on….
But yea – Phil should make the data available. Go read about new data licencing issues such http://www.gilf.gov.au/ – you will realise that given the terms Jones has been supplied data by various nation states makes his current situation difficult. It’s nowhere near as simple as you think.
But the western world is rapidly moving to much freer exchange of public information. So in theory – yep make all the data available. Long as you’re willing to pay Wes in your taxes coz it will cost ya a penny or two for the systems.
But yea – make the data available – why not ! I have no problem with it. It’s simply a logistical exercise once the appropriate licencing is in place.
However at the end of the day – nothing will change in terms of climate understanding – there are simply too many interlocking bits of evidence. Wes you’re chasing a 10th order issue mate ! (seriously).
CRU, GISS, satellite, two SST datasets, the biological responses, boreholes, glaciers – all tell the same broad story. So ho hum ….
As for “This is just the fact of how science has progressed for the last 350 years.” – NOPE ! not in commerce – heaps of science secrets. You mean public science !
Luke, You just said Jones should have NOT to make his data available now you say your cool with? OK, fine I guess you conceded the argument. Good on you. Progress.
“Phil should make the data available”…..wow. That’s a big concession for “serious believer in AGW”!
Still, Data licencing issues have nothing to do with the transparent review and reproducibility of basic research….unless, of course, your trying to weasel out of making your method and data available for third party verification.
Luke, why don’t you explain to us how one conducts primary scientific research but then refuses to allow your work to be transparently reviewed and reproduced by third parties because of “Licensing Agreements?”
Is science that cannot be tested independently (for whatever reason) still science?
Whenever bird shows up I think of this movie for some reason:
I have refuted all aspects of luke’s “interlocking bits of evidence” so many times I’m not going to bother doing it again. But what is currently happening with the msm and the pollies is fascinating; there is a joke that goes, what has 10 teeth, looks terrible and has an IQ of 100; and the answer of course is the audience at a wrestling match; now the joke is, what has perfect teeth, looks great and has an IQ of 100, the msm; I have been listening to talkback lately and they are just starting to catch up to the ‘crucial issue’ of where the majority scientific support lies; with or against AGW; they have just cottoned on to the Oregon Petition; it really is disturbing to realise the msm is about 2 years off the pace, and of course the pollies follow the msm.
An appropriate exercise in respect of the consensus would be, not to compile numbers for and against, but to find a pro-AGW scientist who is not affiliated with IPCC or works for a government organisation such as CSIRO/BoM or who hasn’t received grants for AGW research. Name one luke.
Luke is simply going through the motions. He has lost, and he knows it. He is just too lazy to go look for the next big apocalypse.
This essay from Walter Starck may be of interest to the saner readers:
https://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/11/six-degrees-and-rising
Yeah, I like this:
“One is the shrinking portion of the population engaged in production as a result of technological advance and a growing population of predominantly urban non-producers. Although their own choice of habitat in the tiny fraction of the nation where nature has been virtually annihilated, many subscribe to a romanticised quasi-religious notion of a pure, perfect, delicately balanced natural world. They express strong opinions and great concern over remote things of which they have little or no actual knowledge or experience. They view nature as a sacred trust which is being defiled by greedy rapacious people who must be stopped. Their appreciation of the system of production which supports them begins at the shop and ends at the rubbish bin. Although totally surrounded by technology and utterly dependant on it, their technical capability is challenged by a dull knife or leaking tap. Nevertheless, their vote can determine government and politicians pander for it.”
However, I think the peak oil apsect of Walter’s worthy essay is debatable.
Thanks Jen, you’ve done a great job, but I can see why you are stepping back (I think) too much of this blog is now taken up with irrelevant, infantile squabbling – Luke is winning.
You deserve a life
Cohenite,
I am bush monday till the 15th and have not had time to deal with the Peak Oil issue.
I noticed Walter’s comment about it as well, and it is wrong. Theer is no debate in science – either oil does, or does not originate from buried biomass and the chemical reaction demonstrating it has not been done by the bio-oilers. The Rock oilers have on many occasions. That experimental data is not accepted but rhetoric is, points to a serious problem in science that we can be sheeted to Charles Lyell 180 years ago.
It’s the old debate between the Platonists and Aristollelians.
I also see Luke is denial mode.
Late this arvo, ABC RN ran an interview with Andrew Bolt who was still crying about “global cooling” mixed with a lot of other old Heartland rhetoric and in hunting for the transcript I came across this- it’s old news too but could still be relevant
‘A leading pollster says hardline climate change sceptics within the Coalition are “out of step” with the majority of Australian voters’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/27/2755925.htm
Martin O’Shannessy – Newspoll “We’ve done a series of polls that have shown us that about three-quarters of the population, seven in 10, over the period of the last few years since 2007, see that climate change is happening, [and] that on the whole they believe that we need to act in the form of a carbon pollution reduction scheme,
Thanks for the Link, Davey. Damn, Walter doesn’t pull the punches does he?
I agree with Cohenite and Louis (although the abiotic oil theory is a whole other topic and not necessarily the only way to argue against peak oil.) No peak oil on the horizon.
BUT, Walter is right that oil shortages are going to drive the price per barrel much higher in the next few years as the world economy hots up. This will act to acceleration exploration and production, but the lag time is years, giving the Peak Oil gang fodder to support their argument. Higher hydrocarbon prices are already being written into many future options secured by the big trans-nationals and won’t derail the next economic boom which has already well and truly started, at least in the equity markets.
The fossil fuels are there in the ground, but the refining, mining, drilling capacity of the West has been chilled due to 30 years of enviros knocking back new plants, restrictions, etc. Don’t mistake refinery and various production bottlenecks resulting higher prices for so-called peak oil production.
Also, new breakthroughs in hydrocarbon exploration, production and refining are ongoing and accelerating. Witness new innovations in coal gasification processes.
“Today, there is a name for the political doctrine that rejoices in scarcity of everything except government. The name is environmentalism.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112002619.html
Gavin – the reason the Coalition sceptics are “out of step” is because the MSM are out of step.
You can count on one letter every day in the SMH or the Age to be from some joe public lamenting on how no one is doing anything to stop the inevitable catastrophic climate change.
It’s worse than that; the editorial policy of ALL msm is that catastrophic AGW is just around the corner, yet if you asked any leading hack how extra CO2 can cause catastrophic AGW they would have as much chance as luke or gavin of mounting a sensible reply.
“The current dispute over what the Liberal Party should do on climate change is only the beginning of a debate that has the potential to overwhelm the party if it is forced to a by-election in Wentworth” Antony Green
http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/11/a-wentworth-byelection.html
gavin
The sooner the loser is out, the better. He already caused enough damage by ousting a capable former member.
The way it is, Wentworth is lost to the liberals, no matter which party gets in.
A new liberal is bound to be a copy of MT.
Cohenite/Wes
MSM might, albeit it slowly, realise what’s going on once some more analysis of the Climategate files is done. Right now I get the impression that data manipulation was done from the start, whether by omission, “adjustments” or other tricks.
Notice also that each and every climate scientist supportive of AGW is of the politically left hue, ie progressive, or cutting to the chase, socialist.
I am particularly interested in Andrew Bolt’s quotes of who delivered this speech – today in his blog – and Turnbull”s isn’t all that different to Rudd’s in terms of rhetoric and style.
1560 years ago the English had a traditional Liberal party which, over time, was hijacked by the Fabians and morphed into the UK Labour Party. The Fabian method is not direct confrontation but behind the scenes, backdoor methods to have their targets choose the Fabian agenda masked as something quite different. The Fabian method is essentially rhetorical, rather than evidence based.
The Australian Liberal Party is comprised of lefties and righties, (I know I used to be a member and a former party branch secretary), and I maintain a close liaison with some members. For good or worse, the Liberals seem to have some quasi socialist members, those who believe that government intervention is useful. I am also aware of the portability of politicians between the Liberals and the ALP. (Wes, the same seems true to the US when a GOP politician can, at the drop of a hat, switch to the Democrats).
Therefore what is the real issue behind the AGW movement? In terms of Climategate it is altering data to fit a belief. In terms of politics it (AGW belief) is the rationale for imposing an unelected world government by implementing the Copenhagen Treaty, that has, by the way, imploded.
Who are behind this?
Notice that no capitalists are recognised as supporting any political movement to transform society – but those who do want to change society are invariably the socialists, and of this group two can be identified – Communists who implement it by the force of armed revolution, and the Fabians by slowly changing the laws of a country for the same goal. Fabian socialism is simply Communism by hire- purchase.
What unifies the Liberal Party wets (lefties) and the ALP is the belief in statism, which is really nothing more than a modern version of feudalism – Robber Barons in charge, then the rule of force, now the rule of law, (both achieving the same end), and a gulled mob from whom taxes are forcibly extracted.
So instead of arguing the “science”., how about starting on the politics behind this abuse of science. Arguing over the science is simply a distraction peoples, to divert attention from the actual game in play.
Gavin, the Bolter just had a tense discussion with Mark Colvin and the impression I get is that the ABC newsroom has a blind spot.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2755822.htm
Marcus; when I lived round the cross late 80’s I met a lot of small biz people who could go either way and still be hard core something depending on the issue. I recall some parts being cluttered with kiwis too. IMO that requires a strong candidate in any appeal.
el gordo It was this segment on air that grabbed my attention, then I realized it was not Andrew Robb in the interview
ANDREW BOLT: “I shall answer that in a second but I just want to note that you’ve skipped over the most insane thing – the whole edifice of global warming theory is undermined by the fact the world has been cooling as even Tim Flannery, as even IPCC lead author Kevin Trenberth privately admitted in emails that have surfaced now, the whole world has been cooling”.
MARK COLVIN: “Sure, we know that you’re a climate change sceptic…”
ANDREW BOLT: “No, no, no, no, no this is the facts”
Pathetic!
Gavin,
Yes, Andrew Bolt’s grammar is Pathetic!
Dragging the abyss, no ?
Gavin
The point about the Australian Brainwashing Corporation – the whole newsroom is disseminating propaganda. It is basically through the sin of omission.
Gavin, what is pathetic is you cant see the point bolt is making and seem to just blindly seek out quotes and commentaries that support your view.
The point he was making is even flannery…who as he (bolt) put it is our leading alarmist, states that temp have declined for the last 7 years and it cant be explained.
What was also pathetic is bolt so clearly won the debate that the interviewer decided to end the interview.
You are wasting your time giving us quotes from the ABC, and if you can not recognise their bias then how an earth can you expect us to respect what you say?
sorry to be harsh, but your dribble is worse than Luke’s in IMO.
Bolt was making the point that it is the poor science which is driving the politics. My wife heard the interview and she has no opinion on AGW, and she worked it out immediately.
How anybody can support signing an agreement that will change the basis of how we run our economy, when there is no agreement from the major emitters, is completely beyond me.
If you believe in the science you should still be against commiting economic suicide. If the major emitters do instigate binding poilicies then i agree it become s hard for us not to….even though I doubt the science. But before hand is just ridiculous.
GAVIN, the warmers have clearly been caught with their hand in the till …wake up and acknowledge it. It does not mean all the science is crap…but it has to raise doubt doesnt it??!!
Wes – you really are thick mate.
“Luke, why don’t you explain to us how one conducts primary scientific research but then refuses to allow your work to be transparently reviewed and reproduced by third parties because of “Licensing Agreements?””
Coz the nation states, i.e. parties that supplied their data did so on the basis that it was for his use only. Did you not get that? Why – I dunno ? BoM make all the data in Australia available.
But Wessy Woo – you’re just a big bullshitting shonk – as soon as that happens you’ll drift onto something else. You’re just a time waster.
Cohenite dreams on “I have refuted all aspects of luke’s “interlocking bits of evidence” so many times ” like fun you have you . ROTFL !!! Cohers just sprays some utter unpublished nonsense, drinks his own urine and pronounces it to be wine. Still on Jack’s beanstalk are we?
Louis true to form still fighting the cold war looking for reds under the bed. OMIGAWD !
Luke,
Except your excuse is not really what happened.
But you knew that.
AGW hacks really do lie naturally, but as we see more and more clearly, not as well as you wish.
Great con-artists are ones who can convince themselves they are justified in what they are doing.
As we see, the AGW promoters are really great.
The fact that they were using the alleged data restrictions as an excuse is clear when we read in their own, in context words, how they conspired to hide the data because they did not like who was requesting it, or because they knew it would not withstand scrutiny.
And the ‘unpublished’ dodge is proven to be pap since we now know the self-described ‘team’ was busy making sure that papers they did not like were not going to get peer review or published.
If AGW-predicted temps were behaving as predicted, the leaked e-mails would not spend so much time on how they are not, nor on how to mislead people from that pesky problem.
This morning we read that 76 marine scientists are calling for cuts in emissions because of climate change. When is this kind of shit going to cease and more importantly – who put them up to it? CSIRO of course.
So what are they saying?
http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/images/uploads/Report_card_web.pdf
1 – Ocean temperatures around Australia have warmed 0.7°C since 1910-1929, with south-west and south-eastern waters warming fastest (HIGH confidence)> Australian ocean temperatures will be 1°C warmer by 2030 and 2.5°C warmer by 2100
2 – Global sea levels have risen by 20 cm over 1870-2004 (HIGH confidence)> Global sea levels will continue to rise 5-15 cm by 2030 and 18-82 cm by 2100
3 – Leeuwin Current> Southward flow has slightly weakened since the 1970s (MEDIUM confidence)> Weakening will continue over the coming century
4 – Little evidence of change in ENSO variability due to global warming (LOW-MEDIUM confidence)> A background “El Niño-like” pattern is projected this century (MEDIUM confidence), with no change in ENSO event amplitude or frequency
5 – Carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans has lowered pH by 0.1 units since 1750, representing a 30% increase in hydrogen ion (acid) concentration (HIGH confidence)> Ocean pH will decrease by a further 0.2-0.3 units by 2100
So what’s new and where is the paper proving that it is caused by AGW??
disgraceful! yet it’s all over the news and press.
Banana Pyjamas- mate – you and your anti-science fraudsters are simply “out of step”.
The embarrassing piddly and pathetic 3,086 odd signatures on the anti-ETS submission may be a clue to a total lack of support !
Do we see “mass demonstrations in all capital cities” proclaiming AGW a fraud. Nope we have (giggle) 3,000 signatures. Woo hoo !
And this is after your years of relentless shelling of the AGW position. A giga-ton of Australian newsprint of op-eds.
So after all this we find:
Climate sceptics ‘out of step’ with voters
By Simon Santow for The World Today
Posted Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:32pm AEDT
Updated Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:09pm AEDT
In a September Newspoll two-thirds of those asked were still in favour of the emissions trading scheme. (User submitted via ABC Contribute: JodieV, file photo)
A leading pollster says hardline climate change sceptics within the Coalition are “out of step” with the majority of Australian voters.
As the political temperature and debate over the proposed emissions trading scheme (ETS) rose dramatically this week, Coalition MPs spoke of phones melting down and email inboxes being swamped by an angry public.
Within the Coalition, both ETS opponents and those in favour of the scheme claimed to have the support of the public.
But can both sides be right when both claim to represent a constituency and have public opinion behind them?
Newspoll’s Martin O’Shannessy says the most recent poll on the topic, in September this year, showed that two-thirds of those asked were still in favour of the Government’s proposed carbon reduction scheme.
That was before the amendments, which excluded agriculture, were agreed on earlier this week.
Coalition supporters did not back the scheme to the extent Labor supporters did, but there was still a clear majority in favour.
Mr O’Shannessy says the polling is very clear on whether people believe climate change is happening.
“The vast majority of the electorate, which must include some Liberal voters as well, does believe it is happening and some action’s required,” he said.
“So the hardline of complete refusal within the Liberal Party is probably a little bit out of step with the mainstream of Australian voters at the moment.”
Mr O’Shannessy says his polls show a clear majority of people backed a national emissions trading scheme, but views are mixed on whether to implement it before the world climate summit in Copenhagen.
“We’ve done a series of polls that have shown us that about three-quarters of the population, seven in 10, over the period of the last few years since 2007, see that climate change is happening, [and] that on the whole they believe that we need to act in the form of a carbon pollution reduction scheme,” he said.
“The idea of going it alone had sort of softened up. We find that at the moment about 45 per cent of voters in total feel we should wait till after Copenhagen, 41 per cent saying we should go it alone, the rest are undecided.
“So there’s a bit of a split in the population there and I think if you look at Coalition supporters, about six in 10, 58 per cent, say we should wait whereas almost the opposite – 51 per cent of Labor supporters – say we should go for it now.
“So [it’s a] very interesting situation for the body politic and our political leaders where waiting seems to be favoured by Coalition supporters, but again they are in the electoral minority as well.”
Luke – your post infers that the attitudes are changing – i.e now 45% say we chould wait till Copenhagen and 41% saying going it alone – now isn’t that what the Liberal party are saying – wait till Copenhagen?
BTW – I notivce you avoided the predicition of the latest CSIRO paper that states – sea level rise of 1.7mm/year and 18-82 cm by 2100…….but Penny Henny said 1.1m
“1 – Ocean temperatures around Australia have warmed 0.7°C since 1910-1929, with south-west and south-eastern waters warming fastest (HIGH confidence)> Australian ocean temperatures will be 1°C warmer by 2030 and 2.5°C warmer by 2100”
I should bloody well hope so. But had they chosen to take it from the 30’s they would most likely see that we have cooled. No evidence again.
“2 – Global sea levels have risen by 20 cm over 1870-2004 (HIGH confidence)> Global sea levels will continue to rise 5-15 cm by 2030 and 18-82 cm by 2100”
134 years???? This puts that rate below the 2mm per year background sea level rise since the end of the last ice age. Well its in line with it, since 2mm is a rough figure. Hence the statement tells us that things are normal.
“3 – Leeuwin Current> Southward flow has slightly weakened since the 1970s (MEDIUM confidence)> Weakening will continue over the coming century…”
They don’t even have a point to that one. A fearful burst of mass-sackings will help them find the point of the issue.
“4 – Little evidence of change in ENSO variability due to global warming (LOW-MEDIUM confidence)> A background “El Niño-like” pattern is projected this century (MEDIUM confidence), with no change in ENSO event amplitude or frequency”
Come back to us when you have something you can tell us without hedging.
“5 – Carbon dioxide dissolving in the oceans has lowered pH by 0.1 units since 1750, representing a 30% increase in hydrogen ion (acid) concentration (HIGH confidence)> Ocean pH will decrease by a further 0.2-0.3 units by 2100”
Bullshit. They have no right to make this lying claim. What about fresh water melting? That TOO would bring things closer to a less corrosive neutrality.
“So what’s new and where is the paper proving that it is caused by AGW??”
Do you not see the patterns? Its all around you if you have the eyes to look. Why. Only the other day I overheard two people talking:
“You know Beverly. She was round visiting her Auntie during school hours and she noticed a couple of kids in school uniform and they were smoking these strange tailor-made cigarettes that smelt funny she said. They were up a tree smoking these strange cigarettes and playing reggae music. And she shouted them down and when they came down they seemed to be wearing what appeared to be tea-cosies on their heads.”
“Bloody Global Warming.”
“You guessed it.”
The majority of Australians believe? The MAJORITY of Australians believe what the funderin’ media TELLS them to believe, with their focus on alarmism and worst case scenarios fed to THEM by the very people who have been shown to be corrupt! “He who shall remain nameless” can’t decide whether it’s the “science” or public opinion that is the final arbiter of truth. BTW, the majority of people also thought the Y2K bug was going to shut down the world’s computer systems. I guess that the majority of people can’t be right ALL of the time eh?
The Australian Senators seem to be listening to somethign besides the press on this issue.
That is a good first step.
It is clear the press is listening to sociopaths like the Luke ensemble a bit too much.
Luke, btw, just how many are there in your little gang?
How do you all clock your time while you are out pretending to be one person?
to ratinoal blog members:
Is there an equivalent of FOIA for Australia?
If so, is it not time to go after the blatant censorship of your CSIRO, and other govt. organs that are in on hyping and lying the figures and facts?
And if you can ‘out’ the Luke gang along the way, that would be what we call langiappe, in the states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagniappe
People,
It doesn’t matter what you believe, much less, what the ‘climate facts’ are.
The EU has voluntarily hobbled its economy with CO2 regs, and wants the world to join it on the road to penury.
China doesn’t want to go down that road.
The US can say what it will, and with Al Gore and Obama (plus the IPCC) all being Nobelists lately, you can guess what the US will say at Copenhagen — and it won’t make any difference.
What hangs in the balance is the EU. Its agricultural regulations are gradually shutting down its increasingly unimportant agricultural sector — farmers there have been nothing but hired gardeners, for decades. Putting a noose on its own energy production, which means, increasing dependence on Russia, makes the EU even more pitifully vulnerable to its historical foe.
If Copenhagen doesn’t result in the rest of the world screwing itself like Europe is already mostly screwed, Europe will be screwed alone.
The upcoming Copenhagen summit promises clashes of epic proportions, and Europe — the international ‘darling’ of politically correct politics — is poised to be a wretched, but righteous, loser.
Europe will fight like a cornered rat, and nothing fights harder than a cornered rat.
It’s redundant to add this, but it’s necessary: Copenhagen is scrambling to find extra room to house the rioters who are likely to be arrested during the meet. Things are forecast to be as bad as Seattle, Prague, Rome, etc., and Europe *does* have its foot-soldiers. ‘Blut und Boden’ didn’t pick up and move to Argentina, and Stalinists didn’t stay behind where the Wall used to be.
This will be fun if you aren’t there in person.
janama,
Any reports coming out of any AGW promotion organs right now are to be treated as credibly as one of the Luke’s braying diatribes.
They are all transparently aiming to force wavering politicians back into the AGW line, and to keep the fear level hig among those the they are victiminzing- the people who actually care about the environment- by fraud.
Climate gate shows the edifice of big government cliamte ‘science’ is crap.
None of it should be held as reliable until actually verified. These people have been talking to themselves about how right they are, and above reproach, for far too long.
For those of you who want a bit of a light hearted read, here’s a story by Prof. Plimer
“THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF CREATION
Ian Plimer
Professor of Geology
Head of the School of Earth Sciences
The University of Melbourne
Parkville, Victoria, 3052.
Written during, and delivered at the closing stages of the Dinner held following the SMEDG-AIG Symposium on “Recent Advances in the Mount Isa Block” – Sydney – May 21, 1993.
In the beginning God floated the idea of creating Heaven and Earth. He was immediately served with an injunction by Greenpeace to prevent any creative activity whatsoever as He had not undertaken an environmental impact study and had no permit to work.
At the hearing, God was cross-examined and asked why He wanted to undertake this massive project, especially as it appeared that it was extremely unlikely that any social benefit would derive from His venture. The Wilderness Society reminded God that His Bible stated that “the earth was void and empty and darkness was upon the face of the deep” hence the area where He wanted to creatively meddle could be classified as a pristine wilderness. God successfully argued that unless Earth could be seen, then it could not be classified a wilderness area. Upon further questioning, God revealed that by Him saying “Let there be light” the wilderness area could be seen for assessment of its environmental value.
This created pandemonium in the court house. How could God create light without burning something that would pollute the Universe? Had He considered the smoke, thermal and optical pollution that His creation of light would produce? What would be mined to produce all this energy? Would the mining be underground or open pit? What was God to do with the tailings and the waste? Was God aware of the dangers of greenhouse gases and nuclear energy?
In order to seek compromise, God argued that He would create a pollution-free, thermonuclear powerhouse. However, at the mention of the word nuclear, the masses at the court hearing broke into histrionics. God faced aggressive questioning from the assembled environmental movements. Would His giant thermonuclear power generator really work? Could the safety of thermonuclear fusion be guaranteed? What about Chernobyl? In order to allow His creative proposal to proceed, God suggested that instead of thermonulear energy, He would use solar energy. A warm inner glow entered the hearts of those in the courthouse, the assembled detractors agreed that solar power would be far better environmentally than thermonuclear power and some of the more sensitive souls were so touched by God’s environmental concern that they actually wanted to shake His hand.
The remaining hard core continued to question God on his alternative energy proposal. Wouldn’t precious energy be wasted if light was emitted from the Sun all the time? God had a brilliant idea and, in order to conserve energy, God suggested that He divide light and darkness and He would call the light Day and the darkness Night. The assembled environmental masses seemed to think that this was an inspired energy-saving proposal and grudgingly acquiesced to this creative step.
However, the next creative step aired had God in a spot of bother. When God was asked how the Earth would be covered, He answered “Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters; and let it divide the waters from the waters”. Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth and miscellaneous other environmental movements voiced strong objections. If God created a firmament, would not the mining industry pillage the firmament for minerals? God tried logic and argued that a firmament was necessary in order to produce the 210 tonnes per capita per annum of water, food and minerals which would be consumed by people at the end of the second millennium AD. The gag was applied, the court adjourned and God was refused permission to continue argument on the firmament.
After the adjournment, God was given permission to make a short statement. He stated that homelands and sacred sites could not be annexed unless there was a firmament. After much discussion in court about the necessary provision of homelands for the tangible expression of inherited guilt, God was given permission to create a firmament and questioning shifted to His creation of waters.
Neither Greenpeace nor Save the Aquatic Fauna wanted God to create the oceans because this would tempt the petroleum industry into offshore drilling. Furthermore, if there were oceans, then there could be marine pollution. It suddenly dawned on God that logic was His worst defence and He started to invent arguments which would seem plausible. Rather than discuss the necessity of oceans for climate, resources and survival, God insisted that His creative venture must have oceans. Without oceans, God argued, there would be no habitat for dolphins and whales. The court room erupted into cheers, people struggled to pat God on the back, environmental leaders announced that the god of nature would be called Gaia, God signed numerous autographs and a warm ambience settled over the tear-stained masses. However, because so few at the hearing had trust in God, He was instructed to apply for the necessary permits from the appropriate local government, shipping, agricultural and water commissions before undertaking this creative step.
When God tried to explain that the barren firmament should be environmentally enhanced with vegetation, there was vigorous objection on the basis that the flora might be exploited commercially for profit. God was now aware that it was pointless to argue that flora would be the key to survival and so He stated that He would only create species native to planet Earth. He strengthened his argument by suggesting that if the firmament was covered by abundant vegetation, all could be vegetarian. God’s popularity was increasing and the environmental leaders now privately felt that God was good, however they were committed to objecting in public to every creative step God wanted to make. It was eventually agreed, subject to Noxious Weed Board and Forestry Commission permission, that if God vegetated the planet with only native species then He would be issued with a permit to say “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit”
In order to win over various New Age movements, astrologers, UFO watchers, tarot card readers and the Lunar Cycle Birth Movement, God announced to the court that He wanted to state “And let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth”. The various New Age movements were asked to voice their objections however, because their answers required the construction of sentences and the use of words of more than two syllables, they could only look bleary-eyed at God, monotonously chanted “God is Cool” and fondled His long flowing robes.
Some disquiet was expressed about God’s plan to have only native flora without soft, cuddly environmentally sensitive fauna. A passionate discussion ensued with some suggesting that if there were animals on the firmament then they would be hunted, killed and eaten whereas others wanted soft cuddly objects to allow them to have publicity about the plight of these animals. The question of methane emissions from animals was raised. It was unanimously agreed, that in the absence of evidence, that methane emissions were bad, however a compromise was struck. If God could create sheep and cattle which emitted no methane, then wild animals could democratically decide whether they chose to, or chose not to emit methane. The gathered masses felt good. On the condition that God adhered to the various statutes of the Native Flora and Fauna Protection Act, various National Parks Acts, the Fisheries Acts and observed the RSPCA regulations, God was given permission to say “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and the fowl that may fly above the earth”.
The proposal to creat man met insurmountable ethical and political difficulties. The vivisectionists were concerned about the morals of rib transplant on a sleeping patient without the required documentation, the Womens’ Electoral Lobby would not agree that man was to be created before woman, animal liberationists were incensed that man was to have dominance over animals, the gay lobby did not want woman created from man, the right-to-lifers argued that rib tissue had inalienable rights and ASIO insisted that those created must first have security clearances. God now had the measure of his opponents and announced to the court that He would only create indigenous people. Opposition evaporated, there were excited suggestions about having a special year dedicated to indigenous people and, after no thought, it was decided that if these matters were aired at a subsequent public hearing, then God may be given permission afterwards to say “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth”.
Despite the onerous conditions laid down by the court, God was willing to adhere to all these conditions and, at the end of the hearing, He was asked when He hoped to commence His creative project. Great consternation arose when God stated that He wanted to complete the project in six days. The unions would not agree, too many people would have to work too fast to an exacting deadline. This was unprecedented compared with all previous attempts at productive creativity which had been prevented by prolonged industrial action. God was advised that the EIS and necessary permits have an application period of 90 days followed by a public viewing period of 60 days in each capital city. Upon receipt of all of the information, the granting bodies required a minimum of 180 days to review the applications prior to the public hearing. If there were no appeals arising from the public hearing, the process would take at least 36 months from the time of application before God was permitted to commence His creative venture.
God became positively catatonic. To His horror, God suddenly realised that He had only focussed on creation of the heavens and Earth and had forgotten to create the rarest commodity on Earth – common sense. The economic benefits of the regulatory processes were such that it was just not possible for God to create Earth in the proposed six-day period. God fulminated in disgust “To Hell with My Project!” and Earth, as we know it, was then created.
“
To understand how well the Lukes of Australia have been in selling lies, I offer this quote from an Australian paper:
““whatever the science ultimately shows, Australians of all political persuasions believe humanity is responsible for global warming and the government has to act to reduce its impact.”
So no matter if the premise is wrong, the government should do what AGW con-artists and jack asses demand.
This is an example of what one might call a post-intellectual op-ed piece: an opinion position that is not only ignorant of the facts, but immune to them as well.
Luke,
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, it seems from the emails etc that the global warming issue was rigged from the start. If so, at whose behest? Are you telling us that the Greens and the lefties have given up their battle to rid us of capitalism? Goodness Rudd blamed us extreme versions for the GFC.
As for the Fabians, maate, their mode of operation is to dissemble and hence lie – and the Australian website has suddenly experienced a revitalised publication effort – goodness they are now even publicly saying who is a member on the government team. A year ago and it was anyone’s guess.
As Schiller points out, the EU is slowly imploding – but the Europeans are too stupid to understand what the cause of the implosion is.
And Lukey, maate, I am in close contact with devout ALP types, and some years ago they admitted that while the science was shonky, it wasn’t about the science, but forcing us to live a more sustainable lifestyle. So when I hear it from the red’s mouths, maate, it has to be taken at face value. That’s called socialism – though these days they call it social democracy. Same horse different racing colours.
This is what the sceptics are on about – stopping Australia becoming another EU. The EU is a socialist state and it is an economic baskeet case.
And the opposite of scepticism is gullibility – you, maate, along with SJT and your happy little lefties, are Gullible with a capital G.
Sorry Derek, Plimer’s “story” won’t rate anywhere else, not even as a stunt for kids
BTW although I offerd that newspoll report up the page in support of my views, I do my own semi private polls at the markets on an irregular basis to confirm the public opinion of climate change as the evidence is advanced. In so doing I find a fair number of individuals who are involved in some way with the science over the decades.
hunter; some yanks have got a cheek coming in here offering their opinions on our science and public ALSO MEDIA support for these endevours
Gavin,
Climate change, what the political climate? Oh the physical one – well it’s unfalsifiable, to its pseudoscience. But you knew that didn’t you.
Here are a couple of recent polls on the amended ETS and whether humans cause AGW;
http://www.2ue.com.au/
There was also a recent ninemsm poll which ran 55/45 that humans were causing AGW; this is a msm driven psychosis and the msm’s influence is greatest in the city where cognitive dissonance prevails.
“Sorry Derek….” Apologise for being a moron or stay silent you filthy lying treasonous jerk. How many Gavins in this world aren’t dishonest unscience idiots? So far its a 100% track record.
I don’t suppose this twit has come up with any evidence these last few months has he? I didn’t think so. The problem with fake and fraudulent scare stories is that they undermine our attention to authentic problems that may be out there.
Here’s another poll you can vote on now;
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/climate-right-for-an-ambush-early-liberal-election/story-e6freuy9-1225804749819
The wording is partly obscured but no is the only reasonable choice.
“Whenever bird shows up I think of this movie for some reason:” I’m not gay Wes. So your attempts to compare me with Brad Pitt are in vain. I don’t find this stuff the least bit flattering. The point is that no matter how crazed some of these catastrophic theories sound, so far they appear to have more going for them, then this hoax we have had to live with these past 20 years. So we have to reorient our minds, in that twenty years of a hoax threat, cannot make us immune to real threats. While I use “2012” for shorthand, and place very little credence on specific dates, the idea of catastrophic events elsewhere in the galaxy, leading to disastrous results here on earth, does seem to have a lot going for it. And certainly more than this CO2-bedwetting. Which has nothing in its favour whatsoever, after 80+ billions of dollars spent and untold investment damage done already.
Fat Albert flees Denialiti at book signing.
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12520
He needs the exercise.
Hullo to all at Jen’s blog. Just back from a masochistic solo sea jaunt and it seems I have been missing all the fun.
Lots to catch up on.
But as Norman Gunston used to say, “innit excoiting”!
Cohers,
Why can’t these polls be specific when they ask, “do you think that CC is really happening”? or, “do you believe that CC is caused by humans”?
This bloody silly generic “climate change” means nothing.
The biggest scandal in science has occured and Robyn “100m” Williams is playing opera – “Where Corals Lie” by Elgar – on The Science Show!
Spangles, as I said earlier the msm is just about where this debate was 2 or 3 years ago and right now they are very much inclined towards AGW so they will frame polls to obviate a clear result; as well the public are just starting to focus; I thought the 2UE polls were good.
gavin,
And your point is?
That if Australia goes down some AGW bs rat hole it will not hurt us all?
Or that my friends who live in Australia and NZ don’t deserve any help?
Or that Australians getting tricked into Euro loser ETS junk does not impact the ROW?
Or merely that you are losing, you know you are losing, and you don’t want any support coming from outside to help your side lose?
Or do you think the laws of physics work different at the bottom of the world?
It is still an open blog. I will compare my level of support to this blog to yours any day.
take care now, ya hear?
The leaked e-mails show that the team went for ‘cliamte cahnge’ to help hide the fact that AGW was not actually happening. Climate changes all the time, and Hulme believed that he could sensitize people to to think that any powerful weather event was evidence of ‘climate change’.
Cool trick, huh?
Use a literally meaningless term, that can be veneered wwith any meaning you want, and then whine about it continuously.
This is the decision making flow chart our Parliament should refer to when discussing the ETS:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R6dL-3ZN9rI/Sw-SxGAbZRI/AAAAAAAAAAM/1EyrzVtC1uw/s1600/Slide1.GIF
***
This is the ABC’s editorial position as so elegantly expressed by Luke and Gavin:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_R6dL-3ZN9rI/Sw-tFK8Z3oI/AAAAAAAAAAc/16VDdoGBZPU/s1600/Slide3.GIF
***
And this is the full post:
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/crudgate-why-this-cant-be-swept-under.html
Derek,
I enjoyed Ian Plimer’s version of events. Here is a similar one which may be interesting to those seeking a career path in the Public Service, especially in ‘climate change’.
A Public Service Appraisal of Dr. J. E. Hovah, PhD
1. This officer has only written one paper in the last 2,000 years, and that was in Hebrew.
2. This paper has never appeared in a refereed journal.
3. The paper is largely anecdotal and narrative.
4. There is no abstract, introduction, discussion, or list of references.
5. The method is obscure.
6. The scientific community has been unable to reproduce the results.
7. When subjects did not behave as expected they were deleted by drowning, turning into pillars of salt etc.
8. Clearance from the Ethics Committee was never sought.
9. This officer has presented no seminars himself, but once sent his son.
10. Dr. Hovah may have created the world, but what has he done since then?
11. He has no record of cooperating well with colleagues.
12. He has only attended one meeting, and that was on a mountain top in the middle of a desert.
13. At that meeting he presented a set of 10 hypotheses, but these have never been subjected to rigorous statistical testing, and are largely disregarded by established scientists.
We recommend redundancy or redeployment.
“One can always trust experimenters who get the right answer when they do not know what the right answer is. One can never trust experimenters who know what the right answer is (human-caused global warming), and who have total control of the only data that can confirm or reject the theory, and whose jobs depend on confirming it.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-skeptical-scientist’s-view/
Louis will like the geo-magnetic angle in this story:
“A French scientist’s temperature data show results different from the official climate science. Why was he stonewalled? Climate Research Unit emails detail efforts to deny access to global temperature data…”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/11/26/skewed-science.aspx
Here is a bit of light relief for the Denialati amongst us. The rest of you can just look away.
http://buythetruth.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/heretic.jpg?w=500&h=349
Only 3,000 signatures. Giggle.
3,000 !!
It’s a lonely hearts club.
A song for Wessy Woo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOO8-Jp-xsg
I assume the denialist bluffers on here have personally audited all these data sets. How many sets have you looked at Wes – would it be 0.0 ? Yeessss ! “there’s just no data ” – bunkum !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
Data Sources
Filed under: Climate Science — group @ 27 November 2009
This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science. Please keep us informed of any things we might have missed, or any updates to the links that are needed.
Climate data (raw)
Climate data (processed)
Paleo-data
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
Large-scale model (GCM) output
Model codes (GCMs)
Model codes (other)
Data Visualisation and Analysis
Master Repositories of climate and other Earth Science data
Climate data (raw)
GHCN v.2 (Global Historical Climate Network: weather station records from around the world, temperature and precipitation)
USHCN US. Historical Climate Network (v.1 and v.2)
Antarctic weather stations
Satellite feeds (AMSU, SORCE (Solar irradiance), NASA A-train)
Tide Gauges (Proudman Oceanographic Lab)
World Glacier Monitoring Service
Climate data (processed)
Surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP, HadCRU, NOAA NCDC)
Satellite temperatures (MSU) (UAH, RSS)
Sea surface temperatures (Reynolds et al, OI)
Stratospheric temperature
Sea ice (Cryosphere Today, NSIDC, JAXA, Bremen, Arctic-Roos, DMI)
Radiosondes (RAOBCORE, HadAT, U. Wyoming, RATPAC, IUK )
Cloud and radiation products (ISCCP, CERES-ERBE)
Sea level (U. Colorado)
Aerosols (AEROCOM, GACP)
Greenhouse Gases (AGGI at NOAA, CO2 Mauna Loa, World Data Center for Greenhouse Gases)
AHVRR data as used in Steig et al (2009)
Paleo-data
NOAA Paleoclimate
Pangaea
GRIP/NGRIP Ice cores (Denmark)
GISP2 (note that the age model has been updated)
Paleo Reconstructions (including code)
Reconstructions index and data (NOAA)
Mann et al (2008) (also here)
Kaufmann et al (2009)
Wahl and Ammann (2006)
Mann et al (1998/1999)
Large-scale model (Reanalysis) output
These are weather models which have the real world observations assimilated into the solution to provide a ‘best guess’ of the evolution of weather over time (although pre-satellite era estimates (before 1979) are less accurate).
ERA40 (1957-2001, from ECMWF)
ERA-Interim (1989 – present, ECMWF’s latest project)
NCEP (1948-present, NOAA)
MERRA NASA GSFC
JRA-25 (1979-2004, Japanese Met. Agency)
Large-scale model (GCM) output
These is output from the large scale global models used to assess climate change in the past, and make projections for the future. Some of this output is also available via the Data Visualisation tools linked below.
CMIP3 output (~20 models, as used by IPCC AR4) at PCMDI
GISS ModelE output (includes AR4 output as well as more specific experiments)
Model codes (GCMs)
Downloadable codes for some of the GCMs.
GISS ModelE (AR4 version, current snapshot)
NCAR CCSM(Version 3.0, CCM3 (older vintage))
EdGCM Windows based version of an older GISS model.
Model codes (other)
This category include links to analysis tools, simpler models or models focussed on more specific issues.
Rahmstorf (2007) Sea Level Rise Code
ModTran (atmospheric radiation calculations and visualisations)
Various climate-related online models (David Archer)
CliMT a Python-based software component toolkit
Pyclimate Python tools for climate analysis
CDAT Tools for analysing climate data in netcdf format (PCMDI)
RegEM (Tapio Schneider)
Time series analysis (MTM-SVD, SSA-MTM toolkit, Mann and Lees (1996))
Data Visualisation and Analysis
These sites include some of the above data (as well as other sources) in an easier to handle form.
ClimateExplorer (KNMI)
Dapper (PMEL, NOAA)
Ingrid (IRI/LDEO Climate data library)
Giovanni (GSFC)
Wood for Trees: Interactive graphics (temperatures)
Master Repositories of Climate Data
Much bigger indexes of data sources:
Global Change Master Directory (GSFC)
PAGES data portal
NCDC (National Climate Data Center)
Cohenite,
I just voted on the Telegraph site and noted that the NO vote was by far the dominant one for both questions. I voted no for ” do you believe that climate change is happening” even though I do ’cause it was a stupid question but it was interesting to note that the votes were 69% no to 30% yes. To put it into proper context though you would have to know what the Telegraph readership demographic was.
Anyone who thinks Realclimate is a creditable source has an oversupply of personal lubricant.
Yes Derek I see luke still refers to Rahmstorf and his sea level code which is a dud;
http://landshape.org/enm/a-semi-empirical-approach-to-sea-level-rise/#more-2618
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/critique-of-a-semi-empirical-approach-to-projecting-future-sea-level-rise-by-rahmstorf/
HI Jennifer……I’m still reading the blog, and will continue. Just thought Luke and the boys would like this video. It’s nice an’ simple for ’em.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcsvaCPYgcI
Enjoy.
On a slightly different tack, can anyone point to data for time series on the DEPTHS of the oceans and changes therein? Cook and Bligh were for ever doing that sort of thing. I suspect Louis would come up with more reliable readings than Luke’s mob.
Talking of whom, Luke’s listing of RC’s alleged data sources on global temperatures is thoroughly misleading, as not one of those sources AS CITED either provides time series data for anywhere on earth or for how the GCHN CRU and Gistemp derive their Global sets from such individual site data. Schmidt’s list is nothing more than propaganada, implying transparency when there is none. What we need to see is the contents of each of the so-called GRIDS in CRU etc.
Hint: they are all fictitious like all the data sources cited by Real Climate and their lap dog aka Lukey. Last time I looked, CRU’s “grid” for UK is down to Bournemouth and Waddington, dear old Phil having lost all the CET data since 1659. Scotland has long ago been expunged, not without reason! CRU cannot even maintain temperature readings at its home town Norwich (nor Hadley at Exeter), any more than NOAA at Mauna Loa Slope Obs.
What is required is an independent audit of the provenance of the “global” temps we are regaled with every month.
Friends and others,
Here’s some interesting information, along with a question I’d like a clear answer to.
First off, the ‘leaked’ emails are now in a searchable database at
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
and for fun, search on the term ‘Marohasy’. Turns out, this blog was often a matter of discussion amongst the scientists!
Okay, now for the question. A team of IPCC scientists have separately issued “The Copenhagen Diagnosis” which claims, among other things, that “CO2 levels are higher now than they have ever been during the last 800,000 years.” See
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/press.html
But it appears that CO2 ppm has in the past been more than ten times higher than now, or more, without destroying the environment. See
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
although it appears you have to go back more than 800 kyr for numbers like that.
So is the “Copenhagen Diagnosis” “cooking the books” again by cherry-picking their favorite ‘year zero’, or what?
Bunk Curtin – you’re just a card carrying denialist. You lot aren’t serious – all you’re doing is looting and ransacking and moving from issue to issue like Vandal hordes. You simply just move on. You don’t have any serious interests in the science. Otherwise you’d be aspiring to publish your rhetorical dross in something other than E&E.
There are still a number of issues which offer ambivalent ‘evidence’ in the AGW debate; historical and modern levels of CO2 is one; whether ACO2 is entirely responsible for the modern increase in CO2 and whether the sink capacity is expanding; Tim has shown that the sink capacity is expanding which makes the recent dire predictions contained in the IPCC update based on increasing CO2 levels defective even by the AGW supporter’s own meagre criteria; Ferdinand has done interesting work on whether ACO2 has produced all of the modern increase in CO2 and there is plenty of interesting work about whether past levels of CO2 were less or more than today;
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6855
Schiller the Copenhagen Diagnosis is interesting in other ways. If you look at the authorship you will see that despite Gavin of RC’s claims that it was written by scientists from all around the world there are in fact only 26 westerners. A few from Europe the bulk from UK (East Anglia of course)and USA with largest group 7 Australians 5 of whom are Uni NSW. One Aussie BOM which of course has its own mention in the emails, David Jones advising he too gives the finger to suspected CA associates. The document I think published by Uni NSW and sent to all Copenhagen attendees (all 20,000?). It is a compilation of previous not new, released to generate fear in the lead to Copenhagen. Our media just cut and pasted I suspect.
If nothing else it displays the Eurocentric nature of this debate, and our heavy involvement, possibly fraudulent as well if I get the Harry bit about our data being so bad also. Reading that science in the west has become about risk and regulation and certain that the rest of the world don’t see science as a tool of R and R (China’s current efficiency drive called doing our bit for global warming is a subset of its energy and economic security policies, not its conservation policies) it is hard to see the Copenhagen Diagnosis as much more than a PR document to ensure there is no backsliding by the politicians who seem to have become captives of an alarmingly small group of scientists who have a very different Weltanschauung to me.
The Chinese moves also appear to be about WTO arguments and carbon penalties.
I appreciate the continuing discussion at this thread and especially all the links. I do go and vote when given a link to a poll.
Cohenite, especially, I appreciate your knowledge and links.
Thanks, cohenite.
I don’t know how this will all fall out, but in the mean time, I can rest content in the (not widely known) knowledge that the USA absorbs all the CO2 it emits. Being a beneficial gas, you may rest assured that we’re putting it to good use.
Also in the interim, look for another Obama ‘Czar’ to fall: John Holdren. Originally famed for being afraid of global cooling, he’s now famed for being afraid of global warming. And he’s wrapped up in the CRU scandal. And he advocates compulsory abortion for climate etc. control. His notion of abortible individuals may actually extend so far as to include any pre-pubescent (non)person.
One thing that computer modelers should attempt is the variables, coefficients, feedback loops, etc. which seem to favor the ascent of the advocates of odd notions to the top of the policy pyramid.
I could be wrong, but a strong ‘signal’ would be a preference by AGW proponents to lapse almost instantly into ad hominem argumentation, or simple foul language, a la Luke, upon the merest suggestion of a question of the AGW position.
Having visited literally hundreds of blogs and ‘bulk media’ outlets on this topic over the last few days, seeking credible sources (and finding only a few — those who actually deal in computer code), it’s increasingly apparent that ‘deniers/skeptics’ are polite and curious, while AGW proponents are mean, mean-spirited, foul-mouthed, or otherwise deal in the sort of invective found in the ‘stolen emails’ which some wish to kindly characterize as ‘scientific dialogue’.
Luke’s comments here are merely emblematic of the low-brow criticism of those who are curious.
Curiosity is, among the human virtues, the most important. When that virtue is abandoned, which some appear to advocate, we’ll need to return to the trees and fight carnivores bare-handed for our supper.
Andrew Bolt had an interesting point on Insiders that having had a conversation will Joe Hockey he concluded that Joe didn’t even understand what it was all about – he hasn’t read anything about it and has no idea of the science.
I think that is typical of most Australians.
Further to my “innocent” question about existence or not of time series data on the depth of the oceans, let me explain that real scientists (unlike Allison & Bindoff – both claim to be oceanographers – and the other usual suspects who co-authored the latest product of the Goebbels Institutes of Climate Change at Potsdam and UNSW, The Copenhagen Diagnosis), if there is evidence that the sea-level is rising, one needs to consider alternative hypotheses to explain such data. They adopt the Pavlovian assumption that it must be down to warming due to rising [CO2], and ignore the much more plausible hypothesis that it is due to increasing sedimentation, some but not all of which is no doubt anthropogenic. While Allison et al touch on cores reflecting sedimentation 55 million years ago, there is no other mention. It is sad but true that Allison et al have no cognitive capacity to understand that after adding matter to a volume of a liquid its level will rise. Try adding a cube of ice to your gin or whiskey, lo! – the surface level rises. Truly, it really does.
Now if there was such a science as oceanography, one might expect to see a regression analysis of lab data comparing the impact on surface level of indices of (1) rising CO2 (2) rising temperature and (3) added sediment. Perish the thought. Allison et all are in fact politicians with an agenda pre-determined by their paymasters.
I plan to ask WWF and Greenpeace to fund my kitchen analysis for the next month of adding heat, CO2 and slices of lemon to my G&T on the the surface of the latter prior to bibulation. That is because they will love any new reason to terminate all human activity (including sewerage outlets into the rivers and oceans) that raises the average altitude of the ocean bottom and thereby its surface height.
“Andrew Bolt had an interesting point on Insiders that having had a conversation will Joe Hockey he concluded that Joe didn’t even understand what it was all about – he hasn’t read anything about it and has no idea of the science.”
I thought that was Andrew’s problem. Except that having read about it he still has no idea.
Tim Curtin,
You missed a variable.
Tuvalu and The Maldives (islands) are sinking into the ocean due to subduction and erosion.
Someone needs a computer model of how sinking these into the ocean makes everyone else’s shore-lines rise.
We’ll also need to model how the hulls of the boats of ‘climate refugees’ displaces certain quantities, which would also drive up ocean levels by a certain amount.
But then, once on dry land, the ocean levels driven by ‘climate refugees’ would go back down. But on dry land, the refugees — seeking prosperous economies — would seek ways to increase their carbon footprints. Such as, by eating food.
Goodness, this is so fraught. If these third-worlders would just give up and die, like the greenpeacers have long wished for, we could move on to other ‘burning’ issues, like… okay, the end of the world in 2012, the invasion of the Nibiru, the subversion of the Nephilim, and so forth.
“Luke’s comments here are merely emblematic of the low-brow criticism…”
“Serious believers in AGW” such as Luke, Gavin and STJ have much to offer to the Climategate debate and I, for one, welcome their input however obfuscatory it might be. Jen’s readers aren’t fools and can make their own judgments. So far the true believers have presented no reasonable mitigation for the CRU fraud. I imagine they are as mortified as the rest of us.
Personally, I’d like to see Luke, Gavin and STJ explain to us how they think science progresses? Can research results where the data, code and methods are hidden and no independent review is allowed by skeptical third parties still be real science?
If the CRU has destroyed the raw T data that formed the basis of much of their research, is their research still valid as hard science?
Here is how the CRU advances science:
They simply lose the data:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
And now Mann is under investigation by his University, Penn State:
http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf
How is your shredder holding up, all of you Lukes out there?
As we say in the states, “Luke, it is time to lawyer up.”
Wes I think you would have to get a good professional forensic computer crime analyst in to check Phil Jone’s computers before you would believe any story from these proven liars.
The claim that they have lost all that data is probably rubbish and anyhow all the HDD’s would have to be thoroughly checked because you certainly couldn’t trust jones and his team as far as you could boot them.
Certainly there will be an inquiry and hopefully charges will be laid.
Remember deleted data can be recovered from HDDs by a top analyst so hopefully this would be another way to track down these corrupt scientists and bring them to court.
Remember it is the poor bloody taxpayer who has to foot the bill to fund this so called science (?) and we will have to foot the bill into the future just to flush billions down the plug hole for a zero return.
It is disgusting that we have to fund this corrupt rubbish because a useless team of bedwetters have lied and conned stupid politicians into believing this fantasy.
Like I mean it’s not as if it’s hard to understand NATURAL CC.
Time Curtin,
” It is sad but true that Allison et al have no cognitive capacity to understand that after adding matter to a volume of a liquid its level will rise. Try adding a cube of ice to your gin or whiskey, lo! – the surface level rises. Truly, it really does.”
Being a sceptic, I recommend we all get together, you buy a round, and we test your hypothesis empirically!!!
Cheers
Neville,
the claim is that the data was on old punch cards and magnetic tape and was discarded. If true, it is GONE!!
I tend to think that it was converted and stored on later media also. Hopefully the investigation can find it. Would be a true crime if it was destroyed.
Lukefartard, SJT…
your opinions of the great Phil Jones and CRU DESTROYING ORIGINAL DATA?!?!?!?!
“I assume the denialist bluffers on here have personally audited all these data sets. ”
Did you audit them? Which one particularly did you find to constitute authentic evidence? See you are just filth. You are a traitor. And calling you a dog is an insult to mans best friend. You are a spineless insect. The whole lot of your tag-team. This is the revenge of the nerds. But the stupid nerds. To stupid to even be a convincing brainy nerd.
We know that you and this movement are a fraud. So what was your point? You didn’t have a point. You are insects puke mate. Jacking off on human misery. The worst sort of King Lear Edmunds irresponsible scum.
“the claim is that the data was on old punch cards and magnetic tape and was discarded. If true, it is GONE!!”
but surely to adjust the data you must have the original in your formula, and if you have the formula you can recalc backwards to the original.
We will have financial crises of one sort or another down the track while these traitors are sitting pretty with their government pensions. There will be no end to their schemes to sell us out if there are not moves afoot to punish these people. Both those who pushed this gargantuan scandal, and those that triangulated with them. As well as the economists who decided that the science didn’t matter and you could tax carbon irrespective of the scientific evidence for doing so. We can have people like this fired from the public service of course. But that doesn’t go far enough. In any financial squeeze we want to be ready to suspend their pensions. All this time they have been willing to squeeze their benefactors by exerting as much pain on the taxpayer as they possibly could. Even so much as wanting to increase spending during a recession and hiring the incompetent economists who told them this was the latest thing.
There must be revenge for this sort of behaviour, or one scam will simply roll into another. I know none of you people think like this now, but then the squeeze is not on here like it will be, or like it is now in the United States. To fail to be lending weight to moves to punish these people, is to guarantee that they will be dogging our every step in putting over reasonable policy and in maintaining our sovereignty. We have to be almost as ruthless as the traitors to neutralise them. And think of how ruthless these people are? Jennifer would have had her contract renewed were in not for white maggot scum traitors and triangulaters surely.
worth it just for the cartoon 🙂
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/redefining-peer-review.html
It’s 39.1C here today – the computers predicted 33C
The IPCC 2007 report said ‘the Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than any other part of the world.’
They were just joking, of course. http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/sci-tech/16-the-glacier-controversy-hs-09
I see that there are a few mentions about CO2 levels. Ernst-Georg Beck has had published in Energy & Environment a peer reviewed paper “180 years of Atmospheric Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods”. This has has been referred to on many web sites such as NZ Climate Science. He has a website (can’t find the link at present) which will allow downloading of the paper otherwise you have to pay.
The paper indicates that several researchers in Germany, Sweden and Russia have made 1000’s of CO2 measurements in the period around 1939-1941 which were higher than present. I have been able to down load a very interesting paper by W Kreutz published in Angewandte Botanik in 1941 which was one of Beck’s references (this is about 120 daily CO2 measurements over a period of 18 months showing daily and seasonal variations along with a large array of climate data including solar irradience) Secondly, Beck throws some doubts in another peer reviewed paper “50 Jahre Continuierliche CO2- Messung auf Mauna Loa” on the measurements of Keeling saying that initial calibration maybe wrong and that past data put in models has been fudged by leaving out meausements from eminent scientists (some of whom have won noble prizes for chemistry and physics) and selecting data that suits them.
Many of Beck’s reference’s are written in languages other than English. That may be a reason that Keeling and other AGW alarmists have ignored them but that is not an excuse for ethical scientists or the reviewer of journal articles. (Kreutz’s paper is in High German which makes it very difficult but there is a translation on Beck’s web site).
Kreutz found daily variations of around 50 ppm due to plant uptake and averages of daily peaks during the measurement period in excess of 460ppm. Kreutz was not the only researcher to find CO2 in the period 1939-1941 to be higher than 400ppm. Beck indicates that the high CO2 levels were due to high temperatures in the northern hemisphere in the 1930’s and that there is a delay of some 5yrs between temperature peaks and CO2 peaks.
“Sorry Derek, Plimer’s “story” won’t rate anywhere else, not even as a stunt for kids…”
No no. You are a liar. And idiot. A fraud. And a traitor. Its your story that is not going anywhere.
janama November 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“the claim is that the data was on old punch cards and magnetic tape and was discarded. If true, it is GONE!!”
but surely to adjust the data you must have the original in your formula, and if you have the formula you can recalc BACKWARDS to the original.”
Unfortunately no! Once you have an output, you can only get the average back, not the individual data elements. (unless you have them saved in a file, during processing, but why would you do that? you have the database.)
I very much doubt that they were destroyed, database managers are like magpies, collect and keep everything for ever.
This I do know, having worked as a system analyst for a while after Uni., that’s why I just laugh at claims of MODELS predicting this and that.
Engineering models (or any others) with known inputs are very dependable by the way!
Gave up the job soon enough, it’s bloody boring, needs a dull mind to last in the programming game!
Hunter; in case you were wondering I’ve been outdoors for a bit and we had five ‘climates’ in three hours only this morning. Apart from my garden black birds that seem to love the lull after a stir, imo it’s still very tricky stuff to measure and some of us got a wet backside into the bargain while carefully watching for the forecast weather changes.
After a small boat alert the 3.30 pm Sunday issue reads as follows
“Current Weather Situation and Future Developments
A low over the west Tasman Sea will move east as a high over the Bight approaches and passes south of Tasmania late Tuesday. Isolated showers and thunderstorms are expected in the cooler stream between these two systems. A second low will bring unsettled conditions as it passes south of Tasmania later in the new week –“
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN10035.shtml
What is very different these days?
Any one shower can ruin your vehicle in about a minute with either a coating of fine sticky dust from dry lands afar or a shower of big icy rocks from very high above.
Where I live it seems each week becomes more exciting than the last. Science and the msm go fishing a lot for new terms.
The big wake up call came in 2003 and there were a number of inquiries afterwards that aimed to change our attitude to the bushfire threat nationally. This one deals with a particular risk at that time. In this country many people are now very busy with the stats associated with living in what seems an increasingly wild place.
http://www.fido.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byheadline/05-269+Australian+homes+underinsured%3A+ASIC+report?openDocument
In private submissions I raised the question of fire front land speed (about 15 km/h) in the worst conditions and this has become a major target in recent agency cooperative research. I began to consider bushfire speed after looking at a very deadly situation that occurred much further south in 1967. What emerges with investigation are a number of human failures in appreciation, so the work goes on as more impacts are studied.
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2009/article/2009-bushfire-research-task-force
May I say from my own experience; the overall outlook is not good.
THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION
We have been given a powerful tool in the form of GlimateGate.
It now has a name and has the potential to get a life of its own.
So if the mains stream media is not going to report on this then let us use the social Facebook and emails to spread the news.
Send the following two YouTube videos to two people that you know and ask them to send it onto at least 2 others.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE
And
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk
If you have a Facebook page post the two links.
Will
Schiller – don’t make me ill. I remember you going on about darkies. Mate you couldn’t give a stuff.
And Birdy when you can muster more than an embarrassing number of votes in an election – keep your warped philosophies to yourself and get back in line.
who the f**k are you to tell some one to get in line!
The birdie election attack has been used so many times it makes you the joke!
I don’t need all the votes to get to you assholes, department of Luke. All it takes is a lot of time, and one crisis following another. If pensioners, who are former taxpayers, are suffering, and we need to sacrifice your stolen money incomes, and your houses, to keep the old guys who didn’t betray their nation ……. to keep THEM in dignity, and to repel a foreign attack (((( brought on by you Quislings weakening our nation)))) then a time like that would be a time for payback. And that time will be here, and probably sooner than you think.
I will be calling years in advance for the retroactive punishment, consisting of your impoverishment, and that call will be heard.
You white maggot scum. You came here. The whole lot of you. With the 24 hour purpose of undermining an honest scientist FOR BEING an honest scientist. And I will not forgive or forget. Not ever. And it makes it ten times worse, and me ten times more angry about it, contemplating, that her leniency towards me personally, was probably enough to tip the balance against her, and to get her fired.
I’d take it straight out of your flesh if I could. If you were smart you would either kill me now or get her rehired, at higher pay, and bonuses, quickly. Because I aint about to let go of this.
Jennifer, the language and abuse here is getting out of hand. Personally, I’m not offended, but Luke is obviously under stress.
Even though the Queensland dentist said he’s not going to a double D election, we don’t believe him. This man is delusional over CC, so anything he says is unbelievable.
The point I’m making, consider your future, if we are to fight an early election then we will need you on deck here.
“your opinions of the great Phil Jones and CRU DESTROYING ORIGINAL DATA?!?!?!?!”
He didn’t.
I looked up this Christopher Booker, did you know that he asserts that asbestos has the same chemical structure as talc and is as harmless to humans?
SJT
Prove itl
Rog,
Correct except for Blue Asbestos.
Louis,
the latest research (and there is now an enormous amount of data) concludes that there is little difference between the risk estimates of chrysotile and amphiboles for cancer(s) – they are now finding elevated incidence of laryngeal and ovarian cancers as well as lung – the reason being that invariably there is a mix of fibres in both “white” and “blue” rendering segregation based on “colour” superfluous.
Very high rate of cancer in all asbestos groups when combined with smoking (another “harmless” occupation)
Oh hello, rog’s been here 5 seconds and already he’s jumped the shark and introduced cigarette smoking, next port of call, climate denialists also believe fags aren’t bad for you and support the nicotine pushers as well.
Louis if you’re there, I’ve often wondered why asbestos, being a silicate, is more dangerous than other minerals with similar chemical composition. I know that crystal fibers can cause an immune response but do you know how a mineral can cause cancer?
Cheers.
Turnbull said this. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/malcolm-turnbull-says-consensus-candidate-wont-work/story-e6frg6n6-1225805026686
[i]”…”The Minchinites do not want to delay consideration of the legislation, they do not believe that climate change is real, they do not believe that humans are causing it and they do want to do anything about it…”[/i]
Yorr damn tootin’ …By Golly, I think Malcolm’s got it. 🙂
The leaked Climate Research Unit emails get the Hitler/ Downfall treatment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VRBWLpYCPY
Enjoy…
“if we are to fight an early election then we will need you on deck here”
I think el gordo is appealing to the gods. Mate; sit back and enjoy the fun. We have a wonderfull working democracy to depend on!
Sure; the stouch between Jen’s “principled” men and the rest of us is exciting to watch but this enthrawling battle can’t last once the clamour from the sidelines on the right dies down.
Be sure though there is no room for wishy washy back benches in this ETS saga and concilitary comments in the media today won’t heal all the splits after tomorrow.
Who is going to be the next media fodda? One or two switching to the Nats? I suspect some tallent for trouble can remain on the far right even after a DD.
I was a proud member of the Denialati until the Bolter said Penny Wong is in ‘denial’.
Just love the way the msm is getting this political fight wrong – the conservatives will not implode. More than 80% of Australians don’t understand the science to make a rational decision on the CPRS, yet there will soon be a groundswell of grassroots activism in the run up to the election which will sway the electorate.
Had dinner with a bunch of school teachers the other night, primarily of the left, who knew nothing about the CC debate. By the end of the evening they were at least discussing it among themselves, without any help from me.
I spent yesterday afternoon talking to a group of Gaia faithful about CRU and the leaked e-mails. Gullible lot, ignorant beyond belief, so I’m blaming the msm for keeping all my old friends in the dark.
El Gordo I must admit I don’t see many Nat cc deniers, but when I do meet them they certainly seem completely pig ignorant and clueless.
If you talk about historical climate they don’t understand , if you pull apart gore’s sci fi flick they give a mad stare, I could go on but I won’t.
janama,
“but surely to adjust the data you must have the original in your formula, and if you have the formula you can recalc backwards to the original.”
Actually, NO!!!!
How do you reverse rounding decisions?? Remember we are only talking about a .6C rise in 100 years from a large amount of data much of which would have a .5C precision. (remind me how we are so sure of that .6C??)
How do you determine how many stations and days from each station went into that monthly grid cell anomaly to reverse the calculations?? How do you determine the value to use in the UHI and similar adjustments that are based on one station’s value adjusting others??
Better to toss HADCrut out the window and start with the original sources if you are only interested in a good temp series. We already know they are a bunch of manipulators. No reason to waste that much manpower.
Also notice that RC actually writes “This page is a catalogue that will be kept up to date pointing to selected sources of code and data related to climate science.” Doesn’t even CLAIM to be all the code and all the data. More propaganda.
I see no roadmap to what CRU actually did with their original data which isn’t there. Just a bunch of links to other sites and Papers, some behind Paywalls, with no way of verifying whether anything listed was actually done to the data and an unpleasant number of 404 errors!!!! I do not think it would be possible to reconstruct the original raw data, expecially from what Schmidt linked. Here is the HadCru Data link:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Looks like monthly gridded ANOMALY data. Not a good starting point to work back to daily data with only a few papers as references for procedures!! what stations were used for the grid. How were they processed to get the grid cell average?? (think averaging with other stations for UHI and other arcane metaphysical permutations).
Here is an interesting UHI decision in the most recent paper linked:
Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548
“No such
complete meta-data are available, so in this
analysis the same value for urbanisation
uncertainty is used as in the previous analysis
[Folland et al., 2001]; that is, a 1 value of
0.0055C/decade, starting in 1900. Recent
research suggests that this value is reasonable,
or possibly a little conservative [Parker, 2004,
Peterson, 2004, Peterson & Owen, 2005]. The
same value is used over the whole land surface,
and it is one-sided: recent temperatures may
be too high due to urbanisation, but they will
not be too low.”
Yeah, that is a really good number for UHI, IF YOU ARE TRYING TO SUPPORT AGW!! Love that last sentence. No possibility of a too low temp, only high!! Just like all the other adjustments we hear about, HIGHER!!
Nope, not worth reconstructing unless you are a BELIEVER in AGW!!!
Hey Lukefartard, here is your chance to prove you are worth something other than as a Carnival Sideshow Act. Reconstruct HadCrut raw data from Schmidts linkies!!! I certainly couldn’t even start!!
SJT,
““your opinions of the great Phil Jones and CRU DESTROYING ORIGINAL DATA?!?!?!?!”
He didn’t.”
Let’s see what conclusions we can come up with from you belief:
1) the data was destroyed (thrown away) before Jones was responsible for anything. He used the VALUE ADDED data created by others basically blindly and can not vouch for the correctness of the results due to this blind spot!! The current data set then has no reasonable basis and must be discarded!!!
2) Jones was involved in the production of the VALUE ADDED data. Unfortunately, as he is now a proven liar and a Religious Believer in AGW we can not depend on any statements of his as to the validity and provenance of the VALUE ADDED data and it must be discarded.
3) you are wrong, Jones and CRU are liars and he was involved in the loss. Again HadCrut must be discarded.
4) you are right, yet Jones and CRU are liars. The data was NOT destroyed but they are hiding it to prevent disclosure of their criminal fraud and/or incompetence. Again the HadCrut temp series should be discarded.
Want to try again SJT??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
SJT,
Have a butchers at this and then tell me it’s not data fiddling:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/when-results-go-bad/
But, but, but…we’re right this time…
Compiled by Tim Blair
From the New York Times, 128 years of looming polar doom:
• 1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
• 1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
• 1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
• 1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
• 1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
• 1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
• 1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
• 1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
• 1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
• 1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
• 1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
• 1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
• 2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
• 2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
• 2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
• 2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/eternal_melting/
Kuhnkat; every time I see some fat head blogger reach for the UHI theme I should smile cause I know instantly they havn’t got a clue about air temperatures or measurements however I will say, the more you visit blogsphere on that subject, the less likely you will ever understand and accept modern data refining techniques aimed at improving dubious records.
BTW I prefer to see the old city stations left in the mix as they were to aviod valid station thinning in general. Dealing with any dodgy instruments as they show up is another thing though and it’s this area of old records that needs the most intuition.
There was a book discussion today on RN where some bird writes about the experience of wating for the right man after the age 40. Warts n all is too much of a challenge for some hey
el “the conservatives will not implode. More than 80% of Australians don’t understand the science to make a rational decision on the CPRS, yet there will soon be a groundswell of grassroots activism in the run up to the election which will sway the electorate”
Some wishfull thinking here mate. Hey get yourself a CD of Yehudi Menuhin doing Mendelsonnohn on his violin with a decent orchestra and just watch the polls.
Personally, I’d like to see Luke, Gavin and STJ explain to us how they think science progresses? Can research results where the data, code and methods are hidden and no independent review is allowed by skeptical third parties still be real science?
If the CRU has destroyed the raw T data that formed the basis of much of their research, is their research still valid as hard science?
Kuhnkat asked: ““your opinions of the great Phil Jones and CRU DESTROYING ORIGINAL DATA?!?!?!?!”
Gavin’s reply: “He didn’t.” Poor Gavin lives in a cave in total denial.
“…This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites … We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”…
“If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
Game over.
SJT,
So your faith is strong that you cannot acknowledge even what they say they have done if it is awkward for your belief system.
They did do what they said they did, and they did destroy the information, so only the massaged, dubious junk data remains.
You have been had.
We certainly have the most extreme AGW religious fanatics on this blog.
Even flannery and monbiot have admitted the info from the emails have shaken their faith somewhat.
Monbiot can’t believe the reaction of his fellow leftwing idiots denying the obvious ramifications of deceit, lies & corruption etc.
Flannery admitted last week on lateline that the planet had indeed cooled contrary to the modeling fantasy, what a joke.
Perhaps our warmist fanatics should read this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html
No you are just scum gavin. You are just a liar. You don’t have the data mate. You are traitor. We know what you are trying to do to the people who feed you and bring up your children.
Wes;It’s not every cook that needs to sell their recipie to the wailing mobs who failed to find a processing method for their own home grown.
“every time I see some fat head blogger reach for the UHI theme I should smile cause I know instantly they havn’t got a clue about air temperatures”
gavin,
How do you think you can otherwise get the temps to rise?
1878 – 1910 cooled for 33 years 0.73c
1910 – 1943 warmed for 33 years 0.56c
1943 – 1976 cooled for 33 years 0.49c
1976 – 2009 warmed for 33years 0.67c
Net warming 0.01c
What other form of “adjustment” would you select?
Does anyway know what this bit of obscurantism from gavin means?
“It’s not every cook that needs to sell their recipie to the wailing mobs who failed to find a processing method for their own home grown”
As you well know spangled; I’m always interested in the instruments up front. Let’s see now with those fascinating 33 year periods, exactly what thermometers you had in mind hey.
For those who can’t stand the msm including our ABC, you all missed a rather smooth interview on RN Counterpoint with our well known guru on science and public policy, Prof Aynsley Kellow from Utas. Not bad at all on the email saga, given this tru blu sceptic author! In fact Auntie diehards like me get a feast on a day like today.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/
last and least; “You don’t have the data mate” Aaaah but I got loads of experience and friends into the bargain!
cohenite; I could say to you, we all see only what we want to see and that our personal framework for reasoning is only a collection of bias. Also; any purist will have trouble with others here and their representations in general.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation
More on ridigity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Idealism
mutual recognition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte#Central_Theory
cheers
gavin,
Do you drink at all?
I hope you do, it would give you a plausible excuse for the gibberish you have dished up lately.
I sense that the rog who is posting here now is not the same rog who used to post a couple of years ago.
I wonder what happened to Ender, travis, pinxie, Boxer, fosbob and a few of the other early ones? Even sod seems to have decided to sod off.
Phil Done is still here though, eh Luke?
“Perhaps our warmist fanatics should read this.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/global_warming_fraud_and_the_f.html”
Perhaps they should read the IPCC reports.
Derek,
The problem with blue asbestos is that it has an unusual crystal structure that produces “barbs” and hence hooks into the cell walls causing an irritation that, presumably, results in cancer.
Best information source on this might be James P Hogans “Kicking the Sacred Cow” or was it some other text detailing the science on it. White asbestos basically gets dissolved and is removed from the organism – blue asbestos doesn’t. I’ll have to chase this up over xmas since I can’t do it where I am in Central Australia.
How a mineral causes cancer has me beat, by the way. My decedent father was a physician and surgeon and he always maintained that people who get cancer tend to be also nervous types and often smoke cigarettes. He had many patients who died of lung cancer who never smoked or were near a smokey environment. He never accepted empirically that smoking caused lung cancer.
Why would we want to read the UN reports again? You are just scum SJT. You are just a traitor. Dogs vomit.
Notice that our neoclassical eonomists are point blank against the scientific evidence. To me the biggest traitors of all. People like Jason Soon. John Humphreys. Economic illiterates like Joseph Cambria. These are the worst traitor dogs of the lot. Because they are totally against taking the science (natural or economic) into account. The CIS is a particularly shabby faux-conservative outfit in this regard. Totally uninterested in the science.
SJT,
The IPCC reports now look like being the result of fabrication of data. The media have seized on it in the US and the UK – but do enjoy your delusion while it’s still possible, but how you will cope when the truth finally outs is anyone’s guess.
Perhaps they should read the IPCC reports.
go away you idiot! hasn’t anything from the past month sunk into your dried out, frizzled brain?
The media have seized on it in the US and the UK
Just like to say the press in the UK have mostly ignored it. The BBC is just like ABC. They did report the ‘hack’ but no in depth questioning of Climategate at all. Roger Black has a blog at the BBC that is being hammered for not fully reporting the scandal.
—-
Cohenite,
Gavin used to be in Canberra and the ACT? According to Piers Akerman, (and I can vouch for this as I used to have family living in the ACT) ACT people are basically aliens disconnected from the rest of Australia.
The only problem is SJT and Phil Done who live in the QLD long paddock – perhaps they too are a paddock too far away to understand what the rest of us have to live with.
They really are the deniers of reality.
KuhnKat
I would not go so far as calling SJT and Gavin liars – rather they are tailights, not bright enough to be headlights. So they are easily gulled by rhetoric and what they post here are items of serious cognitive dissonance. It seems a common feature of the intellectually inbred.
ol’ SJT back again with his IPCC reports!
Gimme a break Gimme a break!
Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Louis,
Up till recently I used to make my own competition brake pads out of old blocks of asbestos brake lining. Cut ’em and sand ’em to size.
They were the best for historic racing.
And in the boat building game we always used asbestos fibre to thicken epoxy resin into epoxy glue and bog.
Fill and sand, fill and sand. Dust everywhere. Some used talc, many used asbestos.
Building commercial premises, the govt mandated that with load bearing steel beams, we had to spray with asbestos for a suitable fire rating.
It was compulsory. And I used to smoke in those days.
I might be lucky. Might have the right DNA.
Gavin, you say this;
“I could say to you, we all see only what we want to see and that our personal framework for reasoning is only a collection of bias. Also; any purist will have trouble with others here and their representations in general.”
And then link to the intersubjectivity principle of Fichte who describes a system of communality based on the recognition of the similarity between the self and others; such a principle is the basis of legal systems and, in a further psychological sophistication, the interobjectivity that science reveals. What you are alluding to is solipsism and the destructive claptrap of Foucault; what Foucaultian relativism produces is a breakdown of the law through an emphasis on unrelated individuality and false, non-communal rights and a denial of the primacy of the reality which science reveals; its a recipe for tyranny and suppression; AGW is a template of this process.
Gentlemen it’s time now.
It’s all been said.
Time to put the blog to bed.
Janama; try these comments from a respected occasional contributor to Jen’s blog, as interviewed today on Counterpoint (Audio from ABC Radio National)
“-Aynsley Kellow considers the ramifications of the scandal”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
Marcus; I’m too busy trying to out guess the media on tomorrow’s news to detail reasons for those few thoughts up the thread. Tip, I listened to Chris Ulhmann reporting on the 7.30 tonight after making a phone call to an insider and it seems my sort of reason re the science, ETS etc prevails, like it or lump it.
I hope to remain vigilant to the end in any issue that threatens this democracy and maintaining a healthy opposition across both houses is a core interest.
spangled; extra good luck with your DNA hey
Louis, thanks for getting back to me.
Spangled, Wes and Janama, great links, especially the Karlen/Trenberth story.
Gavin, don’t tell me you’ve never driven from the countryside into the city and noticed a significant increase in temp? You of all people with your background must surely admit that the UHI is a significant phenomenon and is proportional to size of the city. Lots of geography textbooks and websites include a section on UHI with detailed discussion on thr temp differential as you go towards the center of town. It’s just the IPCC that hasn’t figured it out yet.
Cohenite, ……say what?
Well hopefully there’ll be an enquiry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383713.stm
But it gets murkier.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html
To my knowledge, the only admission of Climategate by our own darling ABC was something Kerry said to Penny Wong about a week ago and naturally she did not want to know about it.
“what Foucaultian relativism produces is a breakdown of the law through an emphasis on unrelated individuality and false, non-communal rights and a denial of the primacy of the reality which science reveals”
cohenite; from my position (middle) the above can easily apply to the far side in either direction. Think about fo a mo given I often refer to MOU’s, NATA principles etc where good practice gets enshrined even on the leading edge as we learn to deal with DNA and so on. But beware there are no black and whites in nature or DNA as it is in Victoria
Spangles,
You write: “Building commercial premises, the govt mandated that with load bearing steel beams, we had to spray with asbestos for a suitable fire rating.”
That specification was also for the WTC Twin Towers but around floor 60 the Greens stopped the use of asbestos and demanded a replacement. The engineer responsible for the construction remarked that if the WTC experienced a fire, then the floors above the 60 one would collapse. 911 proved that in a devastingly clear manner.
As for “chemicals”, hell – I was treating beach sand samples at Tweed Heads (on Foyster’s wharf) using bromoform to separate out the heavies from the lights – that was 1969. And I was first bunney into the Yeelirrie Uranium deposit, swam in the green water inside the main slot through the centre of the mineralisation, and also had to perform taste tests on borewater to work out which were alkaline (simple geochem techniques).
I used to smoke 3 packets of regular B&H per day until 1982, but I am not a reformed smoker, and have robust health at +62 years of age.
I’ve had hepatitus B when a young tacker, eyesight remains good and not deteriorating, hearing is shot from too many drilling rigs and helicopters, I’ve a gammy knee from bogging a Unimog, (twisted it in wet sand while retrieving the wire winch rope), and I am still active in field exploration to this day.
Oh and I like my Jameson’s and the odd bottle of plonk as well, and I used to have asthma when I was young, but no longer.
I don’t use medicare and pay cash for all my medical expenses.
Only problem is that I can’t retire because everytime I get a nestegg, work stops, the egg gets used up, and one starts again.
But I have no debts, (last year was a bit of a fright with GFC – a couple of imprudent investments which I have solved) and retain robust health.
Like you, it seems our good health might be more to what we think, than what we believe.
🙂
God,
Now listen ‘ere!
As the fat lady ain’t even dressed, she’s nowhere near ready to sing.
Gavin opines he is ” I’m too busy trying to out guess the media on tomorrow’s news “. One thing they wont say is that Australia accounts for one third of world coal exports.
Keith Briffa may escape some of the odium heaped upon his colleagues (Mann et al) because he rediscovered the Medieval Warm Period and lots more.
‘I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched 1000 years ago…and I contend that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene.’
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm
Hooray!
“Time to put the blog to bed.”
I think the subject is over. And the conclusion is that the proponents are low treasonous lying dogs. Mostly with an interest in global governance. But the blog ought to continue. We ought to suss out what is likely to happen next time we have a supernova, and how we ought to prepare for this. I say that we integrate nuclear war survivability with the consequences of the supernova. The wash-up appears much the same. And we have to prepare for extended nuclear war anyway. This extends into all of our policy. Like the city country balance. Whether energy production ought all be clustered in the Hunter Valley, or much more distributed. These are real problems whereas CO2-emissions are a positive externality and a gift to the biosphere and obviously so.
I think the best way to dislodge fake problems is to focus on the real problems that aren’t being focused on.
Louis,
Some of the most useful people on earth sail pretty close to the wind all their lives.
If you can do that and quickly fall off your perch at around 75 while you’re still fit it’s better than ending up ga-ga in a zombie house.
I built myself a special combustible coffin [in which I could give myself a vikings funeral] that doubled as a window seat in our last house but when I sold, the buyers wanted it to stay.
Maybe they had plans for it themselves.
Birdy,
We ought to build a big gen 4 nuclear reactor on North Stradbroke Is and incorporate a desal plant.
Plenty of thorium on site.
S. drongo says “If you can do that and quickly fall off your perch at around 75 while you’re still fit it’s better than ending up ga-ga in a zombie house.” Fast forward S. d , you would not stand out at the coalition meeting tomorrow.
Derek, just having fun with the old codger.
Louis; are you drilling for my friends; one day they’ll be the bride and not the bridesmaid!
El Gordo,
Interesting link, it certainly does paint Briffa in a more moderate light. Mann now appears to be the mafia heavy type stand-over man and the real nasty in this whole business while Jones is just a liar and a crook.
Gavin, if you’ve read these links and don’t think Mann and Jones are crooks then I’m sorry but you really are paddling down a river in Egypt.
I speak too soon!
Michael Duffy on ABC’s Counterpoint had a great report on our fearless National Broadcaster today at 4.00 pm.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2757619.htm
I have been sending numerous emails to the Audience and Consumer Affairs over their non reporting and they reply saying that the rules state that I must cite a specific programme in which I can claim bias was displayed.
I then say, how can I do that when there is just no effing reporting taking place!
Ah well, now it is!
O Frabjous day!
gavin,
Thanks for that and sorry for missing that link of yours re Counterpoint.
Don’t have to f/f bazza, I’m already there.
Gavin, just listened to the counterpoint interview, please accept my apology.
Jennifer,
May I suggest that it is a good time to consider a new thread called ‘New Beginnings’ to discuss the implications of what we now know about how certain climate scientists have hidden the problems with their theory, and how the public may consider responding?
On a day all about how not to win friends or influence people I listened to the considered answer by our BoM spokesman on ABC 666 am to “what’s wrong with our weather?” Apparently it’s all over the place for November, temperatures, rainfall, dust and so on but IMO they were right on the ball with their daily forecasts regardless.
If I have any regrets about the science here, it’s mostly about the loss of records from procedures with older instruments that could have been included in a wider data base with a little hindsight based on forecasts and other records at the time.
For interest I did a google last week on ‘microfiche + temperature’ and guess what? There is a lot of guff on long term film storage that I don’t need after being a guest for 3 months at Kodak’s new Australian laboratories in the 1960’s.
But it’s worth considering exactly what happened to all records in the hands of government agencies before digital storage. Experience tells us there is grave danger at the point of records integration with any new media.
Then we had FORTRAN in the 1970’s. By then the idea of continuous processing had come of age in both industry and commerce. That’s the most likely time our records left the safe hands of technical practice.
I just read the comments section on ABC fora which had a couple of blistering responses to the above link, one by our friend Bernard J. Wrote back a comment of my own and suggest that you guys all co the same so that Mr. Duffy knows that we are out there and that we appreciate what he did.
Cheers.
“Birdy,
We ought to build a big gen 4 nuclear reactor on North Stradbroke Is and incorporate a desal plant.
Plenty of thorium on site.”
Yes of course. And a big liquified (and gasified) coal plant right next to it. Using off-peak electricity, hydrogen, steam, and heat all coming from the nuclear reactor to make our solid hydro-carbons go that much further.
Now listen up. This global warming constellation of lies is really going to be the death of us. And its not just the devastation of the cap and kill I’m talking about here. Its the masking of real looming threats to the planet and the species.
Everywhere we see crude and unscientific theories being held too rigidly in the mainstream. Crude and unscientific theories of gravity, how the stars produce their energy, matter creation, and pretty much everything else that is going to relate to the problem of a galactic centre blowup or a supernova or the first causing the second. They hold to these theories like a miser clutching a 100 dollar note between his butt-cheeks. But I feel if we can assemble the sort of brains we had here in 2008 we can get to the bottom of this matter.
And sometimes it is the same villains who played up the fraudulent CO2-emissions business, who are also playing down the potential for problems sheeted to us from elsewhere in the galaxy. I speak of the loathsome and beloved Goddard institute. The keeper of secrets and purveyor of lies.
“A stellar explosion on a scale previously unimaginable for anything other than a supernova recently erupted on a modest star (slightly less massive than the sun) in a two-star system called II Pegasi in the constellation Pegasus. According to a NASA-Goddard news release, “It was about a hundred million times more energetic than the sun’s typical solar flare, releasing energy equivalent to about 50 million trillion atomic bombs.” Were a comparable event to occur on the sun, it would result in a mass extinction due to the outpouring of lethal X-rays. The NASA report, however, adds a comforting observation: “Fortunately, our sun is now a stable star that doesn’t produce such powerful flares.”
Consider the stupidity of that statement when the flare from this star has taken them entirely by surprise. And since they are too stupid to recognise that the galaxy is an interconnected whole, they see everything as being internal to the star itself. So they didn’t bother to figure out what potential alignment caused this disaster. And we may be talking about the extermination of billions of intelligent beings here. Nothing to be flippant about. Where was the star in relation to the rest of the galaxy when this happened? No answer. What about in relation to its partner star and the planets that orbit them? Not interested. So we have to get onto this. Because leading up to supernova’s there seems to be typically all kinds of problems for us here on earth. And we are overdue for another one of these. We need to know what to do about it.
Just remember Cohenite, Hunter, Neville, Derek, Kooky_kat, Essy Woo and Timmy – Birdy is on your side
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
oh yes – isn’t it such a big help to the cause. Hey everyone – we’re sensible – listen to us.
hahahahahahahahahhaaaa
I agree with Terry McCrann in todays Herald Sun when he says we should apoligise for CC.
It would have the same effect as an ets but cost us zero dollars, instead of the billions pa this stupid new tax will impose on all Aussies.
Spangled Drongo,
“God,
Now listen ‘ere!
As the fat lady ain’t even dressed, she’s nowhere near ready to sing.”
Depends on the establishment donit??? 8>)
Luke,
you run out of fake science so now you stoop to pure character assasination??
Figures. Small mind, small heart, small…
The bad news is that Luke isn’t getting a new brain in a hurry. The good news is that Tony Abbott won.
“What a momentous week in Australian federal politics! And this morning, against considerable odds, a so-called climate change sceptics, Tony Abbot, took over as leader of the Opposition. It is now likely that the National and Liberal parties will unite behind Mr Abbot, and those passionate on this issue will fight very hard on the issue of emissions trading and the science of climate change. The mainstream media have always been dismissive of Tony Abbot. They are now going to have to at least report him on these issues and it may be in the context of an early federal election.”
We couldn’t have gotten better news. Its just magnificent. The whole future of this country turning on a single vote.
I don’t believe that Tony Abbott has ever even heard of Climategate. And it’s the same with all the rest of the Mambers of Parliament.
So Birdie is an Abbot fan. Abbot said this morning he accepts the climate has changed and it has an AGW component, and he will keep the emissions targets but do it painlessly, but taxes werent ruled out. Well , he was Jesuit trained, but so was Hockey. Wish him well for an election after an El Nino summer.
Derek,
“I just read the comments section on ABC fora which had a couple of blistering responses to the above link, one by our friend Bernard J. Wrote back a comment of my own and suggest that you guys all co the same so that Mr. Duffy knows that we are out there and that we appreciate what he did.”
Great idea and done!
“Depends on the establishment donit???”
kuhnkat,
You’re probably right. CRU have had her up and singing for years.
“So Birdie is an Abbot fan. Abbot said this morning he accepts the climate has changed and it has an AGW component, and he will keep the emissions targets but do it painlessly……”
Hopefully he was just groggy with the unexpected win.
Louis Hissink,
I get carried away sometimes. If I called Gavin or SJT liars I apologise.
If I called Luke(s) a liar, I was right.
YEEEEEHHHAAAAA!!!
Go Tony – you good thing you. Fair chance now that my hard-earned will not be redistributed to keep Luke in the style to which he has become accustomed.
Gavin,
UHI as a Denier tactic??
OK, what about peer reviewed papers. Which ones should we quote. The low numbers, like CRU used, or the high numbers, that they ignore??
You did see the recent study that got a scientist investigated by his university overturning the claim of no UHI in Chinese temp series?? Wonder how many other areas would have similar results??
Have you been to:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
and investigated so you can tell us what is wrong with the way he has taken apart GISS??
Great news, Jennifer! Some political pundits in my country have been saying all along that Mr O doesn’t have the votes in the Senate to pass Cap & Trade. The recent Climategate revelations plus the shit-storm in Australia may be the death knell for the Merkin version of an ETS. I’m keeping my fingers crossed for both of our countries.
It would be good if Abbot could focus on the problems with Wong’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill – it’s excessively complex, totally unweildy and will do nothing but create a bureaucratic monster and probably carbon pollution police.
Nonetheless, Abbot needs to recognise that cutting emissions is a risk mitigation exercise, whether he or other Coalition member believe humans are causing climate change or not. No sensible person can assert with absolute certainty that humans are or are not causing climate to change. When faced with uncertaintly that poses significant risk, the best thing is to do something to mitigate the risk: that is global action to cut emissions. If in a few hundred years the climate doesn’t change and the AGW scientific theory is proven wrong, we have the benefit that we locked up fossil fuels for future generations to use. The debate therefore should be about how to cut emissions effectively, not about whether to pass the CPRS for Rudd to strut around on the world stage.
Robert and other Scribes,
Robert,
I agree with your comments above and believe that any Government in the world that is convinced of AGW and determined to do something about it, must embrace nuclear power as a first step.
Other so-called renewable power sources are presently wateful sideshows.
Regardless of the false and outlandish claims made by the Church of the Latter Day Envoronmentalists, that are presently doing so much to discredit their cause.
The hypothesis of mans emissions of CO2 being potentially harmful to the earths atmosphere, will remain and should continue to be researched.
Given the complexity of the issues involved and the variables therein, any resolution could be a century away.
Todays events in Australia, I find immensly hearting, as they are a victory for “Grassroots’ opinion and represent vindication of reasoned argument in the face of Media bias and distortion.
Rudd’s falsly named “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” was nothing other than an ineffective, bureaucratic Money Go-round.
Lets hope that Abbott has the balls to take on not only this strident P.M. and Government, but also the MSM for letting down the Australian people by not challenging the Government and giving unquestioned airing of sensationalist claims regarding Climate Change.
This could be the beginning of change and a more rational and practical approach to a number of issues.
Pikey.
Abbott wins and Julie Bishop is deputy….. Woohoo…. This just gets better and better:-)
“Nonetheless, Abbot needs to recognise that cutting emissions is a risk mitigation exercise, whether he or other Coalition member believe humans are causing climate change or not. ”
No thats just stupid. You don’t have the data mate. The relevant risk is the risk of cooling. Trashing your economy is not risk reduction. People just say that when they have no clue about the science. There is no known risk that CO2-level reduction reduces. Except the risk of cheaper food and more survivors.
The point Robert is making is very pertinent and whether you are convinced of AGW or not it makes a lot of sense to have an energy plan that ticks all the right boxes.
This is what Abbot now needs to do.
Most of the smart people from both sides [not the greens of course, but a few of them, too] realise that nuclear is virtually renewable and CO2 free and by promoting NP he can cut Rudd’s legs off.
Robert
‘The debate therefore should be about how to cut emissions effectively.’ Wrong! CO2 is not a pollutant, but if we were to cut back I would stop the flow of petrol to everyone except essential services.
I would then begin culling all the beef cattle and then the sheep. Being a vegan who loves to walk, it would have little effect on me.
It’s hubris to think humans have any tangible effect on climate and it’s obvious the overwhelming force of nature drives our air con.
“The point Robert is making is very pertinent and whether you are convinced of AGW or not it makes a lot of sense to have an energy plan that ticks all the right boxes.”
Robert has no pertinent point. And this isn’t a matter of people having different beliefs. Its not a question of “Hey man. If that’s your belief man. If thats your ‘”bag” brother, thats cool with me”. Its not about anyones subjective beliefs. Its a scientific question. And it happens to be a fact that no-one has the data to show a warming risk coming out of CO2-Emissions. Pull yourself together man. Its not about you, I or Robert having an intuitive liver-quiver here. We are not, each of us, affecting to have the gift of second sight. Its purely a scientific matter.
“It’s hubris to think humans have any tangible effect on climate and it’s obvious the overwhelming force of nature drives our air con.”
We do have to recognize that we have the capacity to cool the planet. And to do so cheaply. We have no such ability to warm the planet. But what we can do is have these ETFE domes all over the place.
well said Jennifer in your latest update.
I mentioned to my local butcher that Abbott had got in and his face dropped, then he smiled and exclaimed that Abbott should take us to the next election because he’ll damn well win. He’s a small business operator and he’s sick of paying high rates (like electricity) for all these greenies stupid ideas.
The ABC still hasn’t realised what’s happened, even Richard Glover on Drive was interviewing Bronwyn Bishop and was still using the “but we are saving the planet” line!
perhaps now that Prof Lindzen has finally been published by the Wall Street Journal they might wake up to themselves.
Birdy,
I wouldn’t argue with that logic except to point out that too many people now believe in 1/ peak oil, 2/ peak coal, 3/ carbon pollution, 4/ the precautionary principle, 5/ AGW etc., etc. and it is probably beyond the capacity of any political leader to win with a Business as Usual ticket.
I’m more than happy with things as they are but our now-indoctrinated youth need something more.
Politics is always the art of the achievable.
It’s a window of oportunity to bring in that other string to our bow that Australia should always have had.
With some caveats peak oil is a reasonable model. And we may hit a daily peak in coal extraction some time this century. Never in this story are we wise to base policy on make-believe. People have sort of “referred pain” where they are bugged by other real matters that they cannot articulate properly. And it spills over into other things. We deal with the real problems then and we will have less blowback in the make-believe world. Nowhere do we find an excuse to base anything on fairy stories.
I notice that no-one is the least bit interested in picking up this supernova/nuclear war story. But the real problems that aren’t addressed fuel the fake problems. And the fake problems mask the real ones. In either case we will get traction going after the real problems. People may dimly suspect that our resource allocation policies wind up with China buying all our gear on the cheap and us using up our hydro-carbon paternity too quickly. Personally I think this is pretty right and the referred pain may fuel the global warming racket. But there may be a lot of things spilling into the unreal concerns. People concerned about particulates. About overfishing. Not enough buffered land between private properties for the critters to move around.
If there are real problems and we don’t address them we almost deserve to be plagued by all this make-believe. If people are poor and unable to get better jobs, or easily go into business, and we don’t improve the situation through more liberty and better policy then we almost deserve for the socialists to gain traction. Its the same story all the way down the line.
Bird,
“People concerned about particulates. About overfishing. Not enough buffered land between private properties for the critters to move around.”
I’m totally on the same page with these points, it is doubtful that the labor party shares the same concerns. They give lip service to environmental issues, ban a new dam and call themselves “green”. Meanwhile it is mostly the farmers who are re-vegetating and creating wildlife corridors and shelter belts (as seen on Landline) but of course most of them vote Nats or LIbs, so the Govt isn’t interested.
Notice how people that chose to live among the forests of Vic received huge payouts from generous Auzzies after the bush-fires but the QLD cattle farmers who were hit by devastating floods and now drought get nothing. It would be interesting to see the voting demographics for these 2 areas.
Jennifer should have called her latest update “The new beginning” Congratulations anyone who got it right in advance. I had it with about the same numbers the other way round.
Tony Abbott is obversely held in high regard now by many of his peers and the rank and file for his efforts in opposing the recent ETS compromise deal. That said, he looks and sounds like a kid with a big stick and a basket of eggs.
Ooops obversely > Obviously
The biggest problem Abbott’s got is how to get the the MSM out of kevin’s bed, stop them picking on his character traits and ask a few bleedin’ obvious questions about climategate, climate science and all the other black snakes that are crawling about.
If he can do that he’ll be a genius!
Spangled, I watch Insiders on ABC every Sunday and one thing that I have noticed about the whole Liberal “meltdown” thing is that none of the commentators except Bolt show any interest in WHY Minchin et al feel the way that they do. It;s all about the politics, they have been political journalists and analyst for so long that they can’t see whats staring them in the face. Andrew does his best to inform the rest of what’s going on but they just think he’s a “flat earther”. They even admit that none of them have actually investigated the science, they just rely on IPCC dogma. Bolt mentioned “climategate” last week and was told “he’d have to do better than that.”
The only way to get these people to sit up and take notice is to somehow give it a political spin but I think that the blinkers are well and truly superglued on.
MEME THEORY IN ACTION –
MAN-MAD GLOBAL WARMING –
THE URANIUM STORY
We live on a majestically dynamic planet with intertwining complexes.
Scenarios for future climate involve natural equations of infinite variables.
The science of future climate is in its infancy and is multi-disciplinary,
no one branch knows the whole story.
The truth is – climate prediction is hard,
half the variability of the system is not predictable
and modellers don’t expect to do well.
To assume human induced carbon emissions alone
will significantly alter predictions is pretentious pseudo-science.
The whole story is about energy –
how it is generated, transferred and transformed.
All we really want to do is boil water.
With all this global warming business,
the elephant in the room is uranium.
Uranium provides 16 per cent of the world’s electricity.
The technology has evolved over 50 years and this percentage is set to rise.
The masters of minerals have always been the masters of their age.
Today’s master mineral is Uranium.
It’s production has been stifled for 30 years.
These masters will not sit on their hands much longer –
forcing them to come-up with ways of making alternatives
more costly and less attractive.
Uranium remains the only viable base-load alternative to coal
for the short term.
Hundreds of new pebble bed reactors are a reality.
The irony is the greens and the left
have been corralled into agreeing
with this inevitable outcome.
The funnelling of science to deliver prescribed outcomes
happens everywhere everyday.
In the past, science has arguably aided well for prescribed beneficial outcomes.
But the science has been hijacked in the case of man-made global warming.
The result will be a new bubble of green greed.
Does the end justify the means?
The real question is, what will they pick on next using “science”
to substantiate their stance.
The “chook fed” media will continue to follow the man and not the ball –
to the detriment of the plebs.
By closing debate,
the main stream media is opening space for subversion –
whatever that might mean.
Abbott will galvanize the party and all those Labor lites on the opposition side will have to recant or be marginalized. If the ABC newsroom continues to ignore the science and climategate, then obviously we will have to bring in the black helicopters.
I’m hanging out for that robust debate on the science and when the electorate realise they have been conned they will LOL.
Yeah Derek,
And the buggers have the gall to reckon we’re deniers!
They all think Abbott’s pretty gormless because he’s so honest. He should suck ’em in and hoax ’em.
The media is not the issue.
IMHO the media lost their audience a long time back. They sell stuff mostly advertising.
The world is bigger than half arsed hacks and bitching about bludgers and liars is not gonna change it.
They play pissing games real people do what real people do.
Tony Abbott won leadership on an issue that is heart beat to this nation, so stop bitching about the media Quislings. It’s all they are.
Jen,
they come out of Grad school full of shit and self importance and mostly politically tribal and patheiic, were we ever gonna get a fair crack?
IN the school of Infantry no soldier attacks a rock, we move around them.
Maybe one day they will be real people, but Jen it has not been this day for a long time.
We go around them and we fight where it matters.
We been winning where it matters. That’s all we can do.
Michael,
I’m a bit of a fan of the nuclear solution (so by the way is Luke I think) and the Thorium potential alternative would be a win-win if it can iron out the bugs. Oz has something like 40% of global reserves of Thorium which would last several hundred years by current estimates.
The way I see it, the only problem with nuclear is “what to do with the waste?”……..I don’t get it, why do they have to seal the stuff in 44 gal drums and dig huge deep holes km’s under the ground to get rid of a few kilos of the stuff?
Why not put it back where it came from in the first place? Why can’t the spent fuel rods be ground up and added back to the original gangue, thus diluting it back to it’s original state, and put it back in the mine it came out of? nobody could complain about the radioactivity because the original mine was already radioactive to begin with.
This may be a bit simplistic, if so please let me know why.
I was sadly amazed by the furore over a low level nuclear waste dump near Woomera when radical greenies claimed that a misfiring missile might hit the secreted “gloves and aprons” and cause a nuclear explosion! Clearly it was in the peoples best interest to instead store radioactive waste in the basements of our public hospitals.
John,
So you’re quite happy with a one eyed, one sided, biased media?
I don’t care how stupid they are as long as they’re evenhandedly stupid.
Spang,
I can’t change it and I don’t have to.
Things like that are going to die in the age of mass communication, Spang you telling me we lost.
I just know the demographic I inhabit.
Ordinary folk, dont listen to their bullshit anymore. They have networks around these arse klowns.
They are dieing. They just can’t see it.
It’s a Paradigm shift.
They call us dinosaurs.
What for not agreeing with their opinion based on knowing someone who knew someone, who lied to them.
Lets all grow up.
Real people do. Lets not get down to whinging about dinosaurs. Dont whinge we are better than that.
Jennifer,
I am very pleased that Australians are moving to the right side of this.
I am pleased on a personal level that you held in there.
In my opinion, the thing to push very hard for right now is for all organs that have been highjacked by AGW extremists to be forced to open the books – all work related e-mails, all work product, all code and all data- for a critical review.
We need to know how far this self-selection process went in cooking the books in every country where the meme took root.
Congratulations to all who believe in non-post normal science.
Luke,
RE: Graeme Bird and my side
But you are not on my side, and that is worth it.
The attitude you represent is exactly why your side never closed the deal.
Now get your books in order and get ready for a nice friendly audit.
Phil Jones steps down over climate gate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/01/phil-jones-steps-down/#comment-242437
Wind this clap trap up.
Excellent article today by Richard Lindzen in the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Jabba; whatever you guys dish up, I either ignore it outright when you url is familiar or have a peek while thinking, what’s up with this? In this case I thought Lindzen may have a new angle despite his old Heartland etc links.
But what we see in the WSJ article is that hopeless thermometer illustration and this was my first clue to the rest of it. IMO any self respecting climate scientist would not fly his stuff under such a banner.
That red thread won’t do, sorry. Some here may recall horizontal flat earth approach to average temp, retreating glaciers, rising SL as measured on the flats at peak tide, drought areas and so on.
BTW has anybody here created a SL map of the LIA or the MWP?
“Now get your books in order and get ready for a nice friendly audit.” don’t try to threaten me you little grub. How about you get ready for a bunch of fives.
Reality mate is you are a science moron. An illiterate.
And you are wanking yourselves if you think all this is “over”.
Did Abbot win by a landslide? How many votes on your petitions. Don’t confuse the echo chamber here with reality. But good to see you all supporting Birdy.
Good to know what you all stand for ! hahahahahaha
Reality is that society is divided on this issue. As are the Libs. Noone is going anywhere that quickly.
And again the atmosphere doesn’t care what Abbot wants.
PSU examines ClimateGate and Mann defends Jones.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
Luke,
How many fives, anyway? We know that between the lot of you there is not one good mind, but there are obviously more than a pair o fives.
It makes me wonder: How many Lukes does it take to change a lightbulb?
The AGW social movement has always been brittle. After appeals to authority and ad homs, there are always the threats of criminalization, and as we see with the weaker minds of AGW, simply trying to pound the opposition. AGW beleivers ahve always known, down deep inside, that once people see their climate emperor has no clothes, it will run downhill pretty fast.
Just last week, Luke, you were telling us this would all blow over in a day or so.
Phil Jones wishes you were right.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cru-ringleader-phil-jones-to-step-down.html
So does Michael Mann:
http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d30-Details-emerge-on-PSU-investigation-of-Mann
And this little baby is just getting its legs under it.
So who are the climate change sceptics in the labour party?
Luke,
Does the atmosphere care what you think?
“So who are the climate change sceptics in the labour party?”
Good point. Time to start outing them, so the public can get a good look at those who were prepared to impoverish the Australian electorate for political advantage.
the Senate has just voted out the ETS – 2 Liberals crossed the floor.
Tom Segalstad
on the construction of the
“Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-g-c_WbJWAQ
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
Lord Christopher Monckton releases the definitive report on ClimateGate
http://newsrealblog.com/2009/12/01/lord-christopher-monckton-releases-the-definitive-report-on-climategate/
Daily Express
http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-12-02
Do have a good wank Hunter – nothing has changed. The inquiries won’t find anything but bad manners. Denialists deserve it. Anyway we’ve already bought the jury.
Who knows – Abbott might even win an election on the issue. But the atmosphere don’t care !
And of course there would be sceptics in the Labor party. Goes without saying. The issue is divisive – much of society believes – and maybe as much does not. How many would vote to make drastic cuts – probably not many if it comes to it. But the AGW climate issue won’t go away.
Sceptics need to be very careful how they conduct the debate – any upward move in temperature upwards and the lynch mob will be after you lot for being deniers and spoilers.
This sort of denialist behaviour as a case in point
“New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends”
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/new_zealand_climate_science_co.php
So if ya gonna be purists – make sure you’re all whiter than the driven snow !
Luke
Temperatures will continue to fall and we will all be too busy trying to adapt to worry about warmist behavior. Of course there will be re-education camps for those in denial about global cooling.
I can see them now, wandering around in their drab green with broad smiles on their faces. LOL the world isn’t coming to an end.
My prediction for the week: Greg Hunt will be sacked and replaced by Barnaby Joyce. This will please his mum and dad who didn’t want him to take the lower house seat of Dawson from the incumbent, who they rather like.
Luke,
The NZ Climate Science Coalition does have scientists.
Your mate over in Deltoid tries to dismiss them with the explanation from Gareth Renowden.
And who is Gareth Renowden?………Why he’s a South Canterbury farmer…a person who hunts truffles and has written a book.
He would know all things scientific now wouldn’t he Luke.
Pathetic.
Luke “The issue is divisive-”
I can’t see a whole lot of bunnies going to Copenhagen just to find more about that bunch of emails or the comments following them round in cyberspace. VIP’s have done their own homework on the science and it’s implications. As one of the liberals said, we’ve all had a good ten years too
The little spat in NZ about false trends is about conflating data from different locations with the usual esoteric ‘adjustments’; it’s nothing more than a desperate deflection by Timmah from the gross fraud of CRU. Even dhogsha seems a bit deflated.
There’s the spirit. Audit the department of Luke and send his ass to jail.
By the way. We can be very sure that our CO2 measuring station has practiced fraud and collusion also. And we want to get on top of these liars before they start shredding things.
As I offered a link Aynsle Kellow up the thread, let’s hear Ross Ganaut on the 450pp target and the economics of mitigation tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/foraradio/stories/2009/2752422.htm
What for gavin? It will just be more nonsense and lies.
Read allll about it…. Read alllll about it….. THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD!!! Read allll about it.
Buy yer Daily Express…..http://www.express.co.uk/ourpaper/view/2009-12-02
ClimateGate goes mainstream:-)
Abbott is gonna saughter Rudd and his Great Green Tax on Everything in this up and coming election… Looks like Rudd and Labor are to gutless to call an early election now that they have the Double Dissolution trigger…. To Delay is to Deny shrieked Penny Wong a week ago….. Suddenly it is good to delay?…… Labor must be all Deniers then….. Mwuhahahaha.
“I’m a bit of a fan of the nuclear solution (so by the way is Luke I think) and the Thorium potential alternative would be a win-win if it can iron out the bugs.”
A solution? To what problem. Nuclear is its own reward. But what is the problem you imagine you are addressing?
“South Australia has recorded its hottest November on record, with some regions setting rainfall records as well”
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/heat-rainfall-records-for-november-in-sa/13203
“Storms lash central Queensland”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2760111.htm
“The state has had an early start to summer, with many towns sweltering in 40 degree Celsius heat. It is drying out crops, local gardens and now water supplies”
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/heat-takes-toll-on-water-supplies/13215
and it’s worth watching Liberal Senator Judith Troeth’s own home grown climate views on tonight’s 7.30 Report (yet to be posted)
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/
J.Hansford – I wish I had your confidence – all my greenie friends are aghast at Abbott’s ascent. They know nothing about climategate because it’s not in the mainstrean news.
Turning them around is going to take years!
Right gavin. So what is your stupid point this time?
Gavin what are you trying to prove? Tasmania has just had the wettest winter in 100 years and Adelaide has experienced a drop in temp over the last 50 years and ditto Brisbane, so what.
I live in the nw of Vic and Mildura’s rainfall from the old PO records ( 1889 to 1946 ) was an average of 268mm, mean high temp was 24.5c and mean low was 10.4c.
Then from 1946 to 2004 the new airfield records show average rainfall has increased to 283mm and mean high was 23.7c and mean low 10.3c.
So in Mildura temp has dropped and rainfall has increased and you’ll see that trend in a lot of country towns right across Australia.
The western division of Nsw had much dryer conditions from 1898 to 1948 in fact in that period of 50 years rainfall only reached average or above for 7 of those 50 years.
Of course De Deckker has shown that southern Australia has been drying out for at least the last 5,000 years and remember in the last 100 years only Tasmania, Victoria and the bottom tip of WA have had less rainfall ( Vic line ball ) all the other states have had increased rainfall as well as the MDB. ( yes that includes SA)
“Abbott is gonna saughter Rudd and his Great Green Tax on Everything in this up and coming election” – problem is the atmosphere don’t care ! But yea – he’ll probably get in …. coz we’re all suckers – which is how Ruddstar got there ….
So we’ll just sit here – watch the droughts eat away, the high temperature extreme days go up, the Arctic go ice free. And the additional boat people as food supplies dwindle. Oh yea !
After a couple of years denialists will need to be licenced and their movements monitored.
“Temperatures will CONTINUE to fall ” – HEY a denialist forecast – just wrote it on my wall.
el gordo December 2nd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
NOW let’s see …. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
YES – it’s clear it’s a downward trend – you utter moron !
Dream on Luke – dream on
if your dream comes true we will all be overrun by increasing sea levels, extreme temps failing our crops and anarchy running rampant.
Yeah, that sounds better than continuing coal combustion to further our ever expanding society.
Luke, you have such a lovely turn of phrase. I’ve shown you my prediction, big boy, now you show me yours.
ANOTHER GREAT DAY: Making two in a row!
At last the Liberal Party has its heart and pride back and the Coalition is alive and fired up. As Barnaby taunted in regard to an early DD election… “Bring it on!!”
And while the MSM in Aust. is trying to ignore Climategate, the whole shoddy affair is out and will soon overtake them. It now appears that Jones has stood down and a public enquiry whill be held in Britain, and Mann is being investigated in the US.
Hopefully there will be a roll on effect. There is no way that the fudging of temp. data and other criminal acts are confined to these three crooks. Here in Australia, the BoM should be investigated on it’s “corrected temp. data and the ‘losing’ or hiding away of so much long term raw temp. records. It is a national scandal.
Janama – more verballing – didn’t say that.
El Gordo – I did – funny that the graph is up not down. So how does “continued” work?
Denialist scum logic.
Come on Sid – who’s a criminal?
“So in Mildura temp has dropped and rainfall has increased and you’ll see that trend in a lot of country towns right across Australia.”
And this is why the Murray is overflowing you see. Denialist scum logic.
So pigs bum is my prediction. Both inquiries will find nothing but mad manners caused by shit stirring denialists. And we’ll all still be where we were.
Yes Mann is terrified – yea sure !
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/11/30/psu_investigates_climategate.aspx
What would be fascinating is to see some denialist emails. Watch this space for the real conspiracy !
Luke …….The climate change is Natural…. There is no evidence to support the AGW Hypothesis…
The real debate can now begin now that ClimateGate has shown that the HadCRUT Temperature History is corrupt. There are also serious problems with the GISS Temp History also. Hanson has also shown himself to be a militant and Biased proponent in AGW “theory”.
It is also apparent that both of those Temp histories are diverging from the UAH and RSS satellite Temp records….
The only explanation is that the Temp increase from 1850 to present is NATURAL… This is the right way to view climate at the moment, as a natural phenomenon…..
After all the Temp increase is only 0.7 degrees C anyway, so it is quite obvious that the Temperature stations recording outlandish high temps are measuring the Heat Island Effect of land use and cities…. Which can add up to 5 degrees C to measurements in badly sited stations…. Surfacestations. org show that quite well.
The AGW proponents are way too overwrought, as well as financial beneficiaries of the AGW hypothesis. Makes it Politics and not Science.
For gawd’s sake Luke, your medication should always be kept close at hand.
Mann’s hockey stick looks like a housing or mining bubble and just the mere thought of it makes me feel uneasy. But looking at your little graph of temperatures doesn’t show what’s coming.
The post modern climate optimum reached its peak in 1998 and with a cool PDO in force the temperature will flatten. Similar to the 1946 -76 cool PDO.
Low solar activity should reduce temperatures over the next decade by 2 degrees.
Before the carnage in parliament over the past week, Senator Fielding was calling for a Royal Commission into climate change ‘to help people understand what’s going on’.
He wanted Plimer and Garnaut to co-chair. Hooray! Fielding is always out to amuse.
Luke said……. “After a couple of years denialists will need to be licenced and their movements monitored.”
Well Luke, you Envirofascists have already done that to me…. As a commercial fisherman I was forced to have satellite tracking imposed upon me… I was forced to comply with laws and regulation that was promulgated using no science or psudo science.
I am already a wake up to what the rest of Australia is about to endure under the tyranny of Ecofascism.
I for one do not doubt for a single second, that you and those like you, will persecute and liquidate all who will stand in their way… Your manner defines you Luke.
Oh what bullshit Hansford – the ocean story is the same trend, as is the satellite, as are the biological responses to distribution flowering dates, and breeding patterns.
The HADCRUT scheme has NOT been shown to corrupt. You’re wanking yourself !
And you well know there are very good reasons for some differences in the temp series but the broad story if still the same !
And gee a system the size of the Earth just “warms up” for no reason on a global scale.
It’s “natural” man. It’s “God”.
There is no solar driver, it isn’t the PDO – it’s what it is – greenhouse response
So pigs bum to your whole thought process. What utter drivel and sheer fucking stupidity.
And pullease don’t do the usual denialist scum smokescreen of conflating policy with the science.
Well given the tuna fishery – perhaps you need to be monitored. Anyway what are you afraid of?
Ecofascism – what fucking crap. Grow up.
Well El Gordo – just tell me why the trend is UP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How come?
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss
It’s true Luke… You are an ecofascist….. As I said. Your manner defines you. So do your words….
Namely these words. “After a couple of years denialists will need to be licenced and their movements monitored.”
Do you now disown this disturbed and tyrannical sentence? This glaring insight into your ever darkening soul, Luke…. You uttered them. You are responsible for all they imply.
You are a fascist…. an Ecofascist Luke.
Luke,
You are behind the times, my dear friend.
What you don’t recall, apparently, is that once these things start unwinding for the fooler, the foolee sort of wakes up all at once. Like what is happening now.
Pretending that it was all just angels with dirty faces talking rough is last week’s rationalization.
This week’s, according to that IPCC puppet, is that the system is so rigorous that even if there are bad apples, they would not get past the *stringent* review of the IPCC.
He apparently practiced this a lot, because he did manage to say it with a straight face.
Can you please give it a go? I am sure you can say it more forcefully.
As to your demonstrating ignorance on ocean and sun, well, you are clearly doing what we in the states call ‘doubling down’.
Please continue. This is more fun than watching old clips of Capt. Queeg’s meltdown.
Luke said…. “And gee a system the size of the Earth just “warms up” for no reason on a global scale.”
But Luke. The Global temperature dropped several degree celsius between 1400 and 1600. So if it can cool, it would stand to reason that it can warm…. and in both instances. Naturally.
Another point…. according to the flawed AGW hypothesis, CO2 is A primary driver for global temps…. Then it would have to have been a reduction of CO2, to have caused the cooling between 1400 and 1600…. But no such CO2 reduction is found in the ice cores, etc.
Seems there are lotsa problems with AGW….
Moronic drivel Hunter – why do you even bother? zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Well Hansford you’re a resource pillaging fashit so who cares? Come back when you’ve fixed your tuna fishery.
” The Global temperature dropped several degree celsius between 1400 and 1600. So if it can cool, it would stand to reason that it can warm…. and in both instances. Naturally”
oooooo – it’s natural like mountain spring water …. oooooo
Bunk – so you think it will just do this for NO REASON !! Pullease. Keep wanking.
Ice cores and CO2 – try not be be such a disingenuous debater – try the PETM. How much crap do you denialists recycle – its’ endless.
And try not be so fucking stupid – CO2 isn’t the primary driver for global temps at all. It’s a thing called the …. Sun. Moron !
Luke said……….”The HADCRUT scheme has NOT been shown to corrupt. You’re wanking yourself !”
Hmmm… Luke, I don’t find Temperature Histories to be all that sexually stimulating:-)Perhaps you are projecting?
Prawn fishery Luke…. Didn’t need fixing.
Ok Luke, I’ll leave you in peace now… Try not to harm yourself and enjoy a break over Christmas. Go to church… Discover something more important then the sound of your own voice;-)
J. Hansford,
Calling Luke and eco-fascist is like calling bozo the clown a great actor.
How much of the data is damaged by this? Warwick Hughes is taking apart Jones et al , showing the big thumb on the scale. That’s got to effect GISS and NOAA according to Peilke Sr.
In turn we have the satellite data. The CCMS conference forced UAH to bend in the direction of the surface station record. RSS never made any pretense of independence.
Then you have the plethora of research that on a straight reading showed no natural reaction to the supposed warming but got past the CC filtering of peer review by adding the “this isn’t to be construed as a falsification of climate change”.
I’m thinking there’s a lot, maybe most of the science falling apart with the Phil Jones.
We are at the brink of the introduction of World Government, see concept Copenhagen Climate Treaty.
When they push this through there won’t be a democracy to protect us.
They intend to eliminate the Free World and Rudd like Obama and the EU will sign it.
In the USA, we don’t let Presidents go off an dsign binding treaties on their own.
They have to submit them for ratification, to the Senate.
If I recall my civics class, that requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate to make it a go.
Forget about it.
As climate gate matures, and really grows legs, the whole AGW movement will finally achieve the level of scrutiny it has so far avoided. AGW promters will be the laughin stocks of the planet.
Obama can sign anything he wants. There is no way that the US Senate is going to ratify this waste of good trees.
If Obama is smart, he will find a pressing, sudden reason to avoid Copenhagen, like the political death wish it is becoming.
Great day for the Aussies. Glad you’re back!
Bird; what’s the point, for some; it’s about SLOW science
Another Mark Colvin report “Farmers concerned by soil moisture predictions”
This contains comments from a land owner in my region
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2760264.htm
An interview from Late Night Live with Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan who also lives and works in the region
“A Climate Change in the Coalition”
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2009/2755738.htm
Spangles; after reading your comments on bias in the MSM, I’ve keeping a close ear to the radio on our ABC and there is much on the climate change and ETS from all sectors –
“Carbon cloud hangs over business” By Shane McLeod for The World Today
“There has been a mixed reaction from the business community after the Government’s emissions trading scheme was again rejected in the Senate”
Greg Evans, says the Opposition’s change of tack provides an opportunity to reconsider the ETS.
“Our membership always had some fairly significant concerns regarding the pricing pack, especially in relation to small business,” he said.
Andrew Petersen, a climate and sustainability specialist at PriceWaterhouseCoopers, says business now feels that policy on climate change is under a carbon cloud.
“Investment is at risk. Policy certainty or framework to begin the necessary strategic framework that business needs to undertake is now a question mark,” he said.
Nathan Fabian, the chief executive of the Investors Group on Climate Change, says his members need figures.
“Our members represent half a trillion dollars of investment money and so they need a price on carbon,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2760132.htm?site=news
Typical Auntie hey
‘There is no way that the US senate is going to ratify the waste of good trees.’ Sorry, did I miss something? Are you referring to the Yamal cherry trees?
Everyone keep an eye out for the 5 stages of grief in our AGW friends here;
1.Denial
2.Anger
3.Bargaining
4.Depression
5.Acceptance
It’ll be hard to tell when Luke gets to the denial and anger stages as that seems to be his perpetual condition. Note that in Monbiot’s blog he went from acceptance to anger to denial, all in the one article.
Gavin,
The fact that the money market was so keen to get the ETS through was what got me thinking it was dodgey. The few people who do understand the whole policy must surely be scratching their heads as to what Rudd/Wong though it was going to do about AGW.
Jennifer,
I read about the Aussie Senate vote on Yahoo News. I think that you, Ian Plimer, Jo Nova, and Andrew Bolt should all get together for a glass of virtual champagne. Collectively, you made it possible.
Unfortunately, ETS is in the Undead category, and it’ll be ba-ack, even if if Copenhagen unravels. Also unfortunately, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen Night of the Living Dead, and I forget how to kill a zombie.
Again Derek – keeping wanking on. Do you seriously think that you lot have achieved anything. This is just an obvious grubby attempt to derail Copenhagen. It’s pretty obvious for what it is.
Probably bump public opinion around a bit. Polarise the camps a bit more. Maybe even have some political wins. However I would be petrified if you see any upward movement in temperatures now.
Why? Sceptics will be seen to have simply been the real conspirators.
Hughes taking Jones apart – pullease – pull the other leg – he’s showed animosity at him for years. Do you think it’s an “independent” view. In any case 95% of the data are available. Do your own independent analysis and publish it !!
Denialists really are simply spoilers – the tactic is to obfuscate not illuminate. And move from target to target trying to pick away and create doubt. Like with tobacco – not to win – but to create enough doubt to cause paralysis. And just keep moving on. And keep re-cycling the same old hackneyed lies.
So think about it – you’re going to dispatch half the population and form a new society if you think there will be any peace on this.
It’s simply verbal war without end ! To the last man standing – to the last breath.
Why ? religion? green ideology? world government? neo-marxists ideals? eco-fascism?
No – simply that on any sensible analysis any reasonable person would assess moderate risk. So it’s an issue. It’s simply a risk issue based on known science – and yes that science is not perfect.
However as Trenberth has said – the science does point to AGW happening – however what to do about AGW is THE issue. And for that reason I have not supported the Aussie ETS without an international agreement first. And we should have “new” nuclear on the table for discussion.
Nothing would be more pleasing to know AGW was wrong. None of this stuff is fun politically and one wouldn’t be arguing the point with you lot if one didn’t think it was an issue.
What I find disgraceful though is to misrepresent the science to achieve a political position. Not cricket !
I’m not advocating a position for any party or NGO. It’s simply thoughts as a private citizen, which despite the grubby threats one receives here – surely one has a right to free speech.
And Larry how you could reference Plimer after his “book” is beyond belief – even for a denialist. At least have some standards.
I see Hunter is into clowns.
Mate; that used to be my line re all our pollies.
Seems the view from the gallery in the Senate at Parliament House got even better yesterday. But it was that image on ABC TV last night of our new Opposition Leader in his office designing a fresh liberal Climate Change policy that lingers most. No ETS, no Carbon Tax and no help from the sidelines.
What a performance!
Are you all in step with your new leader?
Do you appreciate his “considered” position?
We will have climate policy, Abbott says
MICHELLE GRATTAN
02 Dec, 2009 06:56 AM
TONY Abbott believes climate change is real, with a human contribution, and has dismissed his recent description of it as “absolute crap” as “a bit of hyperbole” rather than his “considered position”.
After his election as Liberal leader yesterday, Mr Abbott promised to have a strong and effective climate change policy – but not one that would damage Australian export industries, putting the country at a competitive disadvantage with its competitors.
In October, a regional newspaper said Mr Abbott told a meeting in the central Victorian town of Beaufort the argument on climate change was “crap”. Yesterday, he told a media conference he had been trying at the time to “argue people around to what I thought was our position”.
The new leader said it would be “grossly irresponsible” to wave the Government’s emissions legislation through and he wasn’t afraid of an election on the climate issue. “As far as many, many millions of Australians are concerned, what the Rudd Government ETS looks like is a great big tax, to create a great big slush fund to provide politicised handouts run by a giant bureaucracy,” he said.
“Oppositions are not there to get legislation through. Oppositions are there to hold the Government to account.”
He reaffirmed the Opposition’s bipartisan support for the 5-25 per cent emissions reduction target the Government is taking to Copenhagen. “We do want to reduce our emissions and those targets stand,” he said. ********************************
“We will have a strong and effective climate change policy. It just won’t be this ETS at this time.”
But he would not commit to having an emissions trading scheme as part of the policy. There were arguments in favour and against such a scheme, he said. “There is no point in bringing in an ETS before it has become an established part of the world economy, and the time when that is likely to happen – if ever – is when the United States adopts one.”
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/political/we-will-have-climate-policy-abbott-says/1693302.aspx?storypage=1
The university of NSW climate department is at it again
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
It’s all true Luke and makes perfectly good sense. Abbott will allow his party to formulate a policy stance on climate change and the outcome will reverberate around the world.
They will talk about cycles within cycles, with few linear trends, going back millions of years. The MWP will also be back in fashion after Mann’s failed attempt to eliminate it.
When Tony Abbott returns from the Christmas break he will tell the assembled media that AGW is a crock. He will explain it quietly and choose his words carefully, so there will be no doubt about which way the party is heading.
I’ve also written that prediction on the wall next to the cooling one.
Behind that harsh exterior, we can tell you’re a dear sweet boy who went to a good Anglican school. In your later years you have swapped your faith for Gaia and it shows.
ABC is resolutely in the denial phase.
Number of results returned when searching “Climategate” on Google:
21,400,000
Number of results returned when searching “Climategate” on ABC Online:
One.
Then again. They seem to be sending out feelers on the bargaining phase too.
Europe could save the planet for just €2 per person, per day!
Maybe it varies across departments.
Roy Spencer has the latest UAH figures and it appears that November was the warmist on record (since satellite data commenced in 1979), but as a contrarian I will have to delay giving an explanation until I can work out what the hell is going on.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/november-2009-uah-global-temperature-update-0-50-deg-c/
November was the warmest on record? Thats a bit of a loaded phrase isn’t it? Even with the caveats intact. If you want to figure out whats going on you’ll forget about CO2 in its entirety. And start thinking about the way the sun works. Which isn’t what we have been told. Or at least what we’ve been told isn’t the whole story. We have to stop thinking in terms of just the Sun and Earth. And have to start thinking about the interaction of the galaxy in its entirety.
We had enough information to tell us we would be definitely cooling. That the 2030’s at least would be particularly cold. And that we weren’t about to see any serious recovery until well past mid-century if at all.
But the problem now is that we have the unprecedented (for almost 26 000 years) advent of us about to come very close to the galactic equator. So its back to the drawing board. And with that X-factor screwing things up, our former norms and generalisations about the behaviour of the solar cycles have to be regarded as somewhat provisional.
One can only expect the weather to get progressively more volatile. As far out as some of the 2012 speculations are they have more going for them than this C02 idiocy. In a single afternoon I was able to find more evidence linking supernovae to outsized volcanic activity on earth, than 100 billion dollars of stolen money has turned up showing that CO2 is bad for the biosphere. Since I at least found some evidence, whereas all that money didn’t ever turn up any evidence that CO2 isn’t terrific for the biosphere.
“TONY Abbott believes climate change is real, with a human contribution, and has dismissed his recent description of it as “absolute crap” as “a bit of hyperbole” rather than his “considered position”.”
Tony doesn’t have the evidence either. You are just a moron Luke. If Tony had the evidence for this horseshit they’d have given him the Nobels and the honorary heavyweight title at Caesars Palace.
Tony isn’t going to win if he cannot get all his people to drop this Orwellian language. Everyone ought to be on point here. If you say idiotic things like “Climate Change Is Real” you are just asking to be whipped by these idiots. First things first. And the first thing is to learn how to speak English again.
“Bird; what’s the point, for some; it’s about SLOW science”
Well there you are gavin. You didn’t have a point. You are an idiot pal. If 100 billion dollars of spending cannot elicit any evidence whatsoever that CO2 emissions are bad for the environment, a dummy such as yourself wasn’t about to make any traction.
Thanks for that Birdy, I am actually a member of the Denialati and love your big picture item coming ‘very close to the galactic equator.’
Time to investigate what the paleo record says happened 26,000 years ago and I’ll get back to you.
El Gordo, from spencer’s site i particularly like this article
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/climategate-and-the-elitist-roots-of-global-warming-alarmism/
“At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which people’s energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government. ”
“Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.”
How about this for a truth!
“The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.”
and more…
“Skepticism really is at the core of scientific progress. I’m willing to admit that I could be wrong about all my views on manmade global warming. Can the IPCC scientists admit the same thing?”
“Year after year, the evidence keeps mounting that most climate research now being funded is for the purpose of supporting the IPCC’s politics, not to find out how nature works. The ‘data spin’ is increasingly difficult to ignore or to explain away as just sloppy science. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…”
I for one do think it is potentially worrying that whilst the sun is at a “minumum” nov has set a record.
So i am prepared to say that AGW could be happening and i will go one step further and say that if the major emitters do agree to binding cuts then it does become a risk management issue as Luke suggests and therefore we need to also try to reduce emissions.
Next question is how to do it and how to avoid the united nations push for global governance ( and pollies like rudd and brown). The ETS would achieve ntg at great cost, so lets hope our idiotic politicians can do better.
Lukefartard,
“I’ve also written that prediction on the wall next to the cooling one.”
AWwwWWWWWWwwww, we didn’t think you cared!!!!
We just thought you were an ignorant foul mouthed sadistic alarmist with masochistic tendencies due to suppressed sexuality caused by your mother dressing you in pink undies all your life!!
Now we see there really is more to you and could care less!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
PS: Does you mommy spank you when you write on the wall??
“Does you mommy spank you when you write on the wall??” no but the wife does. I like it too. And for the record – the undies were red.
Lukefartard,
“no but the wife does. I like it too. And for the record – the undies were red.”
That’s what YOU remember. Your mom tells a different story down to the Pub!!!!
Graeme Bird,
If I was settled near Burraga swamp (Barrington Tops, NSW) around 26,000 years bp the aquatic vegetation has disappeared and the dryland vegetation is a sparsely treed grassland. Over the next few thousand years it would get worse as the earth slipped into the last glacial maximum.
The trees then disappeared altogether and it was just grassland. We also know that dust storms became more common.
What interest me is what caused the temperatures to jump 7 degrees around 43,000 years bp, stayed for a few thousand years and fell back to where it started? They call them interstadials and they appear to be outside the Milankovitch cycles.
How much did you pay her to pretend to be your mommy, Luke?
By the hour, or in your case, just a few minutes?
Here’s some of the latest temperature graphs, which I picked up from the Bolter.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/november_warmer/
“What interest me is what caused the temperatures to jump 7 degrees around 43,000 years bp, stayed for a few thousand years and fell back to where it started? They call them interstadials and they appear to be outside the Milankovitch cycles.”
el gordo,
Obviously there was a great industrial revolution happening at that time.
How do you think all those stones occurred other than from great stone age industry? They don’t just happen because you think it’s a good idea.
If we could just get hold of that police box we could show Luke that it’s all happened before and he could relax.
Spangled, Don’t tell me you’re a Dr. Who fan as well, we must be soul mates!
Derek Smith
Dr. Who fan as well?
Small world, Dr Who is the thinking men’s sci-fi show.
Marcus, I wasn’t such a big fan until the last 4 seasons with Rose etc. David Tennant was the best doctor as far as I’m concerned. I’d love to see that girl doctor that was cloned from him get at least a special of her own.
I suppose the record low temperatures recorded throughout most of the tropical north can be attributed, according to Kevin Rudd’s reasoning, to global cooling.
Strange that he isn’t up crowing about this, as he was about the recent recort hot temperatures; which he attributed to global warming.
Yes Derek,
I’ve always been a sucker for daleks, crinoids etc. but I haven’t watched it recently.
Comment from: Sid Reynolds December 3rd, 2009 at 9:14 pm
I suppose the record low temperatures recorded throughout most of the tropical north can be attributed, according to Kevin Rudd’s reasoning, to global cooling.
———————————
Yes, funny you should say that Sid, there was a caller on the ABC talk back the other day, who said “years ago I had to wear warm clothing to the dawn service in Lismore (NSW) and this year it was warm enough to turn up in short sleeves! so there is a definite warming”
When asked, what will you think about the climate if next year you have to rug up again?
He hung up.
Mr Rudd has no such choice he has to answer, whether we understand his answer, is of course, an other matter.
Thought I might drop this link in for Luke, he’s the only troll we have and we don’t want to frighten him off.
http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/nasas-fakes-email-leak.html
Warning: If you link on Denial Depot it’s hard to escape. Like for real. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Hey el, what you need to decide ASAP; is that Bolt stuff coming to you via an echo chamber, a resonant cavity or perhaps some solid state detector. Also who authorized the straight line approach. BTW if I want to be fully informed, it’s important to go see the source.
From experience, there are lots of angles in interpreting graphs or continuous records from some remote device. See this for starters “Monitoring Climate Change in the Tropics”
http://www.remss.com/rss_research/climate_change_in_the_tropics.html
Since I’m more interested in SL reports, it’s reasonable to have a SST snapshot like these illustrations for starters. After all, what melts the ice caps? As Luke says, the jolly old sun warming us as seen from afar. At this point I stress again, SL becomes the big thermometer through the ages
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a002400/a002470/
Now here’s a job but I reckon it needs skills beyond your average column writer to participate
http://www.remss.com/rss_research/employment_opportunities.html
Spangled; even if you could fly that police box back 43,000 years BP. chances are you’d step out onto another controversy
gavin,
The problem for the warmists is the groundswell against their beliefs. Bolt and Watts have two of the most popular blogs in the world, so perceptions of what is happening with CC will ultimately win the day.
http://technorati.com/blogs/top100/page-3/
One of my favorite blog names: The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE, has an article describing how little has changed since 1974. He also puts a stake into the heart that the 70s cooling crisis was only supported by a handful of climatologists and not a wide spread consensus. It is here: http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/world-exclusive-cia-1974-document-reveals-emptiness-of-agw-scares-closes-debate-on-global-cooling-consensus-and-more
gavin
“As Luke says, the jolly old sun warming us as seen from afar.”
Go back just six month on this blog and you find that lukie would not have a bar of this argument then.
How things change eh!
Congratulations to Jen for her website and the role it and all her other good works played in helping tip the scales against the ETS and ultimately the Copenhagen fraud!
The climate war is now essentially won, although not quite in the bag yet, the cascade effect has begun, the paradigm shift is in gear… Whistle blowers and oppressed researchers everywhere are now emboldened to stand up to fight the fraud, fight the corrupt system. Expect more inconvenient data liberation in the coming months.
China, Brazil, India and other cultures not in the grip of the climate apocalypse fetish now clearly understand the nature of the morbidity and soon the very same public once so frightened by fraudulent claims of a looming climate apocalypse will understand they were lied to.
Anyone want to a punt on whether the ETS will pass in February once the narrative of Climategate has been digested?
Perhaps someday, once real scientific method and transparency is restored to a corrupt discipline our understanding of the Earth’s climate can actually be advanced without the burden of false and politicised fear campaigns.
Free the data! Free the code!
The Courier-Mail has just published a piece by me with the subheading (in the hardcopy),
“Penny Wong and others owe it to the Australian public to better understand what the sceptics really believe, and why. Jennifer Marohasy on why all sides should address the confusion over climate change.”
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26436806-27197,00.html
And you can leave a comment there.
‘Climate change is a natural hazard’. Just love that sentence and have appropriated the words for future use.
Nicely balanced article, Jen.
Marcus – no far from it – read PRECISELY what I said not what you think I said. The Sun is the primary climate driver. Nothing has changed. You guys never listen. Your major problem.
As for Wes “the climate war has been won” – anyone told the atmosphere?
And what looming apocalypses should have been here by now? Any silly thinking – this is a long term issue.
Very very poor kindergarten level thinking guys.
But moving on:
“The scientist who convinced the world that global warming was a looming danger says the planet will be better off if next week’s Copenhagen climate change summit ends in collapse.
James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch”
So how can this be? Independent thought. Horror?
I like Jen’s comment in the paper:
“In the meantime, if we are to have credible discussion on the science underpinning the CPRS, Wong and others owe it to the Australian public to better understand the alternative position – what the sceptics really believe and why.’
Indeed – have a Royal Commission – put the sceptics in the dock. Unshackle the institutional scientists to speak freely. i.e. get the gloves off. We’ll then see. Bet you won’t like the answer though.
There would be a major difference between a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign and an inquiry.
The result will be “the balance of evidence is correct an the sceptics will be shown for what they are.”
So politically all of us will then believe what we want and nothing will have changed.
Jen,
Good stuff!
Luke,
What Jen is trying to promote that you don’t get is not any royal commission, simply some honest questions and answers, general discussions without your sort of dumb ad hom so that some better moves can be made.
Even your mate Jim can see that.
Luke, you need to read what I actually said…..
I said according to the AGW hypothesis CO2 is A primary driver of Temperature…. Not THE primary driver….. As it relates per that flawed hypothesis… You have obviously missed my point in its entirety. We all know that the Sun is the Energy source.
Excellent article Jennifer. Very well written. Very clear.
According to grand poohbah Hansen, Manhattan Island (that’s New York, Luke) should be going under water by now, and vegetation changes there should be apparent.
The idea most AGW hacks and true believers have of an inquiry is a kangaroo court where none of their bs gets reviewed, and none of the skeptics have a chance to say anything.
Good luck with that, guys. Ain’t gonna happen.
Here is a prediction: More revelations about how crooked AGW promoters have been will be forthcoming.
Get those books together, you Lukes.
Lukefartard is RIGHT!!!
“Marcus – no far from it – read PRECISELY what I said not what you think I said. The Sun is the primary climate driver. Nothing has changed. You guys never listen. Your major problem.”
yup, the sun outputs about 40% SW and 45% IR. Wonder how much of that IR actually makes it to the surface through that famous AGW mechanism of absorption and emission. Wonder how badly that upsets those AGW models!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Come on Lukefartard, explain this to us!!!!
Lukefartard,
“James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch”
So how can this be? Independent thought. Horror?”
Could be PO’d because his employer Gore is not sharing the yachts, women, and MONEY!! Not to mention he hasn’t gotten that promotion to running NASA!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Has anyone else tried to leave a comment at Jen’s Courier Mail article? I have and it doesn’t seem to have been printed; maybe luke is the editor!
I loved that description of Jones, Mann, Schmidt, Hansen et al by Aynsley Kellow as the “gatekeepers of science”.
cohers,
I couldn’t see any comments there at all.
The gatekeepers have struck again!
Jennifer. You are blocked from Club Troppo. And no doubt elsewhere. And any persistent climate rationalist, not brought totally to heal is blocked everywhere. So why on earth do you let an idiot like Luke, on your site. He doesn’t contribute in anyway and he just causes overhead. Its very rare when people can break out of gainsaying his persistent idiocy to actually talk about the subject at hand. I can go on Professor Quiggins site. But I cannot do so and ask for evidence from the true believers. And its doubtful that anyone who persistently did so would not be blocked from pretty much all Australian blogs. I cannot understand why you let this malicious little bitch on here. Particularly as he and the others refuse point blank to make good with the evidence.
@ Luke
“James Hansen, considered the most distinguished climate scientist, says any agreement to emerge from the meeting will be so flawed that it would be better to start again from scratch”
So how can this be? Independent thought. Horror?”
Obviously he is unhappy with his current research grant level and needs to notch up a peg in the fallacious belief that this will buy him some distance and respectability v-a-v the current AGM Climategate debacle.
There’s a poll going on over here in NZ
Do you believe humans are causing climate change.
43% yes 4745
49% no 5400
9% unsure 984
http://nz.yahoo.com/
I left a comment on Jen’s article late this morning…. It hasn’t shown up yet either… Hmm Pretend comment section obviously.
I agree with Graeme that Luke adds nothing of any merit to this site. But, one point he makes it worth a comment. He is wrong about those who have doubts about AGW. They do want a proper senate enquiry where witnesses are under oath or a Royal Commission. It is the alarmists who are frightened of the truth being revealed. They want to suppress evidence contrary to their views. It would be very interesting if Hansen could be brought in front of the US senate.
Well, let’s all keep our fingers crossed for Stephen Murphy in Higgins and Bill Koutalianos in Bradfield; the 2 independent Climate Sceptic candidates; I dearly hope Steve beats old sanctimonious public intellectual, Clive, in Higgins.
No Hunter – at a Royal Commission real scientists will get to roast sceptics for the shonks that they are. Will be quite a spectacle. I look forward to it.
Bird – you’re too thick to review any evidence. Don’t kid yourself.
I got thru to Jennifer’s comments
Notice politeness with lashings of butter .
hehehehehehe.
If you’re in melbourne and have nothing pressing to do on Saturday, why not stop by a polling station in Higgins and hand out the how-to cards for candidate Steve Murphy and the Climate Sceptics.
I’ll be at the Solway Primary School, Winton Road, Ashburton from 1 pm if anyone wants to stop by and say g’day.
News coverage has been absolutely unhinged. Malcolm McKerras predicting Hamilton could take the seat. Robert Manne in the Oz saying pretty much the same thing. You get the impression these folks only ever associate with the like-minded, kinda like the Pauline Kael quip that Reagan’s victory in 1980 floored her because nobody she knows voted for him.
What we need tomorrow is a really solid showing for the Sceptics, as it will reassure anxious Libs that going with Abbott was the right, and the smart, thing to do.
Turn out if you can. The more bodies at the polling stations, the stronger the impression that it is safe for average citizens to voice their disdain for this money-grubbing prostitution of science and democracy.
Luke,
So in your fantasy, only scientists get to ask questions, and the denialist scum are going to sit, with what, socks stuffed in their mouths?
Will your ensemble, in your fantasy, be dressed in some snappy uniform, and allowed to carry little switches, to make sure those denialist scum stay seated, backs straight?
By the way, that part in the Briffa code about using arbitrary ‘fixes’ will be a great opportunity for your wisdom to shine forth.
You are such a bunch of cowardly neverwuzzer loons, Luke. The lot of you don’t have the intellectual capacity of a cockroach to deal with anything beyond what you have been told to believe.
The only commissions that are coming are going to be ones that show how bureaucratic con-artists posing as scientists ever got so far in selling such pile of used bull fodder.
Keep those books and e-mails ready for review, you schmucks.
Bring on the Royal Commission:
“I am a climate scientist, and it is clear that the evidence that “human activity is prominent [sic] agent in global warming” is NOT overwhelming. The repeated statement that it is does not make it so. Further, even if we accepted the hypothesis, cap-and-trade legislation does not do anything about it.
Here are the facts. We have known for years that the Mann hockey stick model was wrong, and we know why it was wrong (Mann used only selected data to normalize the principal component analysis, not all of it). He retracted the model. We have known for years that the Medieval Warm period occurred, where the temperatures were higher than they are now (Chaucer spoke of vineyards in northern England).
Long before ClimateGate it was known that the IPCC people were trying to fudge the data to get rid of the MWP. And for good reason. If the MWP is “allowed” to exist, this means that temperatures higher than today did not then create a “runaway greenhouse” in the Middle Ages with methane released from the Arctic tundra, ice cap albedo lost, sea levels rising to flood London, etc. etc.), and means that Jim Hansen’s runaway greenhouse that posits only amplifying feedbacks (and no damping feedbacks) will not happen now. We now know that the models on which the IPCC alarms are based to not do clouds, they do not do the biosphere, they do not explain the Pliocene warming, and they have never predicted anything, ever, correctly.
As the believers know but, like religious faithful, every wrong prediction (IPCC underestimated some trends) is claimed to justify even greater alarm (not that the models are poor approximations for reality); the underpredictions (where are the storms? Why “hide the decline”?) are ignored or hidden.
As for CO2, we have known for years that CO2 increases have never in the past 300,000 years caused temperature rise (CO2 rise trails temperature increase). IPCC scientists know this too (see their “Copenhagen Diagnosis”); we know that their mathematical fudges that dismiss the fact that CO2 has not been historically causative of temperature rise are incorrect as well. We have also known for years that the alleged one degree temperature rise from 1880 vanishes if sites exposed to urban heat islands are not considered.
We have long known that Jones’s paper dismissing this explanation (Jones, et al. 1990. Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land, Nature 347 169- 172) is wrong and potentially fraudulent (see the same data used to confirm urban heat islands in Wang, W-C, Z. Zeng, T. R Karl, 1990. Urban Heat Islands in China. Geophys. Res. Lett. 17, 2377-2380). Everyone except Briffa knows that the Briffa conclusions are wrong, and why they are wrong; groups in Finland, Canada (lots of places actually) show cooling by this proxy, not warming; the IPCC even printed the Finn’s plot upside down to convert the fact (cooling) into the dogma (warming).
Prof. McCarthy is, of course, part of the IPCC that has suppressed dissenting viewpoints based on solid climate science. His claim to support by “peer review” is nonsense; he has helped corrupt the peer review process. We now have documentary evidence that Jones, Mann, and the other IPCC scientists have been gaming peer review and blackballing opponents. On this point, the entire IPCC staff, including Prof. McCarthy, neither have nor deserve our trust.
We have tolerated years of the refusal of Mann and Jones to release data. Now, we learn that much of these data were discarded (one of about 4 data sets that exist), something that would in any other field of science lead to disbarment. We have been annoyed by Al Gore, who declared this science “settled”, refused to debate, and demonized skeptics (this is anti-science: debate and skepticism are the core of real science, which is never settled). The very fact that Prof. McCarthy attempts to bluff Congress by asserting the existence of fictional “overwhelming evidence” continues this anti-science activity.
All of this was known before Climategate. What was not known until now was the extent to which Jones and Mann were simply deceiving themselves (which happens often in science) or fraudently attempting to deceive others. I am not willing to crucify Jones on the word “trick”. Nor, for that matter, on the loss of primary data, keeping only “value added” data (which is hopelessly bad science, but still conceivably not fraud).
But the computer code is transparently fraudulent. Here, one finds matrices that add unexplained numbers to recent temperatures and subtract them from older temperatures (these numbers are hard-programmed in), splining observational data to model data, and other smoking guns, all showing that they were doing what was necessary to get the answers that the IPCC wanted, not the answers that the data held. They knew what they were doing, and why they were doing it.
If, as Prof. McCarthy insists, “peer review” was functioning, and the IPCC reports are rigorously peer reviewed, why was this not caught? When placing it in context made it highly likely that this type of fraud was occurring?
The second question is: Will this revelation be enough to cause the “global warming believers” to abandon their crusade, and for people to return to sensible environmental science (water use, habitat destruction, land use, this kind of thing)? Perhaps it will.
Contrary to Prof. McCarthy’s assertion, we have not lost just one research project amid dozens of others that survive. A huge set of primary data are apparently gone. Satellite data are scarcely 40 years old. Everything is interconnected, and anchored on these few studies. Even without the corruption of the peer review process, this is as big a change as quantum mechanics was in physics a century ago.
But now we know that peer review was corrupted, and that no “consensus” exists. The “2500 scientists agree” number is fiction (God knows who they are counting, but to get to this number, they must be including referees, spouses, and pets).
The best argument now for AGW is to argue that CO2 is, after all, a greenhouse gas, its concentration is, after all, increasing, and feedbacks that regulated climate for millions of years might (we can hypothesize) be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions. It is a hypothesis worthy of investigation, but it has little evidentiary support.
Thus, there is hope that Climategate will bring to an end the field of political climatology, and allow climatology to again become a science. That said, people intrinsically become committed to ideas. The Pope will not become a Protestant even if angel Gabriel taps him on the shoulder and asks him to. Likewise, Prof. McCarthy may claim until the day he retires that there remains “overwhelming support” for his position, even if every last piece of data supporting it is controverted. As a graduate student at Harvard, I was told that fields do not advance because people change their minds; rather, fields advance because people die.”
Posted by Sean December 2, 09 11:26 PM
This will settle it once and for all.
Who needs a royal commission when we’ve got the UN?
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/04/tech-climate-un-data.html
Graeme Bird,
“So why on earth do you let an idiot like Luke, on your site. ”
It is called FREE SPEECH. It can even be considered exchange of opinions.
But mostly, Lukefartard is one of the best advertisements for the extreme CULT types of AGW or Global Climate Change!!!
For those commenting on Jen’s article, they clearly stated that they were SELECTING comments to post based. Something about clear and interesting discussion topics.
We will have to read the comments to see whether they have a bias or are just trying to keep an interesting post.
Graeme, Luke, and I probably won’t make it either way!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Looks like Kevin Trenbarth was WORNG when he said they didn’t know where the energy was going!!!!
http://energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2665
or NASA hadn’t told him yet!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The Tribune article mentions the Lindzen and Choi paper which is a profound disproof of AGW; but Roy Spencer has a different take on it;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
However the Lindzen paper is supported by this paper;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/11/ocean-heat-content-and-earth%e2%80%99s-radiation-imbalance/#more-9865
and this one;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
Graeme,
is this what you have been talking about??
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/shiva-dinosaur-killer
cohenite,
yes, I read Dr. Spencer’s comments on the Lindzen-Choi paper. It sounded like he was talking to them and they might adjust their paper. We can hope there will be a profitable collaboration!!
I have seen the ERBE data mentioned several places as being net cooling so do not doubt that little tid bit that totally sinks the classical AGW models and theory!! Probably why it isn’t seen too many places. No one wants to derail the GRAVY TRAIN!!!
I must say some of the feedback/forcing convolutions give me a headache; Roy is a specialist in this where something, clouds, is not a feedback but a chaotic forcing;
“One thing I liked about the authors’ analysis is that they examined only those time periods with the largest temperature changes – whether warming or cooling. There is a good reason why one can expect a more accurate estimate of feedback by just focusing on those large temperature changes, rather than blindly treating all time periods equally. The reason is that feedback is the radiation change RESULTING FROM a temperature change. If there is a radiation change, but no temperature change, then the radiation change obviously cannot be due to feedback. Instead, it would be from some internal variation in cloudiness not caused by feedback.
But it also turns out that a non-feedback radiation change causes a time-lagged temperature change which completely obscures the resulting feedback. In other words, it is not possible to measure the feedback in response to a radiatively induced temperature change that can not be accurately quantified (e.g., from chaotic cloud variations in the system). This is the subject of several of my previous blog postings, and is addressed in detail in our new JGR paper — now in review — entitled, “On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedbacks in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing”, by Spencer and Braswell).”
And when Roy says this:
“the real climate system cannot have a net negative feedback parameter and still be stable”
I think he is wrong; for instance if there is a [natural] increase in forcing such as is postulated from a cumulative PDO effect;
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
Why can’t the feedback be negative as Lindzen and Choi have found? The mechanism by which ENSO asymmetry produces a cumulative PDO effect is cloud cover which has a radiative effect;
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/sea-level-data-exposes-el-ninos-secret/
Roy speaks about lags; it would be interesting to see if the +ve radiative forcing periods of ENSO correlate with TOA increased LW leaving the Earth, the -ve feedback periods.
Watts has the article, but the UK Met has capitulated. They have announced a full recalculate of all 160 years of Temp data. Full and open process to take 3 years.
Luke, its over. BTW, anyone heard from SJT lately? Guess it just got too much for him.
Gavin, a comment?
Cohenite,
” it would be interesting to see if the +ve radiative forcing periods of ENSO correlate with TOA increased LW leaving the Earth, the -ve feedback periods.”
Have you taken a look at the data from the Lindzen/Choi paper?? Hopefully they would have included this, or, does it not include periods appropriate to your interest?
“Why can’t the feedback be negative as Lindzen and Choi have found?”
Isn’t this a similar problem as Positive feedback?? If the input energy drops below a threshold the negative feedback would send us on a one way trip to snowball earth??
My opinion is that feebacks change due to the numerous interactions within the earth system. Same for sensitivity. They depend on the actual interactions at the time. The actual properties of the materials in the system are the natural limiters for the feedabcks so we have a multiple input and output thermostat that keeps us within a large living range. That is, a strong positive feedback acts for a period, but, its action will cause changes in the interactions so that either it weakens itself or strengthens countering feedback(s). I think the idea of self limiting feedbacks and/or countering feedbacks is the only stable situation.
(think of an amp with an additional feedback that turns down the gain as the output power increases or turns it up as it decreases)
Sounds a little ad hoc, but, there are so many interactions that the system appears almost chaotic to us, yet, it appears to be exceptionally stable within a large range. We are talking a range of LIVEABLE conditions for how many millions of years?? And that is without air conditioning or life support!!!
Remember the interesting observation from Miskolczi?? That as CO2 increases water vapor decreases keeping a loose relationship?? This appears to be possible through the simple ability of the gas to hold the water vapor. All other conditions being equal, pressure, temperature, density… adding CO2 reduces the capacity of the atmosphere to support as much water vapor!! There are probably many other similar interactions that are simple physics to which we don’t pay attention, or just haven’t thought to check!!
I am just looking at energy in energy out right now. Whether the excess energy going out is from Solar irradiation, geothermal, cloud cover… doesn’t really matter. The AGW so called “energy balance” is trashed and they need to start over with their “PHYSICS” because they don’t WORK!! I’ll leave it to you smart guys to figure out the migraine causing details!!
Very rational, calm, well written article Jen .
This post at WUWT should be printed on the front page of every newspaper throughout the world.
Hi Folks
Just read the “West Australian” Newspaper for today. Page 20 has an article, basically pure propaganda, on global warming from Copenhagen. We still need to be diligent on hoax promoters.
here’s a leaked email I found whilst searching for something else:
848679780.txt
From: gjjenkins@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, deparker@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: 1996 global temperatures
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:23 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: llivingston@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, djcarson@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, ckfolland@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Phil
Remember all the fun we had last year over 1995 global temperatures,
with early release of information (via Oz), “inventing” the December
monthly value, letters to Nature etc etc?
I think we should have a cunning plan about what to do this year,
simply to avoid a lot of wasted time.
I have been discussing with David P and suggest the following:
1. By 20 Dec we will have land and sea data up to Nov
2. David (?) computes the December land anomaly based on 500hPa
heights up to 20 Dec.
3. We assume that Dec SST anomaly is the same as Nov
4. We can therefore give a good estimate of 1996 global temps by 20
Dec
5. We feed this selectively to Nick Nuttall (who has had this in the
past and seems now to expect special treatment) so that he can write
an article for the silly season. We could also give this to Neville
Nicholls??
6. We explain that data is provisional and how the data has been
created so early (ie the estimate for Dec) and also
7. We explain why the globe is 0.23k (or whatever the final figure is)
cooler than 95 (NAO reversal, slight La Nina). Also that global annual
avg is only accuirate to a few hundredths of a degree (we said this
last year – can we be more exact, eg PS/MS 0.05K or is this to big??)
8. FROM NOW ON WE ANSWER NO MORE ENQUIRIES ABOUT 1996 GLOBAL TEMPS BUT
EXPLAIN THAT IT WILL BE RELEASED IN JANUARY.
9. We relesae the final estimate on 20 Jan, with a joint UEA/MetO
press release. It may not evoke any interest by then.
10. For questions after the release to Nuttall, (I late Dec, early
Jan) we give the same answer as we gave him.
Are you happy with this, or can you suggest something better (ie
simpler)? I know it sound a bit cloak-and-dagger but its just meant to
save time in the long run.
Im copying this to DEP and CKF also for comments.
Cheers
At the time of the email Nick Nuttall worked for the UN environmental program. He’s now the Head honcho.
Libs have won in both by elections, if you add the deleted labor vote to the greens vote it is pretty hopeless, so after a horror week the libs will be home comfortably.
Sorry the two sceptic party candidates didn’t do better but it’s hard to raise a profile with any new group.
sweet………… up you luke!
Graeme Bird,
“So why on earth do you let an idiot like Luke, on your site. ”
Letting Luke make a continual public fool of himself is very good and constitutes the best approach as it shows people that free speech is fully supported here, as opposed to the censorship that is common to anyone questioning the AGW alarmist point of view on the ecomentalist blogs and their fellow travellers, and useful idiots, in the MSM.
Staying cool and not rising to the bait of people like Luke is well shown by Fraser Nelson here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw1DVj3r1Hg&feature=player_embedded
they can’t help themselves in spite of the reality.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/1.jpg
CoRev; since you asked, I’ve been rather flat-out in a vain attempt to recycle before the festive season descends on all and sundry. A huge amount of furniture etc has accumulated under our house. That’s target No 1
Its about this time too, we get serious about yard and street clean up after all trees around have shed half their foliage early in the hot dry winds. Also when the sun gets up now most of the ground gets covered in ants of various sizes. so it’s 4am starts and don’t stand anywhere too long. On the other hand, its small flies that bite most below the knees. It’s guaranteed frequent hot spells and sleepless nights from here on
I managed to get a load of litter to the “green” waste depot before breakfast yesterday thus avoiding the pre x mass rush and trailer dust as the country side deteriorates.
Neville. “Sorry the two sceptic party candidates didn’t do better-“ hey, do you really want some splinter group sitting up the back of parliament till the cows come home? With so many clowns up front, the public should be seeking leadership potential in the mainstream.
I noticed some one harping on about “world government” again. We could be excused for thinking the ancient “League of Rights” just climbed out of some ant hole above. Step on them quickly please. And we don’t need their like running round the back blocks before the next election either.
If you must, join the mainstream even Barnaby’s mob
“Government advisor Nicholas Stern estimated that 10 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions must be removed from the atmosphere by 2020 to cut global warming. Action pledged so far would only achieve half that.” (from yahoo news).
Ok so, Nicholas Stern is what an economist? And haven’t these loons already claimed that if we stop putting ANY more CO2 into the atmo, the 100 year residence time means that temp rise is irreversible? It’s no wonder that more and more people are finding it hard to keep believing this garbage.
Kuhnkat, you say, “Isn’t this a similar problem as Positive feedback?? If the input energy drops below a threshold the negative feedback would send us on a one way trip to snowball earth??” Not necessarily; as I said if there is a radiative positive forcing via the cloud mechanism I linked to in the context of asymmetrical ENSO where a temperature trend is generated in addition to oscillation, then negative feedback such as extra TOA outgoing LW radiation stops any tipping points from happening; this is straight out of the Miskolczi textbook, as is a static optical depth for the last 60 years;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
“Letting Luke make a continual public fool of himself is very good and constitutes the best approach as it shows people that free speech is fully supported here, as opposed to the censorship that is common to anyone questioning the AGW alarmist point of view on the ecomentalist blogs and their fellow travellers, and useful idiots, in the MSM.”
No you cannot soft-pedal it. They are always playing offense and we end up getting distracted from what the actual story is. Plus all these people were here to maliciously undermine Jennifer personally. This is what they live for. I don’t like to see someone getting hurt by being naive as to what low-down vermin these people really are. Each one a natural born traitor to this country. All of them lifelong parasites.
We ought to move things along and start getting serious about what is likely to happen the next time a supernova goes off close to us. I lack the capacity to figure all aspects of this matter out myself. What I’m good at is comparing ideas of the experts to see what it the more plausible story. Getting bogged down in this brazen science fraud is distracting us from authentic waves of nastiness heading our way from the centre of the galaxy.
“We ought to move things along and start getting serious about what is likely to happen the next time a supernova goes off close to us” – remember Hunter, KookyKat, Cohers – this is your boy – the face of “informed” sceptic reason. Let’s hear your support his position as the new climate policy ! Surely you agree – come on don’t be shy now.
Hey hey hey – we could get Birdy to testify at any inquiry to “help” you guys out. Let’s hear your support !
Keep going Bird. You’re onto something. On something.
hahahahahahahahahahaha
“What I’m good at is comparing ideas of the experts to see what it the more plausible story.”
yea – giggle….
If we claim Bird, will you claim Lovelock?
And of course, these nice folks fit right in with your extremism:
http://www.vhemt.org/
So much so, that I am wondering if you might like to support them directly.
BTW, the UK met office needs to hear form you about how unimportant climate gate is.
They are going to completely audit their records and open the books. How very unlike climate science that would be.
And do clarify for us, all of you Lukes: does the atmosphere still speak to you? Is it a whisper or direct telepathy? Maybe words emblazoned across the sky?
Graeme,
we understand your concern for a wonderful person, but, aren’t you underestimating her ability to deal with these types when necessary??
Lukefartard,
“yea – giggle….”
Your “wife” must love that cute giggle of yours!!
Cohenite,
“as is a static optical depth for the last 60 years;”
The graphs you linked show a steadily increasing optical depth similar to the steadily increasing fake temps. Is this real? Are we seeing it over a long enough period to get an idea of the actual state?? Should a curve be a better fit than linear??
Janama,
excellent find. If they will “make up” data just to save a little time…
I also notice that the real aim appears to be to give out a provisional higher mean early enough so that no one is watching when the real, lower, mean is posted to forestall questions of lack of warming!!
WoodForTrees show HadCrut was LOWER than both Satellites in that period!!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1996/to:1997/plot/rss/from:1996/to:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1996/to:1997/plot/gistemp/from:1996/to:1997
Not releasing the raw data or the adjustment procedures allows them to game it with no worry of being caught!! Too bad the code for CRU Temps were not in the leak. Wonder where it is??
Birdy
It’s the same everywhere on the blogosphere, if you wander into alien territory you will get beaten up. I spend quite a bit of time over at Deltoid (now that the Bolter is cutting back on expenses) and I get a lot of abuse. They are not big fans of the Hun refugees.
But its all good clean fun, a game of wits in a larrikin gang, respectful of the oracle host and mindful of the anti-trolls. The irony in all this is that I am a global cooling alarmist, but do you think anyone will listen?
Around here Luke is an officially sanctioned resident troll, so may I suggest we feed the troll and attract others to join the fray.
kuhnkat; the red line in the graph is the actual increase [ie about 0.03%] in OD; the blue line is what should have happened if AGW was correct about the effect of increased CO2; this gives an exposition;
http://landshape.org/enm/significance-of-global-warming/#more-1049
Thanks for support el gordo. Love is important.
The New Climate Change Deniers, ie those climate creationists who don’t “believe” the climate evolves naturally – therefore any climate change is the results of human sin and wickedness that shall be punished by the great Earth Goddess, Gaia, with an apocalypse of fire, drought, flood, rising oceans, pestilence, starvation and ultimately the collapse of civilization – still just don’t get what Climategate is all about…
Of course, why should they? Our own climate creationists, Luke, Gavin and STJ have repeated shown no fundamental grasp of the scientific method or even basic human curiosity into how nature works. They’re techno-dogmatists, dim of wit and with zero love for discovery.
Mann-made climate change was never about science. Science is simply the medium they appropriated to advance their socio-political agendas, rather like choral hymnals and Gothic cathedrals were the preferred medium to expresses the Christian faith and its particular socio-political agendas 800 years ago.
But the gig is up.
We want the data, the metadata, the codes, all of it freed for global public inspection on the Internet, not in three years after the Met Office re-fries the books one more time.. but NOW!
From The Times…
Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data
“The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.
The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.
The Met Office database is one of three main sources of temperature data analysis on which the UN’s main climate change science body relies for its assessment that global warming is a serious danger to the world. This assessment is the basis for next week’s climate change talks in Copenhagen aimed at cutting CO2 emissions.
The Government is attempting to stop the Met Office from carrying out the re-examination, arguing that it would be seized upon by climate change sceptics….”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece
Riiiiiight, the corrupt weather cops are going to investigate themselves and get back to us in, say, 1095 days.
Free the data, Free the code.
“The behavior of the CRU circle has cast a long shadow over the entire climate science community, and many honest scientists will now undeservedly bear the stigma of Climategate unless a full airing of the issues is conducted. Other important climate research centers with close ties to the CRU–including NASA’s Goddard Institute and the Climate Change Science Program at NOAA–should not be exempt from a full-dress investigation. Such a reevaluation must begin with an understanding of the crucial role the CRU circle has played in the global warming drama.”
“…There have been rumors for years about political pressure being brought to bear on the process to deliver scarier numbers, because the effects of a 2-3 degree increase in temperatures just weren’t going to be enough to justify the kind of emission reductions the greens want. And one of the largest uncertainties in the whole climate story is whether we can determine if the warming of the last 150 years (about 0.8 degrees Celsius) is outside of the long-term historical range, which would lend powerful confirmation to the computer climate models that spit out projections of unprecedented and potentially dangerous temperature increases in the decades to come, caused by the greenhouse gases produced by industrial societies.”
“….Under the pressure of Climategate, the CRU has finally agreed to release its raw data and computer codes. But now we learn that some of the raw data have been lost, and while Jones should be asked blunt questions about whether he made good on his threats to delete data, it is possible that the data were lost through sheer sloppiness. The most devastating document in the CRUtape letters may be not the egregious emails that have drawn most of the public attention but the detailed notes of a CRU programmer, Ian “Harry” Harris, assigned the task of sorting out the handling of the raw data and computer files.”
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=2
“…Climate change is a genuine phenomenon, and there is a nontrivial risk of major consequences in the future. Yet the hysteria of the global warming campaigners and their monomaniacal advocacy of absurdly expensive curbs on fossil fuel use have led to a political dead end that will become more apparent with the imminent collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process. I have long expected that 20 or so years from now we will look back on the turn-of-the-millennium climate hysteria in the same way we look back now on the population bomb hysteria of the late 1960s and early 1970s–as a phenomenon whose magnitude and effects were vastly overestimated, and whose proposed solutions were wrongheaded and often genuinely evil (such as the forced sterilizations of thousands of Indian men in the 1970s, much of it funded by the Ford Foundation). Today the climate campaigners want to forcibly sterilize the world’s energy supply, and until recently they looked to be within an ace of doing so. But even before Climategate, the campaign was beginning to resemble a Broadway musical that had run too long, with sagging box office and declining enthusiasm from a dwindling audience. Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it’s closing time for the climate horror show.”
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=1
Like I said, Luke-baby, the Climate Wars are all over but for the mopping up skirmishes. You gonna surrender nice? Or are you going to go out like some half-crazed, malarial Japanese foot soldier fighting to the bitter end on a long forgotten Pacific atoll? (We all remember how fond luko is of the Japanese…)
ROTFL
😉
“Like I said, Luke-baby, the Climate Wars are all over but for the mopping up skirmishes. You gonna surrender nice? ‘
wank wank – do go on Wes – WWII is over mate
no gig is up – I am 100% confident the answer will be about the same. Why – many lines of independent evidence. You really are having yourself on.
Your ability to pick the least profitable topics is nothing short of amazing.
And Hayward as source – ROTFL – just somehow looking bad over the years – this dude may be partisan in his view. Just call me intuitive.
hahahahahahahhahaha – pullease !
Luke, like many idiots, seems to exist under the working theory that his idiocy can change the universe around him. But the fact of the matter is that Supernova’s are associated with outsized volcanic behaviour here on earth. Lukes idiocy cannot change fundamental laws of nature. To give you all a bit of a hint how this works, consider the boxing day Tsunmai. The earthquake that created this Tsunami was 9.5 on the richter scale. The strongest earthquake measured since the late sixties. This earthquake was associated with a gamma ray blast maybe 100 times stronger than anything yet recorded. We have to change our way of thinking about how our planet works. Because the fact is we are intimately tied in with what happens in the galaxy.
Another example that shows this is what happened to the dinosaurs. In the space of three hundred thousand years they were subject to two giant asteroid attacks. And before that the most horrendous volcanic behaviour in India. The improbability of all these being independent events points to the same initial cause. Probably a close by supernova.
http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/GRB.html
Its established that Luke is an idiot. But I think that we merely must assume that his idiocy cannot change the way the Galaxy interacts with our planet.
“Birdy
It’s the same everywhere on the blogosphere, if you wander into alien territory you will get beaten up.”
Its the other way around. When did I ever get beaten up? They wind up having to lock me out. Its not all good clean fun. Its not funny anymore when someone loses her job. I think she should ban mindless idiots. They never come up with anything new. They refuse point blank to come up with evidence. Ban them.
See you get beat up. I don’t get beat up. Thats why I’m banned at Deltoid and you aren’t.
Cohenite,
“kuhnkat; the red line in the graph is the actual increase [ie about 0.03%] in OD; the blue line is what should have happened if AGW was correct about the effect of increased CO2; this gives an exposition;”
Thanks. I am close to being colorblind and often miss things on graphs without detailed explanations that I can correlate!! Yeah, it SUCKS!!
Lukefartard,
“no gig is up – I am 100% confident the answer will be about the same. Why – many lines of independent evidence. You really are having yourself on.”
100% confidence shows you are a Believer if not an actual Cultist Lukefartard!! Want to change that to 99.99999%?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this you Birdy? http://bigbirdbrain.wordpress.com/who-is-graeme-bird/
It’s not very flattering and is probably the reason you were banned from Deltoid, along with Girmer.
NASA has released news which shows that the balance between airborne and absorbed CO2 has not changed since 1850.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=41400&src=eorss-manews
In doing the study they didn’t ‘rely on computations with complex climate models’. That must be a breakthrough in itself, but knowing the carbon sinks are working okay is a blessed relief.
El Gordo. Bigbirdbrain a site that the failed faux-economist John Humphreys set up for me. Its got nothing to do with me being banned from Deltoid. I got banned from deltoid because I kept asking for evidence and Lambert couldn’t find any. He came up with these pdf’s that claimed a doubling of CO2 lead to a 3 degrees increase. I examined them. And there was no evidence in either of them. So he banned me. Because that was all he had. And after I showed them to be bogus he was tapped out. One of the pdf’s was from that tandem-riding Scotsman. Utterly useless and evidence-free.
I found more evidence linking Supernovas to outsized volcanism, in a single afternoon on google, and for free, then these morons found for their fraudulent CO2-cause after spending 100 billion dollars of other peoples money.
Kunkhat. She could deal with them but chooses not to. Its pretty clear that she underestimates their malice. Its easy to treat this as some sort of collegial disagreement rather than bile and treason. But after the months roll on and become years and this vermin still refuses to come up with evidence, then at some point one has to realise that one is encouraging fascism by letting these people speak in their destructive way.
The last time this crowd set up a centralised system with arm-twisting, connected to aid, they murdered tens of millions of black kids. This is what these people are gunning for again. Or else what is motivating them? They certainly aren’t the least bit interested in talking about science. Or learning about science. It is hard to imagine the malice of others because we tend to judge others in terms of ourselves. But white maggot scum and their appeasers got her fired. That to me would show that their malice is there and very real.
Am I hearing this right that Jennifer was fired (from work) over her stance on AGW?
If so, you go for your life on the supa nova stuff Bird.
Take heart from knowing you’re on the winning side of history here Jen.
I think even Luke probably realises what sceptics are up against.
Of course she was. If people tell the truth about where the evidence stands, and become effective, they get fired. Thats been the case pretty much all the way down the line and exceptions have been pretty rare. Exceptions are usually to do with tenure. Its one of those cases where someone who disagreed would have to prove otherwise.
Now Birdy – let’s fire up the single neuron to a state where it might start firing. Do you think the IPA would be supportive of AGW or not. Take a wild guess.
Remember boys – he’s your ally !! Cohers – get Birdy to help you in public forums. Should ensure you massive support with his unique insights. LOL….
“…… go for your life on the supa nova stuff ………”
This is the real threat that the fake threat is hiding. And here is the problem. The scientists of all kind defer to the Physics high masters. And their deference is buttressed by maths-obscurantism and by the cult of personality. But despite all that the fact is that no-one knows what gravity is. You read that right. No mainstreamer at least. There are two mainstream models of gravity. The Newton model and the model that Einstein put about. But Newton admitted he didn’t know what was causing gravity. He didn’t have a cause. He only had the maths for Stella bodies. His maths doesn’t work even out of the solar system, though they try to twist it so it does. Einsteins theory can be dealt with quickly. It is merely ridiculous and explains nothing. So we need a major rewrite as a matter of urgency. But that rewrite cannot come without privatising science. The non-commercial side of which is in a shocking state.
Now whilst all of physics needs reworking from the bottom up one thing that Newton said seems to be entirely true. And that is that forces always come in pairs. Equal and opposite. And forces are never any other way then that. Which means that if you have the force of gravity working on 7000 kilometres of material down to the centre of the earth, then you have an equal and opposite force pointing straight up. This force must be the force of compression. A spring-loaded force as it were. So if gravity fails, even a little bit for just a nano-second, then there can be consequences and ramifications. Now it seems that large rotating bodies, when they line up, can in fact affect each-others magnetic fields and each-others gravity. Since the force of gravity is so finely balanced with the force of compression, this idea ought to be a fearful conclusion to come to. If gravity is real and not an occult occurrence then it can be affected. ‘If it bleeds we can kill it” as it were.
Because of the above a shockwave coming from the centre of of the galaxy and leading to a star closer to us going supernova, ought to set off a chain reaction of nasty occurrences. Not just one thing, but a devastating series of disasters the likes of which the dinosaurs suffered. At the very least massive volcanic behaviour and gamma ray bursts. At the worst a planet blowing up in our solar system. Or a moon of Jupiter losing its orbit. Coronal mass ejections. All this sort of stuff. The sort of chain of bad breaks that would explain extinction events.
Now we are overdue for a supernova. The last one was more than 400 years ago. We have to gear up to deal with nuclear intimidation anyhow. So we ought to be thinking about other things that will happen that we need to adapt to. We cannot do this while this science fraud of CO2-emissions is dogging our every step.
Well if they fired Jennifer, they certainly boobooed there, that’s fer sure.
Keep writing your fine articles Jen and the right people will beat a path to your door.
The winds of change are a’blowin’…..;-)
Could we get some confirmation on Jen being sacked from the IPA because of her heretical views? And how come Birdy knows so much?
“Now Birdy – let’s fire up the single neuron to a state where it might start firing. Do you think the IPA would be supportive of AGW or not. Take a wild guess.”
Quisling neoclassicals. People whose grasp of economics is so very unsound that they think comparative advantage implies that we lose all our manufacturing. An embarrassing bunch who don’t seem to understand anything about monetary economics or capital theory. Rabid proponents of the carbon tax. Blood-sucker-centrals loyal opposition. Worst of all they are such bad economists they cannot get their head around science. All analysis is holistic. One or two individuals within this group might be OK. You know who you are. But they didn’t renew Dr Marohasy’s contract. What do you think I’m going to say about them? Weak. Feeble. Barely men. Cronytown partisans with a free enterprise mask.
“Could we get some confirmation on Jen being sacked from the IPA because of her heretical views? And how come Birdy knows so much?”
No of course they cannot. Its the default position until somebody proves otherwise. What are you? Born yesterday? Do you know that they didn’t renew the contract for some other reason? You sound like you just showed up from Mars on the back of a delapidated space-ship with only a hayseed between your teeth. You think they fired her because they didn’t like having a woman around?
You are being nasty and threatening. No doubt about that at all. You know full well that unfair dismissals are such that every employer now puts a file of semi-plausible bullshitartistry up against any employee they want to get rid of. Rubbish going years back. Humiliating muck-raking. Stuff that becomes real only if its put to the test. Don’t be stupid. We know how this works. You don’t toe the line on the CO2 fraud you are out. Stupid white people in government talk cryptically to the boss. Grave hints of loss of contracts come up. Its not a case of me knowing anything. Its the default position until proved otherwise.
Let’s pretend I just showed up from Mars and its news to me that Jen’s been sacked. I know the devil’s in the detail, but I’m very patient. Tell us all you know Birdy, otherwise I will have to assume you are making it all up.
Carbonite,
Isn’t Ferenc’s graph:
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
definitive observational evidence that there has been no discernable increase in the optical depth of the atmosphere since 1948? I would assume that the graph you cite would be sensitive to changes in the optical depth in the infra-red where water vapor and CO2 are absorbed, since the blue line shows the expected change from the increase in CO2.
Isn’t this the ultimate smoking gun which shows (from DIRECT OBSERVATION) that the increase in optical depth of the atmosphere caused by CO2 is being negated by a corresponding decrease in the water column density.
If this is true – isn’t AGW finished. Maybe I don’t understand but surely this should be enough to completely bury the idea that CO2 is warming the planet!
This is a movement without evidence. The proponents try to bring their fraud into existence by attacks on the other side without recourse to evidence in favour of their theory. So we don’t need Ferenc’s graph. We await one of these idiots to come up with some evidence. That they will not do so means this matter is science fraud before Ferenc even gets up in the morning. El Gordo will you quit your malicious idiocy. Getting fired is a matter fraught with all sorts of defamatory allegations, most held in reserve. Stop acting like a two year old. No-one was ever going to spell it out for anyone else.
Ninderthana; ” bury the idea that CO2 is warming the planet”; you mean like sequestration?
Carbonite,
Please try to be serious! Can you give me an opinion as to whether or not you think the experimental radisonde data is sufficiently accurate to support the contention that the infra-red opacity of the Earth’s atmospher has been essentially constant over the last 61 years. If it has then this is world shattering news. It means that the arguement is over.
If I do not get a sensible reply them I will assume that you just want this whole bloody nightmare to continue because you like arguing for arguings sake.
Carbonite,
Here is a reasonable sensible quopte from you at the Nich Modelling site from about a year ago. Have your views progressed from here?
“Good; then its a model for all seasons; I have, however, assumed that the optical depth would alter for temperature variation to happen but that would not occur with variations just in the IR absorbers, which, as shown by the RH decline, compensate; the optical depth would only alter with changes in external energy ie; solar. Time for a rethink.”
Well, if you say so Nindy; personally I did give an opinion some time ago about the radiative effect of cloud variations to explain ENSO asymmetry or accumulation if you like; that extra incoming has to go somewhere and Lindzen and Choi appear to have found an increase in TOA outgoing LW; how can that be with extra CO2, which according to Eli doesn’t have a logarithmic decline [see his most recent post]; reduced SH appears to be one possible answer and Paltridge, Arking and Pook appear to have confirmed that, although Dessler and Sherwood would disagree, although how Sherwood found time to write a paper with all that e-mailing he was doing is anybody’s guess.
Thanks carbonite – I will track down Eli’s comments and the work by Dressler and Sherwood.
Keep Trucking….
Within Climategate resides a strange political conundrum which, thus far, none seem to have noticed.
That is, where are the anti-globalists? Surely, the Battle of Seattle and other events demonstrated the fervor of anti-globalist sentiment. Yet now, we’re looking at a globalization event in Copenhagen, with world leaders considering a clearly globalist agenda — global control of energy. The anti-globalists are silent.
Thousands of emails and other documents from the UK’s CRU reveal — well, they basically reveal all sorts of things that anti-globalists would gleefully sieze upon, you would think. Even riot about, actually. But no, the anti-globalists are silent on that, too.
It might make a bit of sense to label the ‘climate skeptics’ as anti-globalist, since a lot of them express a great deal of distaste for global control of energy, and the concomitant loss of national sovereignty. The trouble is, these people don’t appear to be riot-prone. In fact, I don’t see any of them advocating riots, either. So these people might be *neo*-anti-globalists.
So, what the devil is going on? Where are the anti-globalists?
Seattle and that crowd weren’t anti-globalists per se. They were anti-free-trade. Nowadays I’d be against so-called free trade deals on the grounds that they were really thinly disguised globalist deals. Not on the grounds that they meant freer trade. Thats your answer there. They were never anti-globalist. They hated the trade. Those same guys who were protesting Seattle would not be protesting it today. They would be wanting to bring it on. Because they would now know that free trade deals didn’t mean free trade. They would now know it meant global governance. You say where are they? I say they are on board with this treason.
Thanks, Graeme.
Meanwhile, someone in this thread made a rather distressing remark about Jennifer being ‘sacked’. I haven’t been able to locate news to that effect on the web, but I did find her bio at the IPA has been amended to read that she “was a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs between 2004 and 2009.”
Also, the page listing current IPA personnel makes no mention of her.
I sincerely hope someone here will be able to get to the bottom of this, and that, if the circumstances warrant it, that everyone here will raise a stink over the event. In my estimation, this is the world’s premiere environmental blog, and we all owe Jen a debt of gratitude which justly would be repaid by our support of her career.
Bird – don’t you think you’re an utter impertinence speculating on any circumstances of Jen’s employment. I suggest you know nothing about the issue and it’s her business.
But this is the sort of loose flim flam type of evidence that you indulge in. (1) create a wanky thought (2) 24 hours later decide it’s fact. In fact you’re good at it.
Obama’s Poodle?
KEVIN Rudd has shelved plans for an early dash to Copenhagen after US President Barack Obama said he was not going until the late stages of the climate change conference, in the hope of closing a deal.
The White House announced over the weekend that Mr Obama would push back his visit to the conference until its final day, putting him in a better position to help broker an agreement.
Mr Rudd, who had the RAAF on standby for a snap trip to Denmark, will now attend the late stages of the conference.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-calls-off-early-dash-to-copenhagen/story-e6frg6xf-1225807517896
Rudd Runs Away from ETS Debate!
“KEVIN Rudd is ignoring a challenge from Tony Abbott for a series of public debates on climate change.
Instead, the prime minister believes the opposition leader needs to sort out his policy on climate change, which was junked when he took on the Liberal leadership.
One of Mr Abbott’s first moves as opposition leader was to ditch support for an emissions trading scheme and rule out a carbon tax.
He believes the public has concerns about Labor’s support for an ETS, which was rejected by the parliament for a second time last Wednesday.
The Liberals comfortably retained the seats in Bradfield and Higgins in two by-elections on Saturday, defying expectations of a voter backlash because of the change in policy.
He wants the debates to be held before parliament resumes on February 2, next year, when the Rudd government plans to reintroduce the ETS legislation.
Even Australian Greens leader Bob Brown wants in.
But Mr Rudd knocked that idea on the head.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-snubs-tony-abbott-challenge-to-climate-change-debate/story-e6frf7jo-1225807472423
That’s right, Rudd wants to pass the ETS with no public debate. And I thought we live in a democracy? Silly me.
Fact is, ETS can’t withstand the light of day, much less and open and free debate broadcast live into people’s living room.
Luke, our resident climate creationist is 100% sure that nothing has changed since Climategate. Maybe he’s got one of those nintendo climate models reprogrammed to predicted the future?
So maybe Lukio would like to punt on whether the ETS will ever become the law of the land?
Free the code, free the data. Open the Debate!
Climate Scientist to Revkin: “we can no longer trust you” to carry water for us.
Posted in Environment by Steven Hayward
“Okay folks, here comes a new e-mail from the climate community yesterday that I did not hack (I was copied on it), and it is a case study in not getting it. Back story: Ever since Chris Horner and I were at a conference together with warmenist Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois a couple years ago, Chris and I have been included on Prof. Schesingler’s e-mail distribution list, which usually consist of flagging climate news stories. Yesterday we got copied on this message Schlesinger sent to New York Times science reporter Andy Revkin:
Andy:
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage. [Emphasis added.]
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
Michael
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/climate-scientist-to-revkin-we-can-lo-longer-trust-you-to-carry-water-for-us.php
The “Big Cutoff”, eh? Maybe Professor Luke can explain to us what that bit of climatological jargon means in lay-man’s terms.
I have often raised this point on Jen’s blog about Luke, Gavin, STJ and other climate creationists. Why do these people have no sense of humor or perhaps more precisely a sense of wonder and giddy excitement at the sheer magnificence of the natural world? Luke’s 100% sure of everything. Gavin only see tales of death and depression in his doom-ladened back garden. The science is settle. Debate over. Don’t ask questions. Recite the dogma or STFU.
Yet every researcher that I ever studied or worked with was at times awe-struck by the vastness of what they did not yet know and often bemused by puzzles and conundrums that nature presented rather than frustrated or doctrinaire.
Again, Steven Hayward:
“This raises another small but perhaps significant point that I didn’t have room to comment on in my Weekly Standard article: How is it possible for a group of smart people to write over 1,000 e-mails over the course of a decade without a single shred of wit or humor in any of them? There isn’t the tiniest hint anywhere that any of these guys ever grin. It jives with my experience of environmentalists for 20 years now that they are the single most humorless slice of humanity on the planet. (My favorite: I had a top greenie lawyer for the Audubon Society once say at a conference that “I regard the National Association of Home Builders to be every bit as evil as the National Rifle Association.” My comeback was: “I can understand why you’d think that about the home builders, but what’s your problem with the NRA?” The guy didn’t even crack a smile.) And here we see Andy Revkin threatened with a “cutoff” because he writes–on a blog–something mildly amusing about Copenhagen.”
http://nlt.ashbrook.org/2009/12/climate-scientist-to-revkin-we-can-lo-longer-trust-you-to-carry-water-for-us.php
Birdy
We can all spread rumor an innuendo. My slant is that Jen’s is on her Xmas break, out and about writing a book, plus an occasional article in the msm. Nothing untoward and so I assume you are just a poor confused troll with nowhere to hang out.
Hypocrisy in Action:
“Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.
Ms Jorgensen reckons that between her and her rivals the total number of limos in Copenhagen next week has already broken the 1,200 barrier. The French alone rang up on Thursday and ordered another 42. “We haven’t got enough limos in the country to fulfil the demand,” she says. “We’re having to drive them in hundreds of miles from Germany and Sweden.”
And the total number of electric cars or hybrids among that number? “Five,” says Ms Jorgensen. “The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don’t have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it’s very Danish.”
The airport says it is expecting up to 140 extra private jets during the peak period alone, so far over its capacity that the planes will have to fly off to regional airports – or to Sweden – to park, returning to Copenhagen to pick up their VIP passengers….”
“The temptation, then, is to dismiss the whole thing as a ridiculous circus. Many of the participants do not really need to be here. And far from “saving the world,” the world’s leaders have already agreed that this conference will not produce any kind of binding deal, merely an interim statement of intent.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Copenhagen will sort out a great many things.
Rioters ‘for hire’ can be found many places. Thing is, it takes money to hire rioters.
We will see if the money shows up for the rioters.
My guess — a dead bust. No money means no rioters. There’s always going to be some fringe freaks, but it’s all over.
Graeme, friends and others,
It looks like Graeme is spot-on with his analysis. What’s more, the theme of ‘carbon globalization’ and ‘anti-globalism’ and ‘environmentalism’ has been taken up in a quite insightful article in Der Spiegel.
“Is global warming the new globalization? Environmental activists are hoping that demonstrations at next month’s climate summit in Denmark can forge a protest movement like the anti-globalization movement seen after the WTO riots in 1999. But the Danish authorities have other ideas.”
Read the rest at:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,663142,00.html
It’s all good.
Having perviously been ambivalent about a Royal Commission, the way Copenhagen madness is unfolding in spite of Climategate, I am now of the opinion that a RC would bring back some sanity.
Here’s one that’s on offer:
Whoops! The link disappeared.
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/
Copenhagen is in the same spirit of anti-democracy, anti-localism, anti-sovereignty that we see from the EU conspiracy. When there is a vote in favour of the EU they say “We move forward” and the result of that vote is never locked in. When a vote goes against them they say “We go on” but this sort of vote by contrast is a temporary setback. A no vote for these people doesn’t mean they are a problem. It means the people who voted against them have a problem. And so the vote will be continued until they get the vote they want and then the verdict is locked in. So Paulson gets a no vote against a bank bailout, the victory for the US people is no victory at all. The vote must be repeated. When Paulson gets the vote he wants it is locked in.
So it goes for Copenhagen. We have a chorus of voices saying that they won’t get a vote in Copenhagen? Does this soothsaying make it alright? This time around they are voting for global government itself. The reaction to this malevolence has lead Tony Abbot to the leadership of the opposition. The ETS gets voted out. What is the reaction to this? “Delay is the new denial.” Rudd confessing to wanting to give away our sovereignty (ie commit treason) in Copenhagen. He’s totally in contempt of us.
Notice that for almost the first time we have “leaders” that have never held down a proper job. Barry Soetoro and Kevin Rudd. Neither of them have worked a free enterprise job of any duration. These are real dummies and alien to the normal man. But yet somehow they managed to get the top job. Both of these guys will in fact want to sign something in Copenhagen. They will in fact want to betray their respective countries. A lot of leaders of poor countries will sign under the control of international schemers, since they think they will get funding. So this excuse that Malcolm Turnbull had that nobody was going to sign anything was a disgusting bait and switch. Because if they do sign something, Malcolm and all the other traitors will suggest that the matter is locked in. Hey El Gordo you dirty freak. How about take your intimidation elsewhere? I know what you are up to you poisonous little git. You want the former employer to react in a frenzy of self-justification. What lowdown slime you are.
As a mere novice in this debate, does IPCC stand for ‘Intellectually Preposterous Climate Caper’? Possibly the words ‘Copenhagen’ and ‘circus’ should also be added, making it IPCCCC. I still bet it’s going to be bloody cold in Denmark, if early snow in the US is any indicator of northern hemisphere trends. But will Archbishop Tutu and Prince Charles notice?
Birdy
I come here for a rest, what’s with the ad homs? It’s true then, you are a bright clown.
If you keep on with this I’ll have to get help from Luke, to put you in your place.
Don’t come here to rest if resting is just trying to make people feel bad. What sort of things do you think an employers going to say if they are pushed into justifying cowardly behaviour? Lukes an anonymous bunch of idiots playing tag-team. They are too stupid to put anyone in their place. They are just parasites biting the hand that feeds them.
Nature is not fooled. And when we allow people to live off us, they caper about like arrogant baboons. Them being on the top of the food chain, and on this forum anonymous. This psychological fact is why we can only solve our problems with mass-sackings. Get your feeble act back to Deltoid. Thats where you belong.
I have just had a glance at the Copenhagen forecast for the coming week. Some rain, and near zero temperatures. Any rent-a-crowd should have a jolly time, especially if the Danish police use their new water cannon.
About twenty years ago, I was reading in the Brussels University library. It was winter, and there was a student ‘manifestation’ on the football field outside. The gendarmes arrived in small armored cars, with water cannon. They soaked the assembly, and quietly returned to barracks. The ‘manifestation’ quickly dissolved. Blue and shivering students took refuge in the warm library, including, I was pleased to note, one particularly obnoxious and mouthy kid with an opinion on everything environmental.
Hmmm…let’s get serious Birdman, take your medication.
Don’t talk idiocy gordo. There is nothing incorrect about what I’ve been saying above. Get back to work in your public sector job. At least pretend to be doing something worthwhile. Go through the motions at the very least.
TROLL ALERT
Birdman is trying to close this blog down.
He is a conspiratorial nutter, changes his stories and lies like a pig in mud. An unregulated troll of his professional calibre really knows how to bore people to death.
Don’t take my word for it, see what others say…http://graemebirdforum.wordpress.com/
Go to deltoid Gordo you lying troll. Whatever “troll” means. Dumb lefty talk for someone that doesn’t fall in line with mindless whining lefties. .
Agree Birdy,
You are monopolising this blog with unreadable drivel.
Have a rest for a while.
Pikey.
HAHAHAHAHA “don’t take my word for it SEE WHAT OTHERS SAY!!!”
That would seem to be the motto of the global warming left. Go away gordo. We look down on people who cannot think for themselves here.
No you are lying Pike. Gordo is forcing me to retaliate against him. He is the problem. You should tell him to get lost. If you are having trouble understanding something I’ve written, ask questions. The fault is all your own. Perhaps you are just not that bright.
What you are finding hard to read Pike. I’m calling you out as a liar. What is your definition of “drivel” fool?
I agree with Ron Pike. There is possibly a legal category of ‘vexatious blogger’. Isn’t Cohenite a lawyer? Perhaps he can advise. Jen, didn’t you close down Pinxi at one time?
Birdy, you need professional help.
Just for the record everyone, I’m voting for the conservatives because Cory and Barnaby will be moving to the front bench.
Global warming is a crock!
If you agree with Pike keep it to yourself you jerk. Here you have had years to complain about Luke, who is utterly useless and here all the time month in and month out. But now you are all piling on out of pure gutlessness. I think you ought to focus on science a little bit more rather than appeasing leftists. Some deltoid-lover calls out the code-work “troll” which none of you can supply a definition for, and you all pile on. The problem came with gordo being malicious, and forcing me to retaliate against him.
“Birdy, you need professional help.”
You see that? The root cause of the alleged problem is gordo here. He doesn’t want to talk about science and he isn’t about to go away.
Glenn Milne has a column today comparing the labor booths in the Higgins and Bradfield electorates with the 2007 election results.
It seems the swings in these booths favoured the liberal candidates and were substantial compared to 2007.
It seems labor voters didn’t want the new $120 Billion tax slug by labor that would have zero effect on climate and may as well be flushed down the dunny.
Meanwhile Kelly O’ Dwyer has just passed 60% of the 2 party preffered vote outpolling her old boss Peter by at least 3%, a remarkable effort.
It is a remarkable effort and will be roundly applauded by rational people everywhere. Before the election all the commentators thought there would be a swing away from the Libs, but they were wrong.
Hooray! The tide has just turned.
I suspect the legal term for a ‘vexatious blogger’ is a ‘silly blugger’. What say, m’learned friend? Luke, do the honorable thing, and join the AEF.
Birdy,
“Drivel:” To speak and write childishly and idotically.
Birdy,
To demand authority by abuse (as you do) is to demean reason.
Truth is never accepted from a loud and harping voice.
Given your response, I rest my case.
Pikey.
What particular scientific debate were you relating too? I don’t think you had an argument. You weren’t being specific. Therefore you were taking an anti-intellectual approach. Actually your wording was ambiguous. And what with Green Davey going after Luke I was almost beginning to think you guys weren’t piling on afterall. And maybe you were doing the right thing and going after Gordo and Luke and not me.
Now you are alleged to be a scientist Ron. Don’t rest your case prior to you making one. What set this silliness off? I’ve got to guess that it was what I said about gravity. About us not having a proper mainstream theory of gravity. Thats just a fact. I would tell you that you had to learn to live with it. But far from resting your case you haven’t made one yet. You have not told me what the topic is.
You aren’t up to it I sez.
But what to do with Turnbull? With friends like that…….
He seems determined to destroy Abbott and the Libs.
What is it about ousted leaders and their wounded egos?
If it wasn’t so serious it’d be sad.
Teflon kevvie!
Yes Drongo, I could not understand why they had him as a member, & particularly as a leader.
He showed all the same behaviour after the republic failure.
He is not someone I would want in any organisation I was part of.
I would put it down to Turnbull being a CO2-bedwetter. We’ve got these people in the LDP. You cannot reason with these guys. If you debate them they go silent and come back with their rubbish at another date. They are dishonest. They never argue honestly. If they are economists they claim that the economic argument and cost imposition can go forward without agreement as to the science. Next minute you turn around and they are accepting the bad science.
What you notice with every CO2-bedwetter is that their constituency is not the general public. Both Kevin and Malcolm are playing to the public sector sentiment and may be both going for international jobs.
(Ron if you can get nine-tenths of my posts wiped I’m fine with that. But it would be good if they were wiped in pairs with the ones I’m retaliating against. Sooner or later we have to realise that there are people here in bad faith. If you want to gainsay a specific scientific thing I’ve said then lets have it out in the open. Don’t be saying everything I write is drivel. Thats going way above your level of competence).
Graeme Bird,
You are doing for skeptics what Luke did for true believers.
Please, take a break.
If AGW promoters cut-off Andy Revkin over his daring to ask a few questions, and pointing out some similarities between certain AGW promoters and an ancient profession, then things are going to unwind even more quickly than I had hoped.
By the way, here is a nifty poster that should be hung in every enviro-wacko office and home:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/stop_breathing_epa.jpg
The Lords of Carbon, do as we command, not as we do.
“For the delegates to the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit, inconvenient truths abound. Not the least of which is the prediction that attendees will generate a carbon footprint equal to all of Morocco’s for 2006. And that’s not even counting ClimateGate…”
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/283333
As the global summit on climate change gets under way in Copenhagen, Tunku Varadarajan offers an eyebrow-raising A-Z guide to the proceedings.
Very nearly a hundred years ago, Ambrose Bierce compiled A Devil’s Dictionary, in which he sought to puncture the cultural cant of his time. Here is an attempt—at much shorter length—to prick a very contemporary kind of cant, that which has swollen the debate on climate change to ungovernable proportions.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-12-06/exposing-copenhagenrsquos-hot-air/
Jeez, Climategate is the gift that just keeps on giving! Click for some fun links:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1503
“The scientists have been tied up and gagged in the back room”
“The unravelling of the AGW fraud continues to provide an entertaining mix of high drama and low comedy. My favorite recent entry on the CRU mob is a screed from a professor of mathematics in Canada: “All of my colleagues have had to endure these bullies and criminals for a very long time.”
Then there’s David Bellamy’s tale of being canned from a very successful science-popularizer gig on the BBC because he dared to speak anti-AGW heresy.
That’s a theme in a lot of recent revelations. As long as the lid was on the CRU’s fraud, nobody dared speak up about for fear of being dismissed as a crank. Now that the AGW crowd’s power to suppress dissent has been broken, expect to hear a lot more actual scientists — not politicians, but scientists — coming forward to confirm that the emperor has no clothes.
For the “low comedy” part, return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear when Time Magazine was predicting catastrophic global cooling. And Newsweek, too. It’s hilarious how easy it is to substitute “warning” for “cooling” and have an article that could have been written last week.
For more low comedy, at least one news story alleges that the IPCC intends to investigate the allegations of CRU misconduct. Yup, I’m sure; the kleptocrats in our permanent political class don’t like it when their plans for a power grab go awry, and the U.N.’s contingent doubtless wants to know who’s to blame for this debacle. For some reason, the phrase “the prisoner was shot while attempting to escape” keeps running through my head…”
This film is disgusting!
COP15 in Copenhagen opened with a short film titled, ‘Please help the world’. You can see it on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4
As you watch it, bear in mind that this film is meant to set the tone for the COP15 conference.
The floods and falling icebergs are great, but my favorite is the Tornado That Eats The City. The polar bear is a nice touch, though. The scariest part is in the end, though, when it turns out that those offering most of the advice to the audience are, literally, scared children.
Ghastly.
“Graeme Bird,
You are doing for skeptics what Luke did for true believers.
Please, take a break.”
Shows how much you know. Luke was powerfully effective for his side or he would not have did what he did. Leftists have it all over conservatives with tactics. Thats why conservatives almost always lose even though they usually have the balance of truth on their side in the core issue. You are too impressed with yourself to notice the effectiveness of Luke and his ilk.
If I asked any of you to explain the situation with climate from the ground up, we would find that your explanation was full of holes. Luke and his type have successfully obstructed understanding on the highest levels. Since the fact is that even conservative climate scientists are not fully abreast of their subject. Being thrust into the limelight in a situation of utter fear, they are too scared to ask about the simple stuff.
Its a multi-disciplinary field. It was no-ones specialty. What needed to happen is that people who were smart generally, and fine within their own specialty, needed to talk and ask questions, stupid and otherwise, without fear of being recorded, played back and discredited. The sort of environment that the Lukes created meant that governments could spend 100 billion dollars and few people really understand what was going on.
Hunter you got to be a complete idiot to think Luke hasn’t been effective.
No-one, even on this forum, probably the best climate science forum in 2008, has ever written a comprehensive explanation of how the climate works and why this CO2 business is so overpoweringly silly. No-one has gone through systematically to explain why “the greenhouse effect” is a total misnomer. And why the theory of backradiation isn’t why these greenhouse gases do part of what they are alleged to do.
Worse then that, even on this forum where there was massed a lot of expertise, it remained the case that few would be able to write such a thread if they were put up to the task. Supposing you were asked to write an essay “So you think you believe in global warming” or “So you think you believe in the greenhouse effect?”could you do it? And explain exactly what is right and what is wrong about the theory of the greenhouse effect?
If you are just too pig-ignorant to understand how effective Luke and the others have been you explain to me how the public servants of the world could have let us down this badly? A racket that never had anything going for it. Look how long its gone on already and how much momentum it still has? Look how it captured both sides of politics everywhere?
If you other taxeaters, in all your politeness, who are so keen to extend collegial courtesy’s to your alarmist other selves …….. if you alleged skeptic taxeaters reckon being indulgent with these lunatics is so powerfully effective as a tactic, well why haven’t you won already?
You haven’t won, because you don’t care, because you don’t pay the bills.
Where did you get the idea that Luke wasn’t effective hunter? You know nothing about the subject of the effectiveness of leftist tactics. Don’t pretend you are some adept at this sort of thing. You won’t be effective until you are willing to start getting these people banned from blogs and fired from the public sector. Simple as that. And until you start doing this you will be selling out your taxpaying benefactors.
Well wes; the cat’s among the pigeons now with this fresh top down approach US style hitting deep into our MSM and Copenhagen.
Bullies on the far right should shiver a lot as we get on with co2 etc REGULATION!
In the absence of timely agreed ETS or carbon taxing schemes. EPS is going to be the way forward for forward thinking governments and in my estimation this won’t be a rag tag movement down the track.
With more refined instrumentation than we had during the post war overhaul of major manufacturing and public infrastructure EP negotiations further clamps on effluent gas pollution it will be easy enough to get breach of PERMIT policing underway at an affordable cost.
Recall; permits to pollute are the first stage of harmful effluent reduction and most major economies got used to them some time ago particularly in regard to air and water quality around cities.
I see an increasingly difficult Environment Protection landscape ahead of all new coal and oil burning projects that don’t reduce a country’s overall CO2 production after Copenhagen
Graeme – I think Hunter was referring to your appalling attitude and language!
Mr. Bird, Then call me a complete idiot.
But I would point out that the tactics the Luke ensemble represents are a large reason as to why people are rightfully suspicious of AGW hype.
To attribute to the Luke some sort of great capability is to assign succcess to a neverwuzzer. Luke is a teeny tiny pipsqueek in the AGW promotion machine. He is a fun distraction- a natural clown, as it were.
Now that the veneer of authority irt AGW is showing itself to be paper thin, and others suppressed or damaged by Luke-esque tactics of real AGW hypesters are coming forth, perhaps it would be wise to re-think how effective Luke has in reality been?
In Australia, where AGW was nearly state religion, it seems to losing political steam rapidly.
In the US, ‘climate change’ is becoming the punch line, and AGW promoters who used Luke-esque tactics are the joke.
Brown in the UK is a political dead man.
People know when they are getting brow beaten, something is not right.
The Luke does nothing but.
To the extent that you do the same, and I would suggest that going straight to name calling with me is a pretty good extent, you make a strong case for being a sort of anti-Luke.
AGW falls apart because it is apocalyptic clap trap.
Good people through out history have fallen for apocalyptic clap trap.
Giving them a graceful, face saving way out of an embarassing mistake is always a good idea.
Some, like Luke, deserve the heat they get, plus it is fun to watch the contortions.
But using a battle hammer, when a simple stilletto will do, to pop the AGW balloon is counter productive. Hitting baloons with hammers is not effective.
Leftist tactics implode on their own. We only need to encourage the process.
Using such broad, misapplied brush strokes that paint me, and people like me, as part of a leftist trend is indicative of a severe vision problem on your part.
Conversing only in a shout is not productive. You may want to consider working on your range of voice.
As usual gavin you find delight in new regulatory measures [EPA designates CO2 to be a poison; a singularly stupid act] which will undermine the efficient supply of energy to society; people will suffer because of this just to satisfy your’s and the prevailing madness of this time; I find your folksy cruelty more repellant than Birdy’s tirades.
gavin,
Congress, with climate gate and the courts get through with it, will be de-funding the sort of junk you are mentioning.
The victims of infantile ideas like CO2 regulation will be voting soon. and we are all victims of stupid policies that think taxing CO2 is going to manage the climate.
Congress will likely be very different in about one year. Obama will have no money to pay for enforcment when this is finished.
Unfortunately Graeme Bird appears again as a wrecker, but we know he can write a decent contribution on occasions, therefore it’s most annoying when he chooses not to
Luke’s ‘effectiveness’ is actually a quite engaging topic. I personally never found him very effective, except on one point, which I will explain later.
I would imagine people on his side of the fence found him quite effective. They may have found his rhetoric to be a point around which they could rally. But other than that, not really — because Luke is first and foremost, about rhetoric. Sure, once in a while he does a blue-smoke-and-mirrors trick with a dodgy paper once in a while, which is much admired by his cohort. But even then, if he’s convincing anyone of anything, it’s still only the people on ‘his side’.
To be effective, you need to convince people on the other side of the fence, or at least some of the fence-sitters. I didn’t see Luke doing much of that at all, and so, Graeme, I’ll have to disagree with you somewhat.
After all, there *is* something Luke was quite effective at — and I only noticed it recently while giving a presentation at a scientific conference (not climate science). One of the presenters at the conference made the observation that work in our field would contribute greatly to solving the problem of global warming.
I pointed out that the primary benefits in our field were not found in climatology, that we were not climatologists, nor claiming to be, and that there were plenty of indications that climatology was dodgy enough that we’d be wise to leave the topic to others.
This man (a scientist of substantial repute) called me ‘an idiot’.
He apologized later, and I said I was not offended. Which was true. I wasn’t offended, precisely because Luke had completely habituated me to the crude language typically employed by the AGW brigade!
Therefore, Luke has actually been *quite* effective in that one regard.
Gavin and his fellow totalitarians really are totally barking mad.
Their fundumentalist religious approach to co2 is very instructive, just remember the next time you have a fizzy drink ( beer, soft drink whatever ) you are releasing pollution ( idiots) and next time you eat bread remember that the wheat plants that produced that bread enjoy a 15% natural growth improvement because of that increase in co2.
CO2 is and has been the saviour of mankind and our higher standard of living plus our much improved life expectancy can all be laid at the door of cheap energy and the much improved R&D programs over the last century, generated by that cheap energy.
I’m sure that the residual carryover will soon allow us to create a better battery technology that will allow vehicles to travel 500 Klms between charges.
In the meantime we could at least have a standard battery pack configuration available at all service stations to enable a change over in just a few minutes.
Adaptation is the way of the future not this stupid anti science approach favoured by these mad scientists at Copenhagen.
I dont usually read Birdie, let alone admit to it, but when he gets two birds with one stone we should acknowledge. Quinellas are hard to come by.
Birdie opined “Hunter you got to be a complete idiot to think Luke hasn’t been effective.
No-one, even on this forum, probably the best climate science forum in 2008, has ever written a comprehensive explanation of how the climate works and why this CO2 business is so overpoweringly silly. ” Says it all.
cryptic to the end bazza; says all of what?
Thanks to all who have recently offered interesting websites. The best quip I saw was the term ‘Carbonhagen’. The global warming alphabet was funny too. The best way to deal with zealots is to laugh at them. Speaking of which, Luke, if you’ll join the AEF, I will too. Should we exchange emails?
Cohers asks: “cryptic to the end bazza; says all of what?”. Cohers takes the bait confirmng low tolerance for ambiguity. But go on, give Birdie what he wants.
Virus Alert!!
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
Jim Hansen, the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute and a leader in the global warming debate for the past 20 years, last night effectively described the Rudd Government’s proposed ETS as a disaster. i.e. the head of the global warming movement has vindicated Tony Abbott’s elevation to Liberal leadership and his Senate rejection of the cap and trade ETS.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/
Hansen’s alternatives would require us all to have horse-drawn buggies, but that sidesteps the point that he condemns the ETS proposed in Australia. Why aren’t the Libs hollering this from the rooftops and why doesn’t the media see this as newsworthy?
This is interesting about the Australian BOM:
http://www.theage.com.au/world/climategate-forces-weather-data-review-20091206-kcrk.html
“THE British Meteorological Office is to launch a review of its temperature data and has asked 188 nations – including Australia – for permission to release raw weather data in the wake of the so-called ”Climate-gate” email scandal.
“The investigation of temperature and global weather information by the Meteorological Office is significant because its database is one of three main sources of the temperature analyses that the United Nations climate change science body relied on for its assessment that global warming posed a major threat to world safety and wellbeing.
“The decision comes in the wake of the theft – and publication on the internet – of thousands of emails and text files from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU).
“The emails, many of them written by its director, Professor Phil Jones, appeared to suggest that there were attempts to manipulate temperature data and to stymie the public release of information on raw data. The university has announced an investigation and Professor Jones, who denies the claims as ”rubbish”, has stood down while the inquiry takes place.
“The Age reported on Saturday that a 247-page text file by one of the university’s most senior computer programmers has also revealed frustration and anxiety about the integrity of the raw data provided from weather stations around the world and that Australian data came in for particular criticism.
“The programmer found the Australian weather data to be riddled with entry errors, duplication and inaccuracies and described as a ”bloody mess” attempts to homogenise information and entries.”
Also I have seen that Jen has been posting some stuff in the ‘Community Home’ thread.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/category/community/
Thanx for the spoof link, janama. I’m always on the lookout for a laugh.
The COP 15 opening film ‘please help the world’ is already bordering on parody.
Hunter – I have not done anything other than present you with the evidence of your own stupidity.
Dudes you can have a major electoral revolution on climate change. Probably good thing. Coz when it turns to shit there will be nowhere to hide whatsoever. Give Abbott a knighthood. Pile the crap back on the climate scientists. Might be 500 hundred yards of shit involved too. But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.
Let the case build. Pressure and time.
Favourite movie – Shawshank Redemption – all about pressure and time..
” In 1966, Andy Dufresne escaped from Shawshank prison. All they found of him was a muddy set of prison clothes, a bar of soap, and an old rock hammer, damn near worn down to the nub. I used to think it would take six-hundred years to tunnel under the wall with it. Old Andy did it in less than twenty. Oh, Andy loved geology. I guess it appealed to his meticulous nature. An ice age here, million years of mountain building there. Geology is the study of pressure and time. That’s all it takes really, pressure, and time. That, and a big god-damned poster. Like I said, in prison a man will do anything to keep his mind occupied. It turns out Andy’s favorite hobby was totin’ his wall through the exercise yard, a handful at a time. I guess after Tommy was killed, he decided he had been here just about long enough. Andy did like he was told, buffed those shoes to a high mirror shine. The guard simply didn’t notice. Neither did I… I mean, seriously, how often do you really look at a mans shoes? Andy crawled to freedom through five hundred yards of shit smelling foulness I can’t even imagine, or maybe I just don’t want to. Five hundred yards… that’s the length of five football fields, just shy of half a mile. “
bazza, I have a high tolerance for crap which is why I put up with you; now go on, spell it out since I have taken the bait O’ fisherman of men.
And from a Few Good Men …
Col. Jessep:You see Danny, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don’t want money, and I don’t want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that faggoty white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend me some fucking courtesy. You gotta ask me nicely.
And so Birdy you never asked nicely.
So luke how long have you been out and do we still have to stand up wind, seems so.
Luke, your sides in strife, guess who’s going to be on the government front bench after the next election?
http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=4282
The Opposition has altered the climate change portfolio to ‘climate action’ and will leave Greg Hunt as the man in charge.
I thought they would have sacked him, but on reflection he does know all the stakeholders, so if he is programed correctly he should perform perfectly.
El Gordo – it matters not – pressure and time Gordo – pressure and time.
Governments come and go … I care little for the electoral outcomes.
Schiller, Interesting pseudo name.
I prefer to stick to facts that the AGW alarmist can not distort.
look at this site http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
On a previous site there was a translation of a 1941 paper by W Kreutz which is worth reading for anyone interested in changes of atmospheric conditions. Kreutz recorded hourly conditions such as wind speed, temperature, rainfall, cloud cover, solar radiation and most importantly CO2 for a period of 18 months 1939 to 1941. He found CO2 levels higher than presently being measured. Other scientists in published papers independently recorded high CO2 levels. The omission of past CO2 measurement records has a much greater effect on the AGW hypothesis of a link between temperature and CO2 ie the hypothesis is false.
On television last night I saw a most interesting example of current journalism. I hurriedly switched it off, and now can’t remember if it was ABC or SBS, and what the program was. Can anyone remind me, so I can pass it to Media Watch?
The reporter showed cool rainy conditions in the mountains of Lesotho. He said that it is normally hot, dry and sunny, but ‘climate change’ was to blame. In fact, Lesotho has 85% of its rain between October and April, and the high altitude means it can turn quite cool even in summer.
The reporter also showed a solar panel the size of a postage stamp, reportedly lighting a whole thatched hut, and spoke to an official who said that the wealthy nations should send money to help Lesotho survive ‘climate change’.
Blimey!
“Hansen’s alternatives would require us all to have horse-drawn buggies, but that sidesteps the point that he condemns the ETS proposed in Australia. Why aren’t the Libs hollering this from the rooftops and why doesn’t the media see this as newsworthy?”
Chris Gillham,
From what I’ve read Hansen fundamentally supports nuclear power but you are absolutely right, the Libs should be quoting Hansen’s anti ETS statements. It would embarrass Rudd and the rest of the Copenhagen delusionists and would get them some mainstream traction and quench the Turnbull rubbish.
It would set them apart from their current “denier” image plus it would open the door for future NP discussions.
Here in NZ msm has shown this on TV one,our main TV channel…
http://tvnz.co.nz/close-up/video
Results of txt poll……23% Morgan ; 77% Wishart.!
Whoooooooohoooooooo
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Shawshand Redemption Lukefartard??
So THAT’S where we saw you!! In JAIL!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Does your wife know??
Mack,
won’t let me watch it dues to broadcast rights!!!
It’s obviously all Lukefartards fault!!
Blog style clown show on again with borrowed humor hey
I should have guessed what this ‘cement a friend’ had down his/her? boots, fast setting concrete all courtesy BECK!.
This lot is a well known trap for players without some engineering background. No credibility there in terms of methods, instruments or standards, as used in the evolution of direct CO2 in air measurements.
Read up on breath and other contamination in samples prior to say 1960 before arguing any historic CO2 trend. Note; I once used local air as a CO2 ref. Simply it was more stable than other hand held samples
Kuhnkat ,
Strange that eh, Normally the msm of this little country craves world wide attention.
But of course the govt. owns TV one ; so when it comes to this dynamite. well nuff said.
Everybody having the same problem?
Try this.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
and click
Watch the debate here
Mack; I reckon Wiki on Wishart says it how it is in Kiwi land and “More recently Ian Wishart has been critical of the teaching of evolution in schools and the theory of human induced climate change”.
Hey I noticed feb 09 the very dry South Island is practicly devoid of trees in most agricultral regions so a book seller like Wishart is no substitue for home grown climate science or anything else relative to this debate.
Thanks Mack,
After the alarmist crap our ABC et al have been putting out with the start of Carbenhagen, [everything is 100 times worse than we thought but the dog ate the science] it’s nice to get some honest realism.
Here is a bit more:
http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/denhelder.html
SLR for Holland: 9cm per century.
gavin,
You might notice on that link that on paleo SLs the MWP SL is higher than currently.
“Blimey!”
I agree Green Davey – I also saw it and checked out the average temps etc and it was normal.
I just reckon our modern reporters are shit , but hey! so are the telephone company guys, the electricity guys, your bank contacts etc
you don’t have to know your job anymore – It seems you just have to have the right attitude.
Luke,
Projecting your problems with a nice bit of dialog from ‘A Few Good Men’ only reminds us that you and Birdie are symmetrical- two rude bellicose peas in a pod.
‘Shawshank’, very high on my favorite movie list as well, is really about how truth and grace emerge victorious over time, no matter how respectable the veneer of the oppressor.
About how false evidence can be used to destroy lives by a system that cares more for consensus than truth. About how keepers of the consensus will fabricate evidence, suppress truth and violently enforce their consensus even as their corruption grows and grows.
Sort of the situation we have here with you self-anointed lords of climate lying, corrupting, misleading and profiting from selling your false consensus.
very nice hunter; luke always leads with his chin.
Speaking of films…
The opening film for COP 15, “Please Help the World” (4 min, 14 sec) is being greeted around the world with boos and catcalls.
Luke may lead with his chin, but the UN is leading with… scared children. See the movie at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4
If the UN led with science, they’d take it on the chin, of course. But COP15 isn’t about science, nor was the IPCC ever really about science. It’s about how to establish global governance, and about how to sell collective national surrender to the people at home.
“Hey, folks, we just signed an armistice on WWIII. But peace comes at a price… open your wallets!”
IRT scam detection:
When they use hysterical fantasies about hurting children, you can pretty much bet that a con is happening.
Con or not there are more than a hundred wildfires in NSW and it’s rumoured via Copenhagen this decade will be the warmest on record. No cooling this century hey
Sure there are patches of this or that not complying with the general upward AGW temp trend however as a born naturalist I can’t recall anyone ever discovering hard evidence of a WMP down under. Just a flash in the pan Spangles with those digging for dirt on AGW.
But I don’t blame anyone being confused about the science as everybody has some pet theory about the weather that seems to fit the facts. After all we had our own long range forecasters going way back who had considerable followings even on the msm
The usual drivel gavin; MWP in SH;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/11/making-holocene-spaghetti-sauce-by-proxy/#more-6961
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
As for post 21st temperatures being the highest on record; not in the US, Canada, Russia, Greenland, the Arctic and many individual locations in Australia which seem to be negated when adjusted national trends are presented; but we all know how reliable the official temperature records are [not] especially if you are a born naturalist[?].
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-claims-fail-science-test/story-e6frg6zo-1225808398627
That is a great article for the msm; I haven’t seen the Pearson paper but that on the face of it knocks the socks off the PETM alleged correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Thx for the link spanglers, interesting that sea lvl was so much higher during the MWP and the rise has been so minimal.
I heard lomborg on RN this morning….i thought he was fantastic even if he does believe in AGW.
his points that i found intersting’
1. for every dollar spent preventing AGW you get a 2c return.
2. for every dollar spent on research and development and coping with future events you get an 11 dollar return.
3. stern and garnaut’s opinion on ETS are purely political . they were directed to produce a document that supported the governments stance
4. we should be spending our money on R and D so that we can find cheap alternative energies that people will voluntarily use…and hence cut co2 naturally.
three cheers for lomborg i say, the first sensible suggestions i have heard from a believer in a long long time.
A guy at work here has just been telling me that he heard a guy talk recently who used his PHD students to research ways to cut co2.
the top two were.
a. provide the pill for free to all women
b. promote reforestation and stop slash and burn
somebody else here just suggested…ban Mcdonalds, its the hamburger which is leading to so much of brazil’s forests being cut down!.. i saw a show recently where they were growing “meat” in laborotories that lookied like a hamburger pattie……sounds horrid i know, but if it tastes ok…….well maybe not!
Good analysis Hunter – except for one small point – denialist scum project themselves as the leaders of virtue when in reality they would be the warden in the movie running a corrupt system. You’re on the wrong side of morality doofus. We are the good guys. Try to remember that.
Thx also to Janama, that article in the australian is also interesting…wouldn t it be nice if that was read out at carbonhagen!?
I loved this final quote- as physicist Richard Feynman observed: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Jo Nova is hot on the trail of raw unadjusted data and coming up trumps.
http://joannenova.com.au/
Luke my friend, you are the one, and the only one, who has ever talked about the need to round people up for climate dissent. Well, maybe your twin son of a different mother, Birdie, wants to round up a few, but who is counting?
You are losing because you cannot round us up.
Oppopsing apocalytic clap trap is to never be on the wrong side of morality, my friend.
But congrats on good movie taste, at least.
Cheers,
One thing appears certain.
There will not be sufficient eggs in the farmyard to cover all of “the science is settled,” scaremonger faces.
Pikey.
Folks,
So long as Luke’s arguments rely on claims of “denialist scum” and “doofus”, we may all rest assured that there is, indeed, a consensus.
Meanwhile, check out “Climategate riots erupt in Copenhagen”,
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i64779
Luke is an exemplar of what ‘public debate’ is all about.
HI all,
I have been reading Jennifer’s blog for quite a while now and I have often wanted to make a comment however I must admit to not wanting to be called names by the warmaholics ,carbonistas ect .
Nevertheless, now that the EPA in the US has declared that greenhouse gases are harmful to humans ( what a joke !) does that mean that water vapour is next on the list of pollutants as it is by far the largest one !
cheers
“you don’t have to know your job anymore – It seems you just have to have the right attitude.”
janama,
Just get a job in the Rudd Rocketeaucracy, kiss arse and collect.
Have tongue, will travel.
janama,
That’s a good article but it’s a pity they didn’t write it up 3 months ago when it came out.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/14/research-claim-dropping-co2-caused-formation-of-antarctic-ice-cap/
Another hot decade but Tony thinks it is cooling. The master of the backflip and resurrecter of the undead has tried lots of quirky positions on global warming, soon Abbot will have only the missionary one left.
very droll bazza; and if chairman Rudd has his way with us I know what position we all will be assuming then.
“Then there’s David Bellamy’s tale of being canned from a very successful science-popularizer gig on the BBC because he dared to speak anti-AGW heresy.”
If they are effective they will be targeted. One time I was on the wikipedia attempting to deal with these communists and there was this big discussion going where they were claiming David Bellamy wasn’t a scientist. This was maths-boy 101 computer programming types talking (I’m thinking of the Wiki-wrecker William Connelly) and computer “scientists” you know the usual crowd of bludgers. Anyway they reckon that Bellamy isn’t a scientist. I remember when I was a kid he already had seven degrees. Naturally enough Bellamy was appalled by this racket. And because he was effective they went after him.
Dr Marohasy became powerfully effective when she had those four threads wherein she dissected each study proposed to be evidence for more than negligible CO2-warming. No-one could find a single study that fit the bill. Not as proof. But just as evidence.
Its a data and attribution problem. They have to build the CO2 record and then relate it in a causal way to warming. We could probably do it if we wanted to prove that CO2 cools. I mean we could build a case at least, just looking at the graphs.
First you need a good CO2 record. But the proponents are so useless that after 100 billion dollars they haven’t got around to producing an accurate record. The last time someone (Beck) pitched them one for free they spent all their time mocking it.
If you don’t have an accurate record you need to build one with at least a three-way proxy study. And it cannot be a proxy, like tree-ring-growth, that is going to mess with your temperature study. You cannot relate tree-ring growth to warming, if you know that CO2 is going to directly enhance tree-ring growth. Just a note for the incompetent science worker, Michael Mann, to get it right next time.
The wamers haven’t begun to find real evidence. They have not even constructed the CO2 record in the satisfactory way described, and are not the least bit interested in doing so.
So it was really about that time that the Doctor became effective and a threat to this movement. Obviously I don’t know how this racket manages to do what it does, but if they can declare David Bellamy a non-scientist and start cutting him off at the knee-caps, then they can probably get to anyone.
A study in progress by K C Green and J Scott Armstrong, suggests that mass delusion is what the game is all about.
http://kestencgreen.com/green%26armstrong-agw-analogies.pdf
What you would need for a powerful warming-gas (note I don’t say “greenhouse gas” since this is a bollocks concept) is a gas that
1. absorbs a broad stretch of the VERY LOWER BAND of infra-red coming up from the ground.
2. Does not, unlike CO2, absorb those higher, infra-red regions that will disproportionately be coming in from the sun.
3. That is like CO2 heavier than air. The heavier the more effective.
Think about a short-stop in baseball. But the short-stop we want is a heavy fellow. He catches the ball and maybe he’s lifted right out past the diamond because he’s rolling with the catch. We want him then to head straight back to home base banging into all the other fielders on the way and giving them energy.
CO2 doesn’t fit the bill at our air pressure level. We know that because CO2 mixes well up to 100 kilometres. Which means its two upper absorption regions are keeping the CO2 this well mixed.
We want a warming gas to be heavy so that it captures the radiation, and perhaps is driven up, but is still warmer than the molecules around it (and still catching more radiation) as it is coming down. So that a typical molecule will be adding warmth to the other molecules while its sinking. But at our air pressure CO2 appears to be unsuited to the task. Or it would not mix in such an effective way right up to 100 kilometres above the earth.
Now take Ozone. Even heavier than CO2. Supposing we could keep its powerfully effective low-frequency long-wave-length absorption spectrum. But suppose we could strip Ozone of its ability to absorb UV.
Now we would have a powerfully effective warming agent I would suggest. It would catch the radiation on the way up in the night-time, but its heavy so it would still be catching the radiation while sinking, and sinking next to molecules cooler than it.
But Ozone is no good warmer-gas unless perhaps you live on the snow-caps of the highest mountains. Since Ozone, or at least the average Ozone molecule, never gets to fall where we are. If it sunk into the troposphere in the night-time it would catch that heat from the ground and wind up back to its natural home, and as soon as the dawn breaks its got this two-way absorption sending it typically to the upper stratosphere as heavy as what it is.
Its the differential absorption ability that keeps the homosphere (not Oxford street) so well mixed.
Lets stop talking about “greenhouse gasses” because thats all nonsense. We’ve got to go with the better paradigm.
But just a note as to how things might change if we had the same composition of air but a much higher temperature. Then extra CO2 might really warm things in a serious way. Because the short-stop keeps catching the balls but he’s not pushed back very far. The homosphere is perhaps more compressed. Compression is the key here and for any number of reasons.
I hope this will help the scales fall from some of your eyes.
A note on water vapour. It can hardly be considered in the same way as what I’m talking about above. Because it goes through a phase-change. This bring a whole new list of complications. But it is a warming gas at night-time in just the way I’ve described. Because it will sink, be manifesting its latent energy as the dew comes, and that latent energy will be warming those molecules. It will be a warmer at night for the fact that it falls while it is yet warmer than those molecules around it.
cohenite; there isn’t hard evidence for your WMP downunder. That CO2 link is was only broomstick estimations and no calibrations by lay folk doing their darndest to take us backwards into the dark ages
you need to do better hey
You are talking idiocy gavin. Focus on getting yourself some evidence “hey”. Don’t focus on the other side dopey. You’ve got to get cracking with some evidence of your own. Your behaviour is like pervert-Popperian.
CO2 is not a warming gas at our air pressure. Rather its a smoothing gas. It almost certainly is cooling us during the daytime. And almost certainly is warming us a little at night when its two upper absorption regions are less relevant. If you think its a net-warmer lets have that evidence. Evidence for your cost-imposition and treason side is not brought about by being a big wanker about what the climate rationalists have to offer.
Lukefartard,
“El Gordo – it matters not – pressure and time Gordo – pressure and time.
Governments come and go … I care little for the electoral outcomes.”
I do believe I recognise a sour grapes rationalisation!!
Gavin,
thanks for your uninformed opinion on the CO2 paper.
How about you hop over there and read the other papers they have on the Southern Hemisphere and let us know how good they are and what they say??
Gavin,
by the way, mind giving me a link to the one you read so we can compare notes??
Michael Mann going into show business.
Cohers finds Abbotts many stances on global warming droll. I will show you droll. The Saudi delegate to Copenhagen thought the email story was relevant. Tony should swap yarns with him. Talk about flogging a dead horse. A Saudi being a AGW sceptic is a bit like taking Cohers to Newcastle.
Janama and others who may be interested,
I followed up on the Lesotho climate doomsday story. The reporter was Andrew Geoghegan, and Mark Colvin was also involved. It can be found at
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2764276.htm
Note the thunder sound effects, cool, misty conditions (rainy season up in the mountains), and the comment from Prince Seeiso Seeiso that ‘temperatures have risen I think on average three, four, five degrees.’ Note the purple passage ‘From the deserts of the Sahara to the jungles of the Congo, locals and scientists argue that the weather is becoming more extreme from floods and droughts.’ If Mr Geoghegan could have spotted a couple of polar bears in the Lesotho mountains, then he would have had a real ripping yarn. The lady from the UN Development Program put in a thinly veiled cargo cult bid.
I have sent the matter to Media Watch.
The reason Africa suffers more from climate change is because they won’t finance coal powered stations and flog them silly solar panels instead.
Geez, Green Davey, there’s some solid scientific evidence in that ABC Lesotho report farrago; and how about the fact that its 3, 4 or 5 degrees warmer and still freezing! Man that’s climate change; maybe the dumb ABC reporter [oxymoron I know] should have looked to see if there were any ju ju berries growing nearby; but this is what we can expect from the ‘impoverished victims of climate change’; fanciful sob stories designed to galvanise the bloated egoes and guilt complexes of the cognitive dissonant sheeples. And good luck with media Watch; TCS has had 4 formal complaints into the ABC with the usual snide blandishments and dismissal based on the credible authority of the IPCC. We will be seeing the ABC in court soon.
And bazza, which is you;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
“Luke my friend, you are the one, and the only one, who has ever talked about the need to round people up for climate dissent” – yea I just throw half the stuff in to rev you up. Would have thought it was standard modus operandi for rednecks.
As for Schiller making complaints about language – here’s a bloke who likes to refers to Africans as “darkies.” Pullease Shillsbo – go and put your Confederate flag up !
But WTF – Birdy is starting to get sciencey – if he keeps this up maybe one should stop sledging and engage ? He’s almost coherent? OMIGOD !
Anyway – for your collective delectation:
Barry Jones roasts Bob Carter
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2766216.htm
And just remember dudes – the harder the pendulum swings to Abbot – the faster and furtherer it will come back.
Climate scientist receives death threats
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766508.htm
cohers
The solar panels seemed like a good idea at the time, but who would ever have thought the weather might change.
It appears Tom Wigley took a shot at Andrew Bolt for calling him a whistleblower. This spat is unlikely to end in litigation, although I hazard a guess that it won’t be too long before someone is made an example of.
Jone’s piece is junk; but at least he hasn’t sunk this low;
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2765351.htm
Cohers & Coolers Inc can suck on this one
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1148737/Giant-iceberg-headed-for-Australia
Barry Jones is using bad data and has been taken in. Simple as that.
Those interested in cooling v warming should go back a week to find the whole story of more ice in our latitudes when the first alert was posted in NZ
See updated news item here. more ice! Must be cooling hey
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-world/giant-iceberg-spotted-south-of-australia-20091209-kjyu.html
Howzat?
Speaking of Bob Carter, he finally got to have a bit of a say in today’s Adelaide Advertiser newspaper. They are actually starting to mention climategate and skeptical views, giving a slightly more balanced coverage of Copenwhatsis.
The backradiation explanation of a warming gas is actually incoherent. Since whereas other gasses will absorb and re-radiate the entire spectrum, a gas with “greenhouse” characteristics will re-radiate the spectrum, minus the absorption region. In the first instance thats a cooling effect to the gasses around it. Since its hogging that part of the spectrum to itself.
So a warming gas doesn’t warm by re-radiation. This is a confused notion. Rather a warming gas has to be heavier than air. Its effect is a little ambiguous. It must warm by direct contact. It will do so to the extent that the warming gas molecules are are warmer than the molecules around it and the warming gas molecules are still falling. Falling though they are warmer than the molecules around them. The warming ISN’T be re-radiation. Its by induction.
Its pretty clearly the case that CO2 isn’t a warming gas during the heat of the day. Otherwise it wouldn’t mix so well to such a high altitude. The three absorption regions must be taking your average CO2 molecule that starts off at the ground, well they must be taking way up high quite quickly on the average.
You would really want to cut off the top two absorption regions and just leave the bottom one. You can semi-check what I’m saying be seeing if there is a good reason why Ozone and Argon, being heavier than air, don’t settle low-down and suffocate us. If what I’m saying is true Argon will have to absorb UV or high-infra or something. Because Argon is heavier. So it would have to absorb the higher end stuff from the sun to keep it so well-mixed.
Also a problem with CO2 as a warming gas on a planet that rotates pretty quickly. It lacks the specific heat capacity to hold a lot of energy. This is where liquid water comes in. And also where the latent heat effect of water comes in overnight.
CO2 is really not the warming gas its cracked out to be. And we have to get rid of this notion of the “greenhouse gas”. Its a very foolish notion.
An iceberg south of Australia proves diddly squat Gavin. The operative word in your story is “spotted” They are notoriously difficult to locate so what’s there to prove burgs haven’t been there in the past. It’s a big southern ocean.
As for NZ we had a bunch of bergs off our south eastern coast a couple of years ago and the alarmists went berserk with proof of warming until they were told this had happened in the past (1930s I think)
I think a couple of Aussies wanted to go out and have a picnic or something on the ones that are supposed to be here at the moment..hired a plane..searched the ocean..but couldn’t find them. (white caps of the waves are good camoflage)
Gavin
More icebergs are floating in the southern ocean because there is a lot more ice on Antarctica – hence the increased calving.
It has nothing to do with ‘global warming’ and everything to do with the currents. This berg has been floating around for a decade.
Just came across an interesting paper at of all places, http://gacp.giss.nasa.gov/publications/liepert.pdf
which concludes “The observed 19 W/m2 or 10% decline in surface solar radiation in the United States from the 1960s to the 1980s is strong compared to sites in other regions of the globe with a 7 W/m2 or 4% decline in three decades.”
This fits with my own findings that at Pt Barrow in Alaska the NOAA shows solar radiation (SR) averaged 66 W/sq. meter between 1990 and 2005, and actually was lower by 11 W/sq.metre in 2005 than in 1991 (at 63 W/sq. meter). The R2 for correlating changes in mean Min. temps at Barrow between 1960 and 2005 with respect to changes in atmospheric CO2 between those years and variations in SR there over the same period was over 0.41, with the coefficient on RF being Negative but highly stat. sig. while the coefficient on SR was Positive and even more stat. sig. Yet the IPCC and people like Trenberth (who at least admits his failure to see this is a “travesty”, @ CRU) consider that solar variation is trivial and of no consequence (eg IPCC’s 90% certainty that “most” temperature change is due to anthropogenic changes in the atmospheric concentration of CO2). (I have posted this to Real Climate, 9 Dec 09, but have no expectation it will appear there).
Recall that the IPCC states (AR4, WG1, p.141) that Radiative Forcing (RF) of all GHGs accumulated since 1750 had reached 2.6 watts/sq.meter by 2005.
Consider the difference in scale with decadal CHANGES in SR far larger than the total accumulated RF of 2.6 W/sq.m since 1750 of the pathetic IPCC.
Conclusion: thank God for atmospheric CO2, without it the little Ice Age would be back with a vengeance. Tell that to the Nuremburg oops Copenhagen Rally.
I’m sorry Gavin, your point about the iceberg is? Did you not read the bit about it being “uncommon but not unusual”?
I’m a little confused at the moment. I just read one of the responses to that horrible article by Clive “your dad is scum” Hamilton, which stated that “vibrating” CO2 molecules reflect IR back to the surface thus warming the lower atmosphere. Now from memory of 2nd year inorganic chem, Co2 vibrates/rotates at certain frequencies After it has absorbed said incoming IR, just like H2O does with microwaves. Therefore, EM energy is converted to kinetic energy which is lost by transferring to surrounding air molecules thus warming the immediate vicinity (I think) so how can CO2 re-radiate IR? Conservation of energy and all that.
There is probably something big that I’m missing here and would gladly accept correction/enlightenment on this issue.
In fact Gavin the “scientist” who said that this is the biggest iceburg since sailing ship days is talking pure unadulterated speculative bullshit.
You’ve touched on the empty heart of AGW Derek; supposedly the mechanism by which CO2 ‘absorbed’ IR heat was explained by Arrhenius but Arrhenius did not measure the effect of CO2 because he passed IR of a 9.7 micron wavelength through his test tube; CO2 interacts with IR at a wavelength of 14.7 microns, forget the wings because Earth does not produce sufficient pressure for absorption to occur at the wing wavelengths. The CO2 will collide with a photon of 14.7 wavelength and energy will be transferred from the photon to the CO2 molecule; the CO2 will vibrate and transfer by conduction that kinetic energy to any surrounding bit of air; the CO2 will also reemit a photon as required by Beers law at a frequency determined by SB’s law; so the CO2 gains one source of energy and loses 2 sources of energy; conservation of energy means the CO2 drops to a lower energy state, is cooler, while the residual energy from the collsion is transfered by the 2 mechanisms of conduction and reemission. The net energy/heating gain to the atmosphere is zilch; the reemitted photon will be isotropic in direction, in theory; but because the lower surface boundary saturates parcels of uniformly thermalised air called LTE’s are formed which rise; the CO2 within those parcels cannot emit outside the LTE because there is no gradient; at the CEL where the LTE through energy expenditure through convective rising becomes the same temperature as the external air reemission can occur; however the photons cannot go down because the air underneath is opaque so how can back-radiation heat the surface?
I seriously doubt that AGW promoters are receiving many death threats at all.
I doubt even more if any of them are of a significant nature.
What is notable is that not one quote of a threatening e-mail is offered, But I do note that Wigley spends a good amount of time pretending the e-mail leak is not a leak, and that they should be ignored.
I think a constructive response would be ‘When you AGW promoters deal with the e-mails , the code, and the data in a meaningful way, I will pay attention to your claims about people writing mean e-mails to you.”
And, btw, stop hiding the data if you expect people to go along with your apocalyptic clap trap, and stop hiding behind arguments from authority and evasion. People are tuckered out from them.
But Dr. Wigley is interesting. He is very…..wiggly, as it were:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wigley_denies_i_did_not_choke_on_the_deceit/
The more these guys rely on arrogant dismissal, hide-the-penny, and evasion, the more they can expect problems. Distracting with the claims of personal threats is not an effective strategy.
What is fascinating to me is the expectation that if AGW is like any other group think, the e-mails etc. leaked so far are only going to be the tip of hte iceberg.
Everything done by AGW apologists and promoters since the leak has acted to increase that likelihood.
Dr. Wigley’s wiggles are a good example of this.
To Mack and others who can’t read the signs; ice in the roaring 40’s is a hazard to not only sailors but warming sceptics too. Think about it. Only the big ice blocks last long enough to reach our latitudes. It’s the numbers that indicate major disturbance down south.
Sometimes I wonder what interest others have in ignoring these natural indicators. Perhaps its only their long standing lack of interest or imagination when it comes to understanding the magnitudes associated with climate change
The Times of INDIA ran this AFP item under “Global Warming”
“Giant iceberg spotted south of Australia”
“The finding comes after two large icebergs were spotted further east, off Australia’s Macquarie Island, followed by more than 100 smaller ice chunks heading towards New Zealand”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/Giant-iceberg-spotted-south-of-Australia/articleshow/5318527.cms
“however the photons cannot go down because the air underneath is opaque”
I wonder a lot about the generators of all stuff home grown on blogs like this.
give it a rest gavin, your homespun wisdom is getting, tiresome!
Are you trying to tell us that the ice in the Antarctic was, is, or will be static forever?
“I just read one of the responses to that horrible article by Clive “your dad is scum” Hamilton, which stated that “vibrating” CO2 molecules reflect IR back to the surface thus warming the lower atmosphere.”
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Water vapour is not the most important greenhouse gas. Its not even a greenhouse gas. Because there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. Since there is no greenhouse effect. I wish I could take the sensible middle ground on this matter. But its not possible to do so. I wish I could say that the greenhouse effect is not as strong as earlier imagined. Such a compromise could fit the data one supposes. But the fact is there are no greenhouse gases. And there is no greenhouse effect.
Take the situation you are thinking about. The CO2 molecule absorbs the full spectrum of the radiation that hits it. And re-radiates out the full spectrum minus the small low-end band it captures. But the normal molecules that are around this CO2 molecule are absorbing the full spectrum and re-radiating the full spectrum. So how can the warming be through back-radiation? Through the alleged greenhouse effect?
Rather the CO2 molecule is robbing us of re-radiation in that sense. From a radiation point of view we have a minus right there. And the average CO2 molecule in that position is now high-tailing it out of there on its way above our heads, above our houses and above our thermometers.
Despite some carping from our year nine science teachers it is perfectly sound English to say that “heat rises”. It is where this general rule is overturned that we can generate a heat budget in any particular strata. Right there the CO2 doesn’t appear to be helping a great deal. For the CO2 to warm me it has to be catching that radiation above my head then sinking down as it does so, and warming the molecules at my level. The CO2 molecules that are warming me need not all necessarily come all the way down to waist-level to do so. But they have to catch that radiation at a higher level and subsequently move down. To overmatch the initial effect they have of robbing us of some of the re-radiation.
Supposing a cloud comes by? The cloud is like a mobile strata top. Instead of the strata ending at the troppopause, on account of this cloud, the strata now effectively ends where the cloud starts. The warmer CO2 molecule that might have wanted to keep moving on up, taking their warmth with them, may be forced into reverse. Its where the CO2 molecule is physically reversed and can take energy it has captured at a higher level, down to the lower level, well this is where the CO2 can have a warming effect.
It ought to be clear that if CO2 is capable of net warming in the way described above, this is going to be mostly in the night, where its two higher absorption regions aren’t being excited by the sun and sending the average CO2 molecule much higher than where it could be of help to us.
There is a lot of overturning in the troposphere for one reason or another. And it is only in conjunction with this overturning, for the most part, that these gases can have that warming effect.
The story with water and water vapour is a little different. Since water vapour ought to be constantly turning back and forth between being water vapour and microscopic airborne liquid water. Its the effects to do with this constant transformation between water vapour and microscopic airborne liquid-water, that have the effect on our air temperature that makes our planet habitable. Nothing to do with any bogus greenhouse effect since there is no such thing.
Marcus; the key word is “surge” when considering ice changes, rate of discharge, melt magnitudes etc. Could go either way
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v272/n5656/abs/272809a0.html
It took me a while to find the item last year by Ted Scambos & David Vaughn
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/search/label/David%20Vaughn
Monash takes on sceptics
http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html
Who paid is the real scandal?
Hackers probably paid to help undermine Copenhagen climate summit: UN
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/hackers-probably-paid-to-help-undermine-copenhagen-climate-summit-un/story-e6frg6xf-1225807575795
As an hypothesis this surge deal would seem to make no sense at all. Gavin. Can you stick up for it? Why would a surge in ice cause an ice age? Senseless. Except to the extent that it stopped the clean flow of the great ocean conveyor. Not much of an hypothesis so far.
Ice surges in one decade would appear to simply be about ice buildup in earlier decades. We know the ice has been building up. Why ought it not surge? As a matter of fact if it didn’t surge then Charles Hapgood would be right. If the ice buildup in Antarctica in earlier decades, failed to lead to ice surging in a subsequent decade, then we would have an earth crustal displacement. The ice would keep building up and building up until it lead to a new equatorial shift.
In which case it would not be the ice surge that lead to the ice age. It would be the FAILURE OF THE ICE TO SURGE that would do so.
Its all bloody CO2 with you morons isn’t it. The ice surges. Thats CO2. The ice fails to surge. CO2. Maybe we just have to sterilise you warmers. Just to make sure the stupid gene doesn’t get passed on.
You know that the ice has been building up and building up in Antarctica?
What if it didn’t surge?
What would you say then?
Dummies.
Perhaps the ice is surging but it is not surging fast enough? Perhaps its the failure of the ice to surge which will make Hapgood correct and we will all be in deep trouble and the ice man cometh. What on earth could be sinister about the ice surging? Ice moves like a slow-motion river. So if it builds up it must surge. I should bloody well hope so.
Monash are liars then aren’t they Luke. And there needs to be sackings. What was the point of linking it Luke? You ought to have a point to your posts.
Just because the H2O molecules are microscopic and airborne does not make them a gas. If you want to really understand what is going on track back to what I was saying about the characteristics of a designer warming gas. I said it would be heavy for one thing. Its not water vapour which fits this bill. Its microscopic liquid water.
We have been suckered in a lot of ways. Blinded since we don’t think water is liquid if it is airborne and it is in a form smaller than a droplet. We cast it all under the rubrick of “water vapour.”
But the whole key to this story is microscopic liquid water. Because if this story were only about water vapour and rain, then water vapour would be the planetary refrigerant par excellence. The water vapour, absorbing so much from above and below would just travel on up, it would raid, the latent heat of condensation be let out, but since there is more air below then above more than half of that heat would be as good as lost right there. Water Vapour is the oceans sweating. Water Vapour would be the cooling gas. But because it is always going backwards and forwards between itself as vapour and also as microscopic liquid water then THIS is what serves as the proxy for our designer warming gas.
We saw that CO2 was no good as a warming gas except perhaps at night, or to some extent in association with overturning. We saw that Ozone was a fine warming gas if you lived on the highest mountain peaks. We said that a really good warming gas would be powerfully heavy. And it would only absorb the low end. So then it would act like the fat short-stop, catching all the balls, being driven outside of the diamond, then coming back to home base, still catching balls and banging into the other fielders on the way in.
But while we might find heavier and heavier gases as candidates to do this job, there is no gas that is going to be as heavy as the microcopic airborne liquid water we are talking about here. This is the whole key to the entire story.
Just how deep is the denial of the AGW true believers?
So deep that they will blame anything- conspiracies, UFOs, big oil anything that moves, to avoid dealing with the leaks.
So now the e-mails (and data and code) that were leaked were stolen in a grand conspiracy to undermine Hypenhagen, according to the daily dissembling.
But here in the States the daily dissmebling is that nothing in the e-mails has any impact on Hypenhagen at all, and to suggest otherwise is a sign of great idiocy.
Sarah Palin, in an op-ed, had the temerity to suggest that not only did the e-mails cast doubt on Hypenahgen. And then she actually asserted that policy should be based on good science.
Warmis blogs cannot spend enough time laughing at her for suggesting such ignorant ideas.
Yet here we are in Australia with a huge denialist super secret plot using the ‘stolen’ e-mails to undermine what the warmists say can’t be undermined at all.
Get your stories, straight, mates!
And be careful! There may be a denialist under your bed!
Dr. Parris, if he had a sense of shame, would certianly be so over his rehashed list of AGW propaganda.
Actually gavin it’s not so much opaqueness but that the photons bounce off the tops of the pointy little heads of AGW supporters, like you.
gavin,
If there is more ice in Antarctica than the historical average (there is) why would you not see big bergs make the occasional trip north? If I read this correclty, this berg calved off a few years back….like twelve.
Have big bergs journeyed this far north before?
Yes.
One of the odd things about AGW is that normal things become scary.
If Hunter, Birdie and his mates were half serious they would have been at the sceptics so-called challenge in Copenhagen. Apparently ( Lenore Taylor, The Australian today) Plimer only needed another five to show and he would have got his half century attending what was said to be the star attraction. Spare me. The audience may have sold out but not the venue. But had Hunter and his matters turned up they would not have had much impact on the average age of the 45 die-hard sceptics of “well over 60”. ( Scientists peak around 40). So much for the con consensus.
Luke’s gettin’ pretty desperate when he quotes this sort of self asked question and answer system.
Reminds me of KRudd and Real Climate.
If this guy had any cred he would at least get someone else to answer.
But then I suppose he wouldn’t get those incestuous answers that he so desperately needs.
Thanks Luke for that link to the Monash site by Bret Parris . Not your usual humble economist judged by his output. It is a classic summary. I liked the DK bias. You don’t have to worry. If you were not aware of the Dunning-Kruger cognitive bias you could easily overrate your opponents. As DK bias says: The unskilled suffer from illusory superiority and the skilled suffer from the opposite. Says it all.
Luke is a complete troll for replastering the Paris nonsense; Paris says this;
“CO2 on the other hand, absorbs around 4.3 μm, only weakly between 8-12 μm and most strongly in the 13-17 μm zone, centred on 15 μm (but also with significant absorption at 13.9 μm and 16.2 μm), which is right near the peak of the longwave radiation spectrum and causes more than 90% of the warming due to CO2.”
This is absolute garbage; the Earth has an average temperature of 288K; the wavelength peak at that temperature is 10.0625 microns; bazza, you and luke are both dopes and AGW groupies.
Cohenite,
I have had a courteous reply from Media Watch, saying that they will investigate.
I thought the purple passage about the Sahara and the Congo sounded musical. Now I remember the song (US Marine hymn?) ‘From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli …’.
The transcript was heavily edited, missing out the solar energy sideline. I must confess I exaggerated in my original post. The solar panel was the size of a brief-case, not a postage stamp. But then, we are allowed to tell lies in pursuit of a noble cause, aren’t we?
bazza; you got me thinking. There is no need for birdie & co to actually own the science before participating in the action. Yes; I appreciate Graeme’s serious attempts recently to think and write properly on the AGW issue.
Behind every great research scientist there is at least one good technician who slaves away at the coal face. It’s probably this person or team of such people that builds the gear and runs the routines. I met quite a few during my time as jack of all trades who remained in faithful service to just one discipline and they usually succeeded in something after intensive studies of what ever but there are other ways. Adaptability from field to field helps too. This is where “trust” comes in and one assumes certain prior knowledge along the way.
Find your instant expert in every field and leave some work for them to continue.
“we are allowed to tell lies in pursuit of a noble cause, aren’t we?”
depends on the cause hey
BTW cohenite; I’m still wondering about opaque air
from Jeffers of North Sydney
“King Canute was Danish. Funny how history repeats itself. “
Hey Luke, better ease back – Cohers is losing it – must be the heat in the Abott kitchen. And Gavin says I got him thinking. Time I retired to the aircon.
Janama,
The whole thing is a rich quarry of ideas for cartoonists with an historical streak. Remember Horatio Nelson won the Battle of Copenhagen. He put his telescope to his blind eye, and saw no sceptics, nor dodgy science, nor emails. Also, Hans Christian Andersen, with his Emperor’s new clothes, came from those parts. One of my Danish ancestors, Ragnor Hairy Breeks, obviously dressed for cooler weather.
So Lukefartard,
“Climate scientist receives death threats”
Because your buds are playing pranks that means something??
Gavin,
“Cohers & Coolers Inc can suck on this one”
And I guess it was goreball warming that sunk the Titanic too??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
If the berg was 20% of the sea ice in the SH it wouldn’t mean anything except you might not want to get between it and a fixed object!!
Wonder what think tank or fossil fuel company paid the Russian hackers to infiltrate people’s private emails. What a shoddy ineffective attempt to derail Copenhagen.
Shame denailists ! Shame ! Shame ! Shame !
And now death threats.
Will they stop at nothing Bazza? The world is unsafe with these guys in it.
“If Hunter, Birdie and his mates were half serious they would have been at the sceptics so-called challenge in Copenhagen.”
Right. What am I going to do? Get myself another credit card? You see if you are on the religious side of this argument you can get your trip paid. Everyone and his momma is going on the dumb side of the argument. Clover Moore and a bunch of others are going. It seems every elitist taxeating bludger in the world gets to go to Copenhagen just so long as they are on the stupid side. Climate Rationalists might need to hitch-hike on a fishing boat. There will be so much stupid assembled in Copenhagen that you might almost expect the ground to open and just to swallow everyone. I’m not sure I’d want to be anywhere near these people. What we want to do is forge a plan to keep them in Copenhagen. And for them never to come back. How would that be? The economy would probably experience a step change upward. The level of discourse would be improved. People may start being kinder to eachother.
Cohenite, you obviously have some professional qualifications because you know something about heat transfer which none of the (pseudo) climate? scientists?? appear to have studied (look at university courses).
I think comments from the likes of Luke, Gavan, & Bazza are best ignored.
Willis Eschenbach’s (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/) and the late Dr John Daly’s (http://www.john-daly.com/darwin.htm) look at Darwin’s temperature raises suspicions about temperature manipulation by BOM and GISS.
I recently looked at BOM figures for Gayndah (Qld) which goes back to 1870 for rainfall. You can notice the heat island affect with warmer night temperatures since around 1973 due to sealed roads and more buildings but even not adjusting for that temperatures around federation, when there was a severe drought, were higher. BOM themselves admit that rainfall is associated with cyclical ENSO and PDO. 1902 was the year for record low rainfall. Low rainfall means less cloud cover and more radiation from the sun at ground level. For Gayndah there is a new station since 2003 at the airport. At least there is some over lap from the post office station.
Lukefartard,
You are a fellow CONSPIRACY THEORIST!! Welcom BROTHER!!!
“Hackers probably paid to help undermine Copenhagen climate summit: UN”
The idea that it was a hacker who released the e-mails and files is a stretch. From a good stretch you go immediately to fantasy, who paid them to undermine Copenhagen!!!
GOOD JOB!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Green Davey, our abc is incorrigible; as good prince Seeiso Seeiso demonstrates;
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2764276.htm
Perhaps cement legs can come up with the UHI impact chart for Gayndah but any other QLD station in the bush will do because I reckon nobody including all those at BoM today has ever done the measurements to coincide with road sealing etc.
What’s more important is the origin of the case for wholesale UHI recalibrations any where on the planet. Trust me cause I did a lot of air temps and humidities near extreem heat sources.
Luke,
Those exposed as liars claim they were stolen.
There is no evidence beyond their claims.
There is every evidence that they were leaked.
Those exposed as liars now claim they are receiving death threats.
Show us the e-mails of that, please.
Odd how AGW promoters rely on secret e-mails and hidden data at every step.
Where is the outrage when AGW promoters cal for criminal eco-terrorists to get off for their acts of violence against property in public?
Where is the outrage when AGW promoters call for the criminalization of dissent? You are just going through the motions on this one, I think.
There is a reasonable analysis of the email leak trail here
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/FOIA_Leaked/
I don’t think we can get too upset about the leaking when its to do with public servants betraying the public. These people live off the benevolence of the ripped off taxpayer. They are supposed to be conducting scientific research. It would be bad enough if they were indeed doing scientific research. But they decided to betray the taxpayer and instead of conducting scientific research they thought that they would conduct a Gramscian campaign of lies.
Even if it was, in some cases, their private emails made from their private computers, from their private houses still the fact is that they live off other people. Hence while we would normally respect their property rights we ought not be overly absolutist about it. These are after all socialists, who themselves do not believe in, and are actively antagonistic towards, personal, local and national sovereignty. We would normally respect their rights for the most part. But we don’t want to be silly about it. Because they are in fact traitors and quislings by any sane definition. Whoever leaked the emails surely made a judgement call. I think ethics is on his side on balance.
Jabba “There is a reasonable analysis of the email leak trail here”
It seemed a reasonable flow chart but “in mid November 2009, ten million teletypes all started their deet-ditta-dot chatter reeling off the following headline: “Hackers broke into the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit….” tells another story.
I doubt that a single historic “TELETYPE” remains in use today at any active msm outfit, so we have another oldtimer trying to stay on top with his “OBSOLETE” analysis.
“The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn’t because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples”
IMO a person with scruples would shove it upwards or downwards, not sideways.
But they were betraying all of us gavin. And they had you taken in. We just saw how they had Barry Jones taken in. Simply because he was fooled by bad data.
Surely here you are giving away your bad faith. If you are not angry at these people for making a fool out of you then what are your (socialist quisling) motives in this affair. We know that leaking upwards brings punishments. Of course you have to leak sideways. You know that gavin. You must know that I don’t assume you are that stupid not to understand that so I have to now suspect your motives.
What do you find so compelling about centralising all power? Thats what you are working for right? What is this daydream about?
Upwards, downwards or sideways, who cares. The only relevant item is that the information is in the public domain and verifies the long held suspicion that the whole AGW business is a scam floating on a sea of ecomentalist bullshit.
Death threats although probably annomous require another form of analysis. Physical harm even as a threat, is offside in any level of play.
I put these into the same catorgry as sabotarge in our realm of a “fair go mate”. By sabotarge I mean deliberate fire lighting in extreme weather, sand in working engines and so on. All protests should be up front and public. When is sabotarge a crime? Allways!
Geurella warefare can be sanctioned by a few in times of declared conflict though but a traitor can be ever present in the few. These may be hard times for independent thinkers and playing the role of double agent is scary stuff. Inevertably after a revolution we must all fall back into line to enjoy the fruits of change.
Workers uniting over a principle is dangerous stuff too as every pinacle is followed by a trickle down at least. Strongarm tactics always leave a bad taste afterwards.
Intuition has its place too. Suspitions must be put on the negotiating table along with the all facts before a successful resolution framework can evolve. This way we can get rid of the burr that has worked into a shoe.
But the death threats are a fake-up from your side gavin. You know that? You would have to be an imbecile to imagine otherwise.
And this pretense that a bit of argy-bargy is off-limits. The left only pulls that story to restrain righteous anger. Someone betrays my country they could get a bruise on the shins at any time. At any time. We don’t want to be silly about this. Its not OK to try and destroy the people who feed you and pay for your kids to grow up huge and obnoxious.
Come off it Hunter – you lot are little better than racketeers and gangsters. I wouldn’t trust you to cross the street.
Now we’ve got heat island effects at Gayndah – hahahahahahahaa ! (Denialist brains at full revs – pullease !)
“There is the issue of the science, which I had previously taken as given; but many people’s faith is being tested. We are often told that the science is settled. I suppose that is what the Inquisition said to Galileo. If so, why are we spending millions of pounds on research? The science is far from settled. – Lord Turnbull Dec 8th 2009”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/10/climategate-reaches-the-british-house-of-lords/#more-13969
It is quite stupid to think anything put on the internet is private particularly emails from a public institution. They are kept for many years whether the user deletes their copy or not. So if any of you have sent emails you would not like others to read they are out there in cyberspace somewhere. They are waiting to be read Dr Jones even though you thought they were deleted. Is there a law for crimes against humanity?
St Luke The Hypocritical…
Luke has, in the past, advocated murdering Japanese whalers on this blog using racial slurs so vile that they had to be deleted by our host. Luke regularly advocates limiting the free speech of climate skeptics and often advocate violence against those he disagree with. Luke constantly employs slander and misinformation in ways that he believes advance his fanatical faith in “The Climate Apocalypse.” And Luke’s best (only) argument against the skeptical camp is that the IPCC and CRU, et al are infallible like the Pope, therefore third party reproduction of the warmists’ so-called research is unnecessary.
Ironically, Luke claims the big story about Climategate is that hacking emails is a vicious criminal conspiracy! Pure hypocrisy. Al Gore advocated “civil disobedience”, so did James Hanson. Over and Over. St. Luke’s Church only got what it asked for!
ROTFL.
No,Luke, the Dogmatic. You’re in denial about Climategate. In a nutshell, all Climategate is about: The Temperature Data and the Adjustment Codes that the IPCC have used to make AGW a credible “threat to humanity” have NOT been made available for critical review and testing by scientists outside “The Church.” Moreover, much of the raw data CRU now claims is lost. Whoops!
Until the T-data, meta-data and all the code is made freely available and transparently posted on the Internet for the whole world to study, the AGW hypothesis is simply pseudo-science, because no assertion can be called science unless the data and proof behind the hypothesis is open to inspection by skeptically third parties. Luke and the Warmists have mistaken their “faith” for “scientific method.”
The hackers or leakers who liberated the CRU emails are heros who deserves a Noble Peace Prize.
Free the Data! Free the Code!
St Gavin the Dogmatic, who once claimed he knew the world was warming because one summer his garden tomatoes wilted, should perhaps quit “reading the signs” for a clue and try reading a few books instead. Nonfiction books, that is.
Gavin declares: “To Mack and others who can’t read the signs; ice in the roaring 40’s is a hazard to not only sailors but warming sceptics too. Think about it. Only the big ice blocks last long enough to reach our latitudes. It’s the numbers that indicate major disturbance down south.”
Gavin is innocent of history.
Geoffrey Blainey has a section in his nonfiction book (Black Kettle and Full Moon: Daily Life in a Vanished Australia) about Australian life in the 19th century called “The Hazards of Icebergs” in which he describes the historical accounts of clipper ships in the 1850’s sailing the roaring 40’s under constant watch and threat from icebergs.
“Early in the morning of 28 Feb 1855 at 48 degrees south, the sailing ship ‘Ocean Chief’, on a voyage from Liverpool to Melbourne, encountered heavy snow squalls. At 4 am, close to dawn, the crew saw a large ice island only 4 miles away. The huge block of ice chilled the morning air… On the following day…more icebergs were visible on both sides.”
The same year on the same route, a Captain Hewett on the “Cambridge” recorded in his ship’s log that at one point his ship was “surrounded by icebergs.”
The same year, “the ‘Ralph Waller’, within a fortnight of reaching Melbourne, hit an iceberg. The bow was damaged and water gushed in, filling the hold to a depth of 5 metres…”
In the same waters, the ‘Guiding Star’, a brand new clipper with a highly rated crew disappeared with all hands in an area of the roaring 40’s known to be the thick with icebergs.
So, Gavin, mate, even if an iceberg infested Great Southern Ocean is “a sign” of “disturbance” and I seriously doubt it based on historical accounts, it does not follow rationally that such a disturbance was created by man-made climate change, assuming, of course, that such a thing even exists in the first place.
Think about it.
Comment from: Luke December 10th, 2009 at 9:22 am
“Who paid is the real (Climategate) scandal? Hackers probably paid to help undermine Copenhagen climate summit: UN.”
Al Gore paid that’s who!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&ei=SJUhS4P5MJWXkQWMoP2nAw&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&ved=0CAYQBSgA&q=Al+Gore,+civil+disobedience&spell=1
ROTFL
Perhaps, one should be careful what one wishes for.
ROTFLSHTIH!
It is fun to watch the AGW true believers pick up in drronish lock step the rationalization of the day.
Now denialist scum are all gangsters and racketeers, railing away with death threats by way of e-mails.
Of course when eco-terrorists were actually eco-terrorizing, and the grand poobahs of AGW were filling court briefs saying its OK to terrorize because it si for the climate, well that actual action does not count.
And, again, where are those threatening e-mails?
Like the theft allegations, all we have is the story from those who stand to either lose (leaks) or look symapthetic (alleged death threats).
Now, I am just a denialist scum, so I like claims of most any sort to be connected to…actual events.
But I guess that is why I am not a believer in AGW.
Cheers,
Hunter claims “Now, I am just a denialist scum, so I like claims of most any sort to be connected to…actual events. But I guess that is why I am not a believer in AGW.” The leaked emails were over a decade ago, a decade likely to be the hottest recorded. So there is an actual event for Hunter to consider and connect to what? AGW is not about beliefs in any case. So tell me Hunter , what is causing the temperature trend and how do you rule out CO2 as a major contributor?. Give us the claims you like in a couple of lines or just go away, and dont be rude unless it is funny, you give this place a bad name.
Not long ago I saw a graph, reportedly from the Hadley Centre, showing world average temperature declining since 1998. This seemed to be accepted by the AGW believers, who said that it was only a temporary hiccup.
Now I see Penny Wong in Copenhagen saying there is no decline, and the last decade has been the hottest ever. I am confused. Who is telling whoppers?
Have the figures been ‘adjusted’ since that graph appeared? Have those seven spin doctors been busy? Where are the raw data from which the graph was compiled? Can anybody help me?
GISS and CRU ‘adjustments’, technical;
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/gistemp-invnt-f-a-sympathy-plea/
Easy;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/#more-4143
I am an Australian Vietnam Veteran. I was a member of 7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment which toured SVN in 1970.
My wife and I lost our firstborn child (a daughter), in 1982. The post-mortem indicated that she died of an aneurism that was a result of a congenital defect. The reason for the defect was never established, but studies of the children of Vietnam Veterans contain some very convincing statistics.
See – http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/phe/mvv/mvv-c00sum.html
This experience, by itself, is a powerful personal motivator to support planned and dogged action by individuals and government to maintain our planet as a viable life source for future generations.
I’ve returned to Vietnam on a number of occasions in the last few years and seen vast swathes of the countryside that still haven’t recovered from chemical defoliation after forty years. I’ve visited Vietnamese institutions for people with disabilities and have been staggered and horrified by the extent and number of these congenital malformations.
Vietnam has one of the highest incidence rates of these malformations on the planet.
The use of defoliants like Agent Orange and other poorly-understood chemicals remains an example of utter contempt of the natural environment. Largely, its effects have been forgotten and ignored by the same people who were responsible for sending Australians to SVN in the first place. These same conservatives are quite unable to see the irony in attempting to sabotage global action on AGW whilst suffering selective amnesia on the Agent Orange issue.
This chemical was sprayed indiscriminately by the US military. This “up the guts” mindset continues today in the attitude many of the sceptics in the US and in this country. It is arrogant, totalitarian and basically suicidal.
I find your opinion on AGW deeply offensive. It offends the memory of my child, and many Australian Veterans who had their lives ruined by indifference and arrogance through disregard of the natural environment.
You can commit to future infanticide if you wish, but I have no intention of joining you. I would have thought that somewhere in the word “conservative” is contained a meaning which has a strong comment on the sanctity of human life.
The issue should be above politics. It’s simply too important. At least there is a possibility that a global consensus will be reached at Copenhagen, despite coordinated and energetic efforts to derail it. If it is, it will probably be the first time in human history that people of all creeds races and value systems have united on something. Call me naive, but I feel encouraged by this possibility.
Prudential risk management is called for. The stakes are as high as they can get. And this time, the USA and the military-industrial complex doesn’t run the agenda. What a positive change!
bazza says “The leaked emails were over a decade ago, a decade likely to be the hottest recorded. ”
No Bazza, those are yet more lies propagated by the disciple al gore.
the most recent Climategate email is from November 12, 2009 – just a month ago.
The email in which IPCC leader author Kevin Trenberth privately admits “we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” is dated October 12, 2009. Only two months ago.
The infamous email sent by CRU chief Phil Jones, ordering four other Climategate scientists to “delete any emails” that sceptics had asked to check, dates from just last year.
Anybody that tries to paint over these emails as irrelevant simply does not understand why sceptics are sceptical. get your blinkers off.
one more point, its most unlikely that the emails were hacked, rather they were likely from a whistleblower…..and ive no doubt that if a whistleblower had released emails/ facts supporting your bias , you and your fellow believers would have been cheering loudly….once again remove those blinkers.
Better yet go and read / listen to some bjorn lomborg ( a warmer, but one who I find myself appreciating as a voice of common sense in a sea of bullshit)
wes; as I understood it, our clipper ships sailed far south on many occasions to pick up the constant winds and in so doing they deliberatly risked the ice.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=P8-97pQhDg8C&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=guiding+star++clipper+ship&source=bl&ots=_7AO6Fah2F&sig=Z8aFnZEBBk-UDWKq6YlYW73pZ-c&hl=en&ei=BqghS6HvKoSCNsjJjeMJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Note :We don’t have a pin point record of where they got lost.
Love the 62 strong Government delegation to Climatefest . That’s 24 tonnes of carbon each way in total.
Just as well they are doing it to save us all .
“what is causing the temperature trend and how do you rule out CO2 as a major contributor?”
Well that’s it then, innit?
If you can’t rule out CO2 in a couple of lines, Hunter, it’s PROOF!
Bazza, betcha can’t stand in front of a mirror and do that again.
gavin,
Who’s gonna keep little Jessica awake as she heads for Lat. 50s to round the Horn, so she doesn’t bump the bergy bits?
Maybe her dad will call her on the sat phone every hour or so.
Good luck to her anyway.
Spangles, did bazza ask; “what is causing the temperature trend and how do you rule out CO2 as a major contributor?”?
If he did he’s a bigger nuisance than luke; the coefficient of determination, r2, measures the explained variation in one variable, the dependent variable , temperature, caused by movements in another variable, the determining variable, CO2. Over the 20thC the r2 for CO2 being able to explain the variation in temperature is 0.44. Another way of looking at this is that during the 20thC a movement in CO2 gave you a 44% chance of predicting the movement in temperature; a coin toss gives you a 50% chance and during the 20thC PDO shifts gave you an 85% chance of predicting temperature trend.
The interesting thing is that since 2000 the r2 is negative; that is for any movement in CO2 the resulting movement in temperature is -ve; -0.44 for HadCrut and -0.3 for UAH. The argument about temperatures since 2000 being the hottest yet is therefore missing the point; since 2000 there has been no meaningful causal relationship between CO2 and temperature and during the 20thC the relationship was less than chance.
Bazza,
I hope you’re paying attention to cohers.
Tony are you that much of a drongo ?
“The email in which IPCC leader author Kevin Trenberth privately admits “we cannot account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t” is dated October 12, 2009. Only two months ago.”
Try thinking about it? I know it’s hard.
And Cohenite is back to Jack’s beanstalk – that’s why you’re denialists guys.
And what a verballing little turd you are Wes – if you want to have beaten the Japs in WWII to now taking it up the arse having them violate your backyard and wildlife sanctuary then be a non-patriotic pussy then. Traitor !
Bob “This “up the guts” mindset continues today in the attitude many of the sceptics in the US and in this country. It is arrogant, totalitarian and basically suicidal”
Since the band here has failed to respond I could go on about a story from my little mate who claimed he was behind the lines for the whole of several tours helping an elite group target the Ho Chi Min trail for an air suppression campaign, or I could go on about my work in our local petro chem industries about the same time.
However I listened to a lady on RN this afternoon discussing projects in education that included offshore partnerships. That rusty old institution RMIT that supported much of our post WW2 industrial R&D has expanded into Vietnam.
Behind me on a library shelf is a black lacquered trinket box that a youthful chap from Ho Chi Min city gave us after completing his tour in our communications admin. Hostilities do settle when foreigners step back from total interference in some country’s local affairs.
Dare I say this still affects our democracy as indicated by numerous inputs across a range of blogs downunder.
Hey Bazz – do your reckon Cohers would defend a case with his stats ability? Could be a problem if His Honour had done some maths….
Rob Whittaker,
There is no way any of us here can console you in your grief , but I myself can only urge you to rationalise this is not Agent Orange but just one of nature’s trace gases.
just for wes; the key word being “rare ”
Great Macquarie Is pics from 2008
http://www.seabreeze.com.au/News/Power%20Boats/Southern-Ocean-Icebergs-continue-their-march-north_3201779.aspx
something about frequency?
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,26315566-5012321,00.html
some cool history 2000 and comments by Neal Young
http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=2030
Luke, I have studied and passed statistics at uni; now be quiet, I think Bob Whittaker’s piece needs a response; Bob, you make valid points; noone here would deny there are real pollution issues in the world and the use of Orange in Vietnam must rank up there with the worst examples of deliberate pollution and degradation of the environment; there have been worse however;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/ten-worst-man-made-disasters/
Not that I’m belittling your experiences. The thing about AGW though is that it is false; because it is a lie it offers no justification for the overturning of economies, subverting the social process and diverting enormous wealth to middle men and opportunists; it will also give great and inevitably corrupting powers to governments. It is not an issue of “prudential risk-management”; that is just the precautionary principle rebadged; the pp is a denial of both scientific and legal standards; it is also immoral; for instance if a prosecutor said about an accused that there was no evidence to convict him but that he had a gut feeling the accused was guilty and should be convicted in any event that would be wrong; in the case of AGW there is no evidence and in fact evidence of false evidence. Nature and a clean environment is essential for humanity but humanity’s prosperity should not be sacrificed for a false concept of nature.
“The issue should be above politics. It’s simply too important.”
Bob,
It should be but it isn’t and never will be.
It should also be about science but it isn’t and never will be.
Even the prime supporter and promoter of AGW, James Hansen, says that Copenhagen is a disaster and these emission trading schemes that are being negotiated there, are a waste of time.
Gavin,
Icebergs were seen off the coast of NZ! in 1931 .They were seen from the shoreline,that is how everybody knew they were there.
In 2006 we had a visit of more icebergs travelling up the south-eastern coast. I can’t recall there being any pictures of these from the shore but only aireal shots.
Therefore to speculate on ANYTHING pertaining to the frequency,number or size of icebergs prior to the advent of sattelite imagery is sheer nonsense to put it politely.
Just to make sure I’ve explained this as clearly as I possibly can; Water vapour can in no way, on its own, act like a warming gas. Since it will catch-and-block energy from both above and below and will high-tail-it upwards. If it turns to ice in the clouds it will let out an enourmous amount of latent heat. More than half of which ought to be considered lost in space.
It is only the prospect of a lot of the water vapour turning into microscopic liquid water way prior to it reaching cloud level …….. it is only THIS propensity that makes this H2O mimic this idealised warming-gas that I’ve been talking about. And it is this phase-change of water that gives us the “warming” effect that is being mistaken for the non-existent “greenhouse” effect.
There is no “greenhouse effect”. There is no greenhouse gases.
I better add on top of this that even CO2 can act like a warming gas, but only to the extent that there is “overturning” in the troposphere. Mostly in daylight hours CO2, in the first instance, will act like a cooling gas. Only overturning turns this thing on its head.
Its curtains for cohers using a naive little regression model without any attempt to understand the physical processes. He advances an irrelevant test. A GCM can only simulate the teperature trend of the last century if you include CO2.
Now there is a long blog post downunder by Dr Geoff Davies from ANU that I reckon no one mentioned because it runs right over the discussion here
“Sorry, global warming has not been cancelled”
http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9806
Interesting charts to say the least
You’re hopeless gavin; Davies is another hack; read this if you can;
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/revenge_of_the_computer_nerds_1.html
There were leaked e-mails from much sooner.
But keep telling yourself this.
But, except for the the statute of limitations, why should old evidence of crim be less interesting than fresher evidence?
Luke,
Slamming someone for pointing out that the dodge du jour, that the e-mails are old and don’t count, is pure bunk, is rather weak, even for you.
You remind of how others in losing situations carry on long after reason urges them to reconsider:
bazza,
The trend is a non-event.
We are not heating up dramatically dangerously or unusually.
CO2 contributes like it always has.
We are not facing runaway anything, nor are we facing apocalypti in the future from CO2.
bazza,
That the GCM’s don’t work without AGW theories of CO2 is pretty suggestive that the models are simply squeezing out numbers and graphs a la the hockey stick junk.
Bazza said: “A GCM can only simulate the teperature (sic) trend of the last century if you include CO2.” I’m not sure what he is trying to prove, but one thing is certain. The GCMs, based upon CO2 theory, would have to simulate temps. They prove nothing about the theory! Circular science/logic is still circular and self abusing.
Those of you who consider yourselves patriots, or at least, who are proud to be Australian, should take a look at what NASA [GHCN] has done to “adjust” the temperature for your Darwin airport:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg
Your temperatures are not really your own any more! How’s that for sovereignty, folks? How does it make you feel, to know how badly your national policy is distorted by numbers we Up North have ‘cooked up’ for you?
Sorry. That’s a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. Actually, as a US citizen, I’m embarrassed by once-proud NASA, and I apologize. But if Australia did stuff like this to *our* temperatures, I would be highly irate at you guys.
Statman; we are still waiting for that extra something on ‘opaque’ air
” A GCM can only simulate the teperature trend of the last century if you include CO2.”
No thats completely and utterly wrong. If you hypothesise that CO2 is a warming gas you cannot fit the twentieth century data at all. Since the 30’s was warmer than the nineties, and the 40’s saw CO2 surge upwards to its highest level in the century, therefore its proven that CO2 is a bit player, and probably a net cooler. At current air pressure ranges its almost definitely a net cooler. Absolutely and in the marginal sense as well. Remembering that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas nor any greenhouse effect, nor even any anomaly for greenhouse to fill.
And why only try and fit the century? Thats leaving 99.9% the other data out of it. There has never once been a CO2-biased model that fit the data. Never. Not one, not ever. Nor will there ever be any such beast. Working backwards in this way for a limited time period (on both rigged-up CO2 levels and rigged-up temperature readings) is not anything beyond a callibration. You need to show predictive power both farwards and backwards after the callibration is made.
I am confident if I had firing powers and running a team of computer modelers (and on the basis that no Gramscian-wankers need apply) that I could put together a model pretty quickly that fitted for long stretches, but only if I could feed in solar wind in real-time, and ocean currents in retrospect.
The two most important factors are solar wind and oceanic currents. The most important human factor is not CO2 but rather actual pollution. That is to say SO2 and particulates. The human race has almost certainly been a cooling influence since the industrial revolution, except on the local level where human activity with roads, concrete and tall buildings causes some local warming.
Solar wind is very hard to predict. Some success with predicting forbush events comes with tracking planetary alignments. Also Dr Marohasy had an excellent article about the effect of the orbit of the moon which ought to have legs. The author may not have had this particular transmission effect in mind. But if the moons orbit impedes the circulation of the ocean conveyor it will act as a delayed COOLER. If the moons orbit then stops impeding in this way, or even actually assists the ocean currents it will act as a delayed warming agent. The transmission of this effect will work through Stefan Boltzmanns law.
If the moon assists upwelling and downwelling likewise it will be expected to have a short-run cooling effect but will add to the heat budget of the oceans to produce a priori warming in the long-run. The moon also warms via more well-known “tidal warming”, which is a feature we see through-out the solar system. For example one of the moons of Jupiter (IO) has virtually constant volcanic activity due to tidal warming from Jupiter itself, as well as from the other moons.
According to David Karoly:
“Carbon dioxide is such a minor atmospheric constituent that it can’t affect global climate. This is untrue. While carbon dioxide makes up only 0.038% of the atmosphere, it is vital in the energy balance of the Earth’s surface and atmosphere. If the atmosphere contained no greenhouse gases, the surface temperature would be about 30C colder. ”
This is nonsense. In fact it cannot be true even if one were to accept the wrong view that there are greenhouse gases and a greenhouse effect.
But some of you might disagree. Clearly Karoly is working under the assumption that he’s found an average temperature anomaly that needs to be explained by some mechanism or other. But there is no basis for such a claim. Where is the gap that he is talking about? And why is it not assumed that such a gap is not explained by a multitude of factors?
The most obvious factor amongst many is the electrical energy coursing through the galaxy. This electrical energy comes in at least two forms. The charged particles that relentlessly bomb the earths atmosphere. That is to say the charged particles themselves. And on top of that further electrical energy arriving via Birkeland currents. This electrical energy arrives THROUGH the charged particles but can be considered somewhat distinct from the charged particle movement proper.
When the solar winds are blowing hard we are bombarded by charged particles not factored into the average wattage represented by the alleged “solar constant” The solar constant, so-called, is a wattage based only purely on electromagentic radiation moving at the speed of light. So we see that straight electrical energy is being excluded by stupid people.
Louis Hissink has pointed this out a number of times. It is not the whole of the story but it is probably the most important part of the temperature difference. If there is a rival it will be to do with the behaviour of liquid water.
When the solar winds are not blowing as hard we are STILL bombarded by charged particles from the rest of the galaxy. Now folks point out that these wrongly named “cosmic rays” have a marginal cooling effect because of their influence on cloud cover. Yes this is true and pretty much proven. But nonetheless, forgetting the marginal effect, the background effect is in the first instance to add to the thermal energy of the atmosphere by adding electrical energy. When the electrical energy given to us via the solar winds … when this source of electrical energy wanes, part of the slack is taken up by electrical energy from the rest of the galaxy in the form of these “cosmic rays …….. marginal cloud-cover effect notwithstanding.
Moving ions, whether positively or negatively charged, constitute an electric current. It does not matter if we are talking positively or negatively charged particles, or positively or negatively charged molecules. In all cases with this movement we have an electric current. This is what an electric current IS.
This is all going over old wine that Louis has told you about before but I want to add my weight to what he has told you because I have checked it all out and found out that he was right as usual. In total, the Earth appears to absorb a great deal more negatively charged particles than positively charged particles but the fact is it absorbs both. And for thermal purposes they do not cancel.
Whereas most non-planetary matter (and perhaps to make this generalisation we would have to exclude much of the core of stars also) constitutes plasmas once we get below the ionosphere, most of the planet that we have full knowledge of and access to, is made of standard, uncharged molecules. And the thing is that plasmas tend to conduct electricity well. Whereas standard, non-metallic molecules, without charge, conduct electricity poorly.
So the atmosphere is like this resister. The moving particles bombard the atmosphere, they represent electrical energy, they excite the molecules in the Earths atmosphere producing heat. Its analogous to an electric current moving through a resistor. Or you might wish to think of it merely as a kinetic thing. The charged particles bombarding and exciting the molecules.
It is a fact that this happens, totally regardless of whether or not you have come around to the realisation that the “electric universe” contingent have the better paradigm for how the stars operate than the “fusion alone” people.
So what with the way that liquid water behaves. And with overturning. With the way phase-change happens with water vapour and airborne-liquid-water. With tidal warming from the moon and sun. With warming from the centre of the earth itself. With the electrical energy coming in from the bombardment of charged particles from the sun, and from the rest of the galaxy also……… and on top of all that with FURTHER electrical energy conveyed via Birkeland currents from the rest of the galaxy ………..
……
With all of the above and more …. Just where is this anomaly? What known anomaly is there? What anomaly in temperature exists that this nonsensical non-existent “greenhouse effect” is supposed to explain?
If you are a believer find me the anomaly first. I don’t think that this is too much to ask. Find the anomaly or give up on your cost-imposition, and sovereignty selling-out for all time. Find me an anomaly I can work with. If you cannot even so much as find me an anomaly then where are you with this jive? You are nowhere with this jive. Without an anomaly the alarmists are just a bad joke.
“Your temperatures are not really your own any more! How’s that for sovereignty, folks? How does it make you feel, to know how badly your national policy is distorted by numbers we Up North have ‘cooked up’ for you?”
Absolutely fantastic man. This lends weight to my supposition that there has been collusion between our Australian CO2 measuring-stations and that global one ludicrously placed above a volcano. When does the stupidity end? It ends when we reverse this attack on sovereignty and this trend towards global governance. We cannot have this situation where humanity is all part of one entity such that a noose can be thrown around its neck. Better to have endless border dust-ups than to sit still for that. War can be avoided, most of the time, by the studious application of statecraft. The medieval German principalities that Machiavelli talked about in such glowing terms are the only model that make sense. Proud, strong and well-armed people. And we can be well-armed without too much of a body-count if for domestic purposes we combine massive firepower with less-lethal ordnance.
Thanks a bunch Schiller. If you have any other tidbits that can help the local Australian rumble for personal, local and domestic sovereignty don’t hold back. And right here I want to apologise on behalf of the English-Speaking world for most of the carpet bombing that came after the American entry into the war. And for both starvation blockades, at least insofar as they occurred when the outcome of the war was assured, if not before.
Note to the faithful troops, you know who you are.
Great news the EPA here in the US of A has classed GHGs as a pollutant. So that means extra money can be made from taxes on breathing and dying, also flatulence will be taxable, marvellous. We all flew to Las Vegas and had a party, sorry you weren’t there.
One of these dreadful pollutants is Dihydrogen Monoxide. We need to work on its elimination as well. In all its forms it is dangerous, without it the planet would not being doing this warming thing. Certainly there would be no concerns about sea level, ice caps or glaciers. So next to AGW we need a campaign about BDM.
But to business please read my instructions from on high.
http://www.cred.columbia.edu/guide/guide/principles.html
For more detail please see
http://www.cred.columbia.edu/guide/guide/conclusion.html
Also please keep the money coming bless you all.
PS Sorry for the delay in posting of the prayer mats. The manufacturer got confused and made them pink instead green. Something about pink on the inside, strange communication error!!!
Bob Whittaker,
You sound like a very sincere person who wishes nothing but peace and hope for humankind and the future of planet Earth. And it sounds like you have experienced horrors and sadness beyond the pale of what most people can imagine. I worked with the UN High Commission for Refugees in Central America in the 1980’s at a time of war, environmental degradation and genocide against the indigenous Mayan Indian population, so while not experiencing battle I have seen killing fields, mass graves and the wretchedness of displaced people. I know the hollowness that these kinds of things leave in one’s heart and gut.
Nevertheless the question of the validity of AGW hypothesis is one of pure science, although it is now so deeply mired in politics that the science is being abused. You say that the issue of Climate Change should be above politics yet your whole argument is an emotional appeal based on the false premise that the same type of politics who agent oranged Vietnam now want to do the same thing to the whole planet. You’re angry Bob and justifiably so, but this doesn’t excuse you from your moral responsibility to think rationally through the implications of the climate change policy you seem to advocate.
Bob, if we don’t get the science right having a “global consensus” on a mistaken theory is a bit like the Children’s Crusade. It will end badly as a major catastrophe for humanity.
“Prudent Risk Management” calls for first getting the science right. That is all that the skeptical camp is asking for and as Climategate has exposed is everything that the Church of Climate Change is denying. The data and code has NOT been made available for skeptical climatologists to transparently access and test! Data has even been destroyed! Why?
Climategate is the most fundamental violation of the scientific method possible and as such, given the high stakes involved is a crime against humanity that might just result in the death of millions of people. As one well versed in the philosophy of science I am deeply offended and angry at the massive criminal misconduct at CRU. I also believe that failure to adhere strictly to the rules of scientific conduct in research is the surest path to “future infanticide” that we ALL – on both sides of the argument – wish to avoid!
If that sort of skeptical demand to adhere to the normal professional standards of scientific methodology offends you then I’m sorry, mate. Progressive technological civilization based on rational scientific method didn’t get to where we are today by faking and hiding the research.
“The stakes are as high as they can get” because if we spend trillions and trillions of dollars on a false premise that means that millions and millions of people particularly in poor countries will die from lack of development projects that could have been otherwise funded. The Earth’s resources are a zero-sum game (at least in the short term.)
If you’re really a person with a strong heart who wants to help people and the environment then you will do your homework on the science and have an open mind to either possibility. Either human activity is heating the planet to dangerous levels or it isn’t. If it isn’t and we waste massive resources on bad science that will be as great a catastrophe as global warming.
Bob, a few questions (out of many) you might want ask yourself:
If the Australian government can’t even build a divided highway between Brissy and Sydney or provide proper medical staffing west of Byron Bay then what evidence is there for the assertion that they’ll be able to legislate the Earth’s climate more effectively?
Likewise, ask yourself how likely is it that the UN IPCC or some meta-government technocracy will be able to control the Earth’s climate at an optimum stasis? How about something simple first like eradicating malaria in Africa? UN can’t do it. Control cetacean hunting? Too hard. Stop child malnutrition? Nope. What about ending genocide in Sudan? Still waiting. Yet, some how the UN can control the weather????
And should a world government obtain the power to set an optimum global climate stasis, what should the target temperature be?
Social Justice demands that if the world is warming naturally after the Little Ice Age, then countries in cold regions would be unfairly treated if the politics of weather determined they should experience glaciation to expand beach front properties in the Pacific. Therefore we are back to the hard science. Social Justice demands that the science of climate be open and transparently performed with all the data shared on the Internet with everyone before we invite the politicians in to divide up the world’s resources and decide who will live and who will starve.
What temperature is the optimum temperature for the planet? This is the fundamental pseudo-science assumption behind government controlled climate, because the answer to that question is that there isn’t one. There is no such thing as a climate stasis, the climate is always changing in one direction or the other. Therefore the term “climate change” is tautological and to chant “Stop Climate Change Now” as Greenpeace protesters are wont to chant, is a tautology wrapped in an oxymoron. It’s not science but an apocalyptic green pseudo-religion with a very precise dogma.
In fact I would argue that the moral dilemma of a World Government controlling climate is so fraught with zero-sum trade-offs that by definition such a technocracy would have to be unjust, oppressive and totalitarian in nature. But I digress…
All the skeptics are saying is make the science, data and codes, transparently available to all creeds and races on the Internet so that a TRUE consensus can be arrived at.
Cohenite,
Your reference to American Thinker Dec 11th 11.13am again throws up the temp. data adjustment/corruption going on in NZ.
I took the liberty of sussing out part of an e-mail sent by our Jim Salinger (formerly of East Anglia)to his cabal of AGW scientist mates overseas.
24th April 2003….
“Since the IPPC makes it quite clear that there are substantial grounds for concern about climate change, is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactory peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications?-and to refute any inadequately reviewed and wrong articles that do not make their way through the peer-review process?”
Firstly Salinger says since THE IPPC has made it clear AGW is a concern; scientists must agree with this concern?? Hang on, I thought scientists ADVISED the IPPC (non scientists) of THEIR concern . Not visa-versa.
Secondly Salinger says it is the responsibility of…
“climate science”…..to determine what is satisfactory.
“climate science”…..to refute anything inadequately reviewed.
“climate science”…..to decree whether articles are right or wrong.
“climate science”…..to make sure the wrong articles do not pass peer review.
So according to Salinger we have 1) the IPPC making it clear to the scientists that “climate change” is a concern, 2)”climate science” directing the scientists to use any means possible to protect itself.!
Aahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Haven’t these scientists got a mind of their own????
What a load of duck-shoving rhetoric!
No, it’s not “climate science” performing those 4 tasks outlined above.
It’s Salinger and his mob.
And it’s abundantly clear their AGW ” climate science” faith totally obscures any impartial scientific objectivity.
These people are unworthy of the title “scientist”.
Graeme; stop it!! you can’t get a life in physics from bolgs.
Wes “If that sort of skeptical demand to adhere to the normal professional standards of scientific methodology offends you then I’m sorry, mate. Progressive technological civilization based on rational scientific method didn’t get to where we are today by faking and hiding the research”
As a former professional in measurements, R&D etc I say there is an art you call “faking and hiding” that is often used here by skeptics when they relay temperature results that are heavily smoothed, filtered etc to the extent all the meaning in origional data is lost.
Now you all know I don’t believe a word in LIA, MWP posts or warmer 1930’s because I know from direct experience most of that old data is built with instrument error and faulty techniques. and lets not forget that we did not get accurate gas analysis until about the 1950’s or 60’s depending on wether you worked in industry or accademic science research.
I am going to remind other folks that may be lurking; in my opinion the great majority of internet skeptics and others who write on these topics have never done a series of practical measurements first hand.
Folks,
Let’s pretend for a moment that the temperature of the Earth can accurately be monitored, say, at least on an annual basis.
Let’s take as uncontroversial the notion that the Medieval Optimum is, indeed, optimum.
And, let’s further pretend that the Earth’s thermostat can be ‘set’ by regulating the use of fuels that oxidize carbon.
Under these assumptions, would it not make the most sense to have energy use regulations ‘kick in’ when we achieve a climate equal to the Medieval Optimum?
I realize, of course, that regulating CO2 emissions wouldn’t make a difference anyone could realistically measure, but still — to be realistic, we’d have to surpass the Medieval Optimum by a long way to achieve a ‘planetary emergency’ worthy of any note.
But I digress.
This was never about global warming. This has always been about a political power grab.
The proponents of AGW were always about global governance.
Naively, the ‘skeptics’ thought it was about the science involved. Poor [sic] ridiculous dupes, who thought that the light of scientific facts would cast out the darkness. The skeptics have consistently been misled by the warmers into the cul-de-sac of scientific criticism. The game was never there, and in that dark alley, honest scientists simply get beat up and mugged.
The real game was always elsewhere.
It’s a bad game where the honest players are the dupes.
What are you talking about gavin? Make a case for or against, for the love of stupid people everywhere. Look at you. You are pathetic. There is no specific thing you can rightly gainsay me on. Because the fact is I’m right and you are wrong. If you’ve got nothing specific, you’ve got nothing at all.
You are just shitted off that you are being hit with so much truth all at once. You’ve been mobbed. Blinded by the light.
“I am going to remind other folks that may be lurking; in my opinion the great majority of internet skeptics and others who write on these topics have never done a series of practical measurements first hand.”
You complete moron. Well as a matter of fact as a kid I used to read the the rain gauge and record it in a daily diary. And I can remember this casual job I had where one of the tasks was to read the power meter at a prescribed time, for a heated swimming pool.
You dope. You blockhead. You complete dummy. This is what things have fallen to. Instead of science being natural philosophy, this pinhead gavin, has confessed its been reduced to a lot of clubby morons, who are really just dummies, who get paid from stolen money, to read the meter. There is no science involved in reading the meters. I know. I’ve done it. At least I was able to do it honestly. That may be nine-tenths of the science right there. The ability to be able to read the instruments, and record their verdict, in an honest way.
“As a former professional in measurements…..”
These people are really just laughable aren’t they? My goodness. A professional no less. A meter-reader. Always these field-workers stooge themselves into thinking they are field marshalls.
“The GCMs, based upon CO2 theory, would have to simulate temps. They prove nothing about the theory! Circular science/logic is still circular and self abusing.”
MORONIC ! Corev – you ought be ashamed of your stupidity. “would have to simulate temps.” not really – sigh …
Mack – ultra moronic indulgent pure crap.
excellent letter at Lucia’s Blackboard.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/petr-chylek/
McIntyre – just another denialist sycophant
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
“PS I just read today that my friend Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.”
Thanks Janama
Schiller,
I agree that a particular brand of socio-economic philosophy has appropriated the “genre” of science to create a kind of mythological narrative to justify their ends. You’re right it was never about the science to them. In fact, they’re raping the meaning, context and conduct of science in the pursuit of their end. It’s a scorched Earth policy.
Nevertheless, those who choose to appropriate the language of science to promote false premise will in the end die upon the sword of scientific logic, skepticism and empirical verification. The mortal revelations of Climategate have accelerated this process markedly.
It’s my opinion that if CRU wasn’t involved in fraud all the data, metadata and code would have long ago been made available for third party verification and reproduction. Nor would Phil Jones have destroyed raw T-data. They were so obsessed with the opinions of skeptics that if they really had sound evidence for the AGW hypothesis they would have released the data rather than suppressing them.
As skeptics we must endeavor to educate the media and lay people in the utter seriousness of the scientific method and its primacy in creating everything from our food to our medicines. To fudge data, to cheat the process of science, to skip processes of quality control and reproducibility, if it were in avionics or civil engineering would be a serious criminal offense, so should it be in climatology.
And then there are the perennial True Believers who do their cause far more damage then they are intellectually capable of understanding:
Gavin, for instance, might well know how to calibrate a meter, but he has demonstrated repeatedly he doesn’t understand the most fundamental ethics of scientific conduct. In his latest post he implies the burden of proof lies with the skeptics to prove the AGW hypothesis is false. Not so. It’s not our hypothesis. The burden of proof lies with the proposer of said hypothesis. This is basic sci-phil 101 stuff. Obviously, a TAFE Cert 3 in meter reading is no substitute for a real education.
Then Gavin says “I don’t believe a word in LIA, MWP posts or warmer 1930’s because I know from direct experience most of that old data is built with instrument error and faulty techniques.” I suppose Gavin imagines he has cleverly shown that it is impossible to disprove the AGW hypothesis…. Uh…Therefore it is true? LOL. Nice Logic, mate.
Gavin, what do you call a hypothesis that cannot be tested?
Gavin,
If I read you correctly, you don’t believe in the LIA due to instrumentation issues? But I perceive that you are a student of history so perhaps you would care to get hold of a copy of; “The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300-1850 (Paperback)
~ Brian M. Fagan”
This excellent book is based on historical documentation from northern Europe and is quite fascinating. It also demonstrates that the so-called “extreme” weather events that have been experienced over the last century are piffle compared to what has been recorded over the last millennium.
My library has the book so perhaps yours would have it also.
Cheers.
wes george,
In lieu of hearing a coherent response from gavin, I’d just point out what Karl Popper would say about an hypothesis that can’t be tested.
It’s not science.
Feynmann would graciously call it ‘mythology’.
McLuhan would note that it’s an artifact of the medium involved.
But for sure, it’s not science.
Ah, yes paleoclimatology, one of AGW’s many Achilles’ heels.
Perhaps the most fundamental argument against the hypothesis of human-induced global warming is the fact that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than today.
Logically, if the climate about 1,000 years ago – long before human activity elevated levels CO2 — naturally warmed to and even beyond today’s temperatures then the need for the special one-off anthropogenic warming hypothesis is eliminated.
This is due to the Principle of Parsimony (Occam’s Razor.) If you know about zebras and then go to the zoo and see a white mule-like beast with black stripes it would be ludicrous to propose that an artist must have painted stripes on a horse. Likewise, if you know the climate of today isn’t any warmer than a thousand years ago it’s ludicrous to propose a special hypothesis that can explain ONLY the latest cycle of warming.
Moreover, The Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (AGW) does make a testable prediction: It must be warmer today than at any time in the past when atmosphere CO2 levels were much lower. Yet, once again the MWP does not confirm this prediction, nor do many other warm periods before the MWP… Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is falsified, because a hypothesis that fails a single test must be restated to conform to empirical observations or discarded altogether.
Luke, Gavin, et al can rail on all they want about anecdotal evidence that it’s hotting up, but the simple fact that the MWP was as warm or warmer than today renders the AGW hypothesis null and void. That’s simply the way science works.
Skeptics don’t doubt that the Earth is (or was) heating up after the Little Ice Age (LIA) and that some fraction of the heating is likely attributable to greenhouse gases. What they do doubt is the fundamental logic of the declaring anthropogenic CO2 a major climate-forcing agent even in the face of strong evidence of past warming at much lower CO2 levels than today. Likewise, skeptics disapprove of fear tactics and appeals to emotion in order to rush particular socio-economic agendas forward without firmly establishing the climatological science first.
And now Climategate has revealed that the researchers at CRU deeply understood that the MWP proved the AGW hypothesis false. Their highly unethical solution to the problem of the MWP was not to modify their hypothesis of human induced warming, but to “adjust” the data to smooth out the MWP to temperatures below today! Thus the data was tweaked to fit the hypothesis.
Luke and Gavin’s only response will be, of course, to DENY that paleoclimates ever were as warm as today. (Or maybe Gavin will complain that the paleo-thermometers were calibrated incorrectly by the Celts and the Goths so we’ll never know, therefore just have faith in Al Gore.)
I call this “Climate Creationism”, because like Creationists the Warmists DENY that climate evolution occurs naturally and believe the past was a Garden of Eden climate optimum from which sinful humankind has been banished. The quixotic project to “stop climate change” is tantamount to the Creationist concept of a static God-created universe (exchange Man for God) in that both seek to deny the complex dynamics of natural systemic evolution in favour of a rigidly dogmatic authoritarian gestalt.
The Climate Creationists say man shall command the weather!
“We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”
Dr. David Deming (University of Oklahoma, College of Earth and Energy) said in his testimony to congress…
http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
“I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.” The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous.”
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm
“Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.”
Ah Luke – you should have read further
He’s been saying that for years.
Luke – Here’s what he actually said:
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/roger-a-pielkes-position-on-climate-change/
He also pointed to this article which stated:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-354.pdf
where He supports 2a and why he believes Copenhagen is wrong because it is based in 2b.
Gavin,
“Now you all know I don’t believe a word in LIA, MWP posts or warmer 1930’s because I know from direct experience most of that old data is built with instrument error and faulty techniques. and lets not forget that we did not get accurate gas analysis until about the 1950’s or 60’s depending on wether you worked in industry or accademic science research.”
Your bull is tiresome. Tell me, what is the error of the satellites, electric sensors poorly sited, gas measurements in stupid locations with the data manipulated to strange and arcane standards??
Old man, you are full of it and need to retire from retirement and go out and relearn what you have forgotten! That is, unless you have been spewing all this time and know NOTHING!!!
You claim,
“As a former professional in measurements, R&D etc I say there is an art you call “faking and hiding” that is often used here by skeptics when they relay temperature results that are heavily smoothed, filtered etc to the extent all the meaning in origional data is lost.”
and have nothing to say about what has been done to the so called OFFICIAL temp record. You are an apologist of the Luke stripe even if you do have a more reasonable way of saying it. Now stop boring us.
well luke, ive struggled to understand your point…as usual. you call me a drongo for pointing out the emails were not all from a decade ago as bazza and gore have both suggested, ……so bazza’s words “The leaked emails were over a decade ago, a decade likely to be the hottest recorded,” does not mean bazza thinks the emails are 10 years old or more?? Even “pravda” has the quote and the date as i suggested…so exactly how am i a moron for pointing out bazza is wrong in saying the mails are a decade old??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
they state; Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009
An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Trenberth wrote.[7]
of course being pravda they then try to gloss over its significance. There are also many other quotes from emails less than a decade old…so who is the drongo?
Your lack of appreciation of the significance of these emails is astounding and very telling.
so what exactly was your point oh wise and superior luke ??!!
Prof Will Alexander has an interesting guest post at Pielke Sr.’s blog.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/a-guest-weblog-by-will-alexander-climategate-chaos/
““PS I just read today that my friend Roger Pielke Sr. is now agreeing that human-caused global warming is supported by too much evidence to be ignored.””
Thats science sentiment. Not scientific evidence. Get it right dummy.
Luke ,
I think we’ve established that when it comes to icebergs Gavin is talking through a hole in his head .
However on Dec 12th 11.18am, you dismiss my comments about Salinger as “ultramoronic indulgent pure crap”
To biff insult at me without any foundation or accompanying reasoning is just piss weak Luke.
“Well as a matter of fact as a kid I used to read the the rain gauge and record it in a daily diary.”
And you probably got that wrong too.
Mack forgets comments from the crew on Macquarie Is claimed mass berg sightings were “rare”. We don’t know how old you are mate but I have a long memory re media comments about the ocean south of Aus and I say these big ice survivors up in the forties are very uncommon.
Also having lived in the southern states for some six decades I’ve met a lot of sailors, crewmen etc who plied these waters for a living. Man, some of my cronies actually spent years in Antarctica. In fact one was a base leader while it was being built. Let’s say now there are many more sightings in our latitudes of that other ocean menace, the Great White Pointer.
Graeme; you need to do a proper course in physics such as we had at the greater tech colleges like RMIT then try building some interesting experiments like capturing and recording some of that cosmic stuff you and your mate write about while insisting you both have it all down pat.
Wes, although I appreciate your “calibration” comment and stab at a 3 yr meter reading cert, that is not what I was generally paid to do. As much of my time was in support of various operations, projects etc the exciting bits were mostly disputes over system performance v local expectations. To put that in some perspective for you, I wound up working in radio spectrum issues for Federal agencies after switching out of other fields a few times.
My electro mag testing “instruments” over the decades could be anywhere in the range from DC to light and so were many of my daily reports but believe it or not, what often counts most is grass roots stuff like battery routines. Accuracy is only one goal in a complex system. Lack of interference is another in a crowded environment. Clear signals are a notion, not a gift.
What probably makes odd ones here think I’m thick when it comes to appreciating these skeptic views on AGW is the fact that I’ve had to deal with many arguments in physics from educators, engineers, managements and scientists from various fields of enterprise all IMO were much better informed than this lot.
I stay not to confront but to teach what I can in the space available.
cheers
Look at the utter implausibility of Methane being a warming gas. Here is the density of various gases. Density of Gases in terms of grams per litre.
O3 ……. 2.144
O2 ……. 1.429
Nitrogen .. 1.251
CO2 ……… 1.977
Argon ……. 1.784
Methane 0.6557 g/L
So look at your average methane molecule produced by some termites. Starting from the ground, it hogs some warmth to itself in terms of radiation, so its lighter and warmer than the molecules around it. On average such molecules will quickly take their warmth above where you, your house and your thermometer is. And thats really the end of that story. How can it lead to global warming? It cannot lodge extra warmth in the ocean. And yet you see pictures of cows with tubes stuck up their behind. Environmentalists robbing our cows of their dignity and for no reason.
““The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Trenberth wrote.[7]”
Simply Tony – it’s silly for you to quote him like this. Does Trenberth still believe in AGW – answer yes. He’s simply reflecting the lack of realistic decadal variability in the previous model generation.
Yawn ….
A few emails is not an IPCC report nor a “considered” view.
When you get Trenberth saying “gee I think AGW is a total crock” – pls call !
Bird – your last “effort” is extraordinary ! He’s your boy fellas. Enjoy.
Hello fellow free thinkers,
I am really starting to think that given the weight of non evidence for AGW, the failed projections , the rigged graphs ect,and now the CRU emails, that surely even a mildly intellegent person can see that the whole AGW has been constructed by persons with the same old agenda. You all know them they are:
‘the malthusian foods going to run out brigade ”
” The club of Rome steady state non economists”
” the population bomb crew”
” the failed western socialist state movement ”
and of course the Greens.
All of these groups having been trying to curb western success and wealth and to keep the third world in a third world state of misery.
The point is that modern day AGW true believers are simply a continuatiion of the sad groups mentioned above. lets all hope that enough people wise up to their scam before its to late.
Folks,
There’s a problem with the “travesty that we can’t” Trenberth quote. It’s taken out of context.
Things are actually quite a bit worse, when you put it back into context. Here’s the full paragraph:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”
What he’s saying is, “we’re not getting what we want, therefore the data are wrong.”
Well, once you decide your data are wrong, and “know” that your model is right, what do you do?
Well, we know the solution they opted for: fix the data. Make the data fit the model.
It’s perfectly clear.
Not the first time data have been wrong Schillsbo – remember when Christy and Spencer botched the satellite data corrections. Yeeeesss..
Cristy and Spencer’s paper was out there for all to see and they admitted their error as soon as it came to light.
The CRU team cooked the books and were only found out because their emails were hacked, possibly by Vlad Putin and some of his old mates.
Mike Hulme is the ring leader extraordinaire at CRU and the remanufacture of cc data was really his bag.
“All of these groups having been trying to curb western success and wealth and to keep the third world in a third world state of misery.”
Well thats right of course Jack. But I think they’ve succeeded. Them and the banking racketeers. The delayed death blow is in for the Americans. And so likely for the rest of us also. We really needed to have got to work on nuclear, liquified-coal and other energy sources, not excluding the greenie ones, in some niche areas.
Technology moves fast in some areas but energy is not one of them. And these people have been trying to inhibit our access to various energy sources for some decades now. I really fear they may have done us in. You stab an anatomist in the heart, he puts his palms upwards and says “you didn’t need to kill me. ” We have to to move or we are going to die.
well luke its no wonder you believe so strongly since you are unable to recognise that my comment re trenberth was purely to show bazza that he is blinded by his oracle gore. bazza said the emails were over a decade old. i showed they were not, many are far more recent….including oct 2009. so i win the point, because your point has ntg to do with mine. and is a classic example of the logic used by warmers. i dispute a statement and you abuse me for something i did not say by creating a straw man. loser……
were you bullied at school? so that you think you can bring your verbals to the blogosphere.
luke, would you trust the opinion of a man who can say things like this…..http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_gore_is_grossly_careless_or_a_barefaced_liar/
clearly facts are irrelevant, its the “ethics and doing the right thing” that matter.
The IPCC has promised to investigate the Climategate affair and give us an unbiased report.
I wonder if it will be similar to this UN interview?
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/ipcc-shut-up-or-go-to-prison/
Gavin, Luke, and the other true believers,
here are some more good news for you,
GHCN Adjustments: http://statpad.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/ghcn-and-adjustment-trends/
GISS and Underlying Data: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/confirmation-of-the-dependence-of-the-era-40-reanalysis-data-on-the-warm-bias-in-the-cru-data/
Gavin, you especially should enjoy what is being done with your oh so excellent modern measurements!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Here is an especially interesting comment with reply from E.M. Smith on the previously mentioned post:
”
on November 26, 2009 at 2:07 pm Chris Polis
Just wondering if the ‘deleted’ station data is still available but not in GISSTEMP? We use station data (Australia) for air conditioning calcs and I haven’t seen anything to indicate that the culled stations have actually stopped recording… might be possible to get the ‘missing’ data?
REPLY: [ As near as I can tell, most of the stations are still recording. The “deletion” looks to occur at the entry (t)o GHCN. For GIStemp, they have recently put back in the USA data (that was still in USHCN.v2) after (some) prodding… I expect to find a similar pattern for the rest of the world. The data set manager is the person who coordinates this activity and ought to have managed the meetings where these decisions were taken. A quote from an earlier posting:
The “magic sauce” is GHCN. As is admitted in the emails, the CRUt series depends heavily on GHCN. GIStemp depends heavily on GHCN. NOAA (with a NASA data set “manager”) produces GHCN.
All the thermometer location “cooking” that was done to GHCN (moving from the mountains to the sea, moving from the poles to the equator) is reflected in both Hadley CRUt and GIStemp. Same Garbage In, Same Garbage Out.
From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/hadley-hack-and-cru-crud/
Comment by Prof. Phil Jones
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/ , Director, Climatic
Research Unit (CRU), and Professor, School of Environmental Sciences,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK:
[…]
Almost all the data we have in the CRU archive is exactly the same
as in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) archive used
by the NOAA National Climatic Data Center
And just who owns that NOAA dataset? Who is “The Data Set Manager”? What I could find looks like a guy at NASA. From:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
down in the comments:
e.m.smith
It took a while to find, but I think I found “who owns GHCN” and “who manages it”.
From: http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/GCMD_GA_CLIM_GHCN.html
We find that:
GHCN data is produced jointly by the National Climatic
Data Center, Arizona State University, and the Carbon Dioxide
Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
The NCDC is a part of NOAA. So I’m not seeing NASA on this list. But…
It goes on to say:
Personnel
SCOTT A. RITZ
Role: DIF AUTHOR
Phone: 301-614-5126
Fax: 301-614-5268
Email: Scott.A.Ritz at nasa.gov
Contact Address:
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Global Change Master Directory
City: Greenbelt
Province or State: Maryland
Postal Code: 20771
Country: USA
So it looks to me like it has NASA staff assigned, part of Goddard (though it isn’t clear to me if G. Space Flight Center and G.I.S.S. are siblings or if one is a parent of the other. I suspect GSFC is an underling to GISS. That would have Scott Ritz reporting to Hansen IFF I have this figure out… (And all that personal data is at the other end of the link anyway so I’m not publishing any private data NASA has not already published.)
…
It’s looking to me like GISS has their fingerprints all over the GHCN deletions, with NOAA ether as patsy or passive cooperator.
-ems ]”
I made a couple minor edits for clarity. Here is the original:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/#comment-1734
Oh yeah, they are all independent and can be used to support the validity of each other!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Good bit of detective work kuhnkat
Ahh; see, the clowns are out again and bent on destroying any colaboration so excuse me being paternal as usual.
Thinking about temp trends and recent updates I googled this and that to avoid Copenhagen and those pesky emails then found this wiki on the instrumental temperature record as updated only recently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record
After reading in full I challenge any blogger to find fault with what I say about uncertainties etc based on this updated wiki apart from my refusal to dump all stations accused of UHI interference.
It’s my view any time series can be made decent again by understanding just a few of the basic issues surrounding the older instruments and their records provided they remain first hand,
The key question for all you youngsters is when we first got effective standardization through out the global station landscape.
I like the little flashing graph over on Monketon’s site.about Brisbane temp anomaly….
http://sppiblog.org/
…..going from raw to adjusted and back. We need little flashing graphs like this all around the climate blogosphere. A bunch of them flashing away displaying “adjustments” here in NZ would be beneficial. Give the gullible believers a bit of reverse subliminal indoctrination.
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
gavin,
Did you read kuhnkat’s post?
Quoting Wiki [who as we all know are part of the “gatekeeper” mentality anyway] in defence of that is a joke.
When official recordings are removed from cold zones and remain only in warmer zones this is plain cooking the books in more ways than one.
These “gatekeepers” of climate science need a full investigation for increasing reasons every day.
Gavin – you disappoint me, as I had thought you were moderately intelligent and well-informed, until I read your endorsement of your link to Wiki (so obviously doctored by Wm Connelley).
Did you ever go to school? did you ever learn any history? how many met stations were there between Cape Town and Cairo during the period 1850-1910? Did David Livingstone spot any in today’s Zambia in 1860? Did Churchill’s CO consult the Met Office in Khartoum for a weather forecast before the battle of Omdurman in 1896?
Is central Africa generally quite hot? does not excluding it from the record prior to 1910 make the global “mean” seem cooler then than it actually was, and the mean now relatively hotter than it really is? As you will answer NO to these questions you ought to be in Copenhagen with all the other True Believers who make Creationists seem like pillars of the scientific method.
If you need a job I suggest you apply to Penn State or CRU or IPCC as they will soon have vacancies for gullibles like you to replace the credulous Manns and Jones whose statistical capability is zero, like yours, and who will be looking for new jobs quite soon, especially the latter.
new site worth visiting: http://climatereason.com/LittleIceAgeThermometers/
a compilation of temperature data excluding GISS and CRU and with an emphasis on recordings during the little ice age.
Spangles “Did you read kuhnkat’s post? –
Mate; that parrot never gets it but in seeking something original I looked at the GHCN discussion and got annoyed thinking the original time series info gets muddied with every review that uses only selected data as the yardstick for analysis. However the picture gets clearer when we think only in terms of the max/min weather regime.
Nobody it seems knows exactly how to standardize the entire string of remaining temp data without treading on someone’s toes, least of all kuhnkat!
My suspicion remains that the majority of weather data comes from a variety of max/min u tube devices that were notorious compared to strait mercury in glass types. Given that, the last place we look for errors is UHI effects and believe me there is very little data on calibration of devices in situ or station observer training to diminish my initial fears.
If it were possible to do standardization runs today on all those cranky sites, one only needs a handful of lab grade partial immersion types to skim through a country and do a few spot checks on each station say noon, midnight, 6am and 6pm to see how each were preforming against their reports in the media.
Please note though I prefer to up set the applecart by changing something in the routine up front such as the reading time to ensure there is no bias towards the official record. The next step is also simple and its drawing the graph temp v time for each station in turn before estimating that station output at other times.
A global temperature trend must be accompanied by a similar sea level trend but tis too will be muddied by instrument and recording errors Do we look first for busy port anomalies? I really don’t think so
Tim; I accept the latest wiki thing is a bit compromised in an attempt to accomadate the Pielke Sen view of climate science and we should note
“The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (November 2009)”
also
“An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the section as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message. (November 2009)”
Its still open Tim
Jennifer; as we watched the annual “School Spectacular” on ABC TV tonight, I thought everybody there experienced the UHI thing first hand but I doubt very much BoM will adjust their Sydney temp down a notch tomorrow.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200912/programs/LE0912H001D2009-12-13T193000.htm
Folks,
Phelim McAleer (of ‘Mine Your Own Business’ and ‘Not Evil Just Wrong’) got busted by UN security guards when he asked Dr. Stephen Schneider some ‘inconvenient questions’ during a Q&A session!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI&feature=player_embedded
Bear in mind, this is the same Stephen Schneider who gained notoriety by saying that climatologists must ‘tell scary stories’ and ‘exaggerate’ in order to get the public’s attention.
When you watch this video, consider that this is what the global climate ‘police state’ could easily become. This is appalling.
Ring any bells anyone?
This is the data that Torok used back in 1999 and it states his methodology.
you can find it all here:
ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
The “read me.txt” file states the following:
“The files in this subdirectory are associated with the Australian
High Quality Temperature Data Set
The directory should contain these files
UNIX FORMAT
readme ‘This file’
method.utx ‘Outline of the method used to prepare the data sets.’
alladj.utx.Z ‘List of adjustments made to the data
and reasons for adjustment.’
finaln.utx.Z ‘Data file of minimum temperatures’
fianlx.utx.Z ‘Data file of maximum temperatures’
Files ending in .Z have been compressed using the unix compress
command. To uncompress them type uncompress FILENAME at the
unix promt once you have transferred the file to your system.
All the data goes back to the late1800s and up to 1993 and they open up in word or notepad as text files.
here’s the Darwin chart taken from the files.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T.png
Jabba,
Excellent reference, especially since the video comes with a bunch of hyperlinks — very well documented!
It’s interesting that ‘global cooling’ is supposed to lead to the same woes as ‘global warming’, but obviously, both can’t lead to the same effects.
If the historical record of the Medieval Optimum is any guide, or the impact of glaciation on biodiversity is any guide, global warming is certainly preferable — and we have a way to go before we once again achieve the Optimum.
One interesting thing about what should be a global warming/cooling asymmetry: AGW proponents are not advocating global cooling.
Think about that, for a moment. If this were all about science, AGW proponents would be advocating global cooling. Touting its benefits.
Why not? Why not tout the benefits of global cooling, when ‘the Earth has a temperature’?
That’s because it’s about global governance, not about science.
By the way, since we’re speaking of Climategate and all that, and about ‘hackers’, and so forth, nobody’s noticed who the real hackers are: the ‘climate scientists’.
How else would you describe someone who went into a government database, ran the data through an algorithm (Al Gore rhythm) and replaced the government data with stuff that showed a trend that wasn’t there before?
You would call that person a hacker. Hadley was hacked, NASA was hacked, and, as everyone in the hacking community knows, the best hack is from inside. From outside is hard, if not impossible. From inside, it’s all your playpen.
Don’t you just love archangels of the denailist filth like Schillsbo and Banana PJs spreading the old global cooling ruse. Put together a couple of popular press articles and a few science quotes out of context and pretend it’s the equivalent of an IPCC report. That’s why we just spit on your words. Denialist tactics 101 – no matter how times the issue has been refuted just keep recycling it over and over. Pure scum. Brought to you by “darkies” Schiller !
Luke,
I hardly ever respond to you, because you have so little to say — mainly epithets, which prove vacuous on any measure.
This isn’t the ‘global cooling ruse’. My claim is, flat-out, that people who talk about ‘global warming’ are not advocating ‘global cooling’. The asymmetry of the claims is noteworthy.
Also noteworthy is the fact that you’re dodging that bullet.
Luke, explain to me, please, why those who warn about AGW are not touting the benefits of a cooler planet. Surely, if they have in hand proof that a warm Earth is a bad place, why they wouldn’t offer arguments in favor of living on a colder planet.
Also, I didn’t cite anything from the IPCC or elsewhere in noting this odd asymmetry, so that critical angle of yours is pure invention.
“Pure scum” is of course your usual rhetoric, and I will regard it as a reflection of the level of your acumen.
As far as the ‘darkies’ comment goes, consider the ‘Danish Text’ that’s percolating through the Copenhagen talks. Anyone who doesn’t know that there’s a preference for their real estate, and a disdain for their personal welfare, has not been following the news — nor even, history.
I could call you names, or apply labels to your style of rhetoric, but that’s a poor proxy for what some would call ‘discussion on the merits’.
Although, I will point out, once again, that your style is quite emblematic and uninformative.
Janama the GISS graph on Darwin is the average temp ( not mean max as in BOM ) over that period and shows a definite cooling trend.
After the “big” climate rally in Melbourne on saturday I found myself at a social function attended by three marchers. As I was outnumberted I bit my tongue and listened as one of the zealots displayed her sense of self-righteousness by running through a litany of the alleged ill effects from GHGs. All the popular memes were present in her various lectures, the like of which I haven’t heard since my youthful attendance at a lefty meeting dominated by Trots.
But the killer “fact” was her statement that she was putting her mouth where her beliefs are by eschewing champagne, beer and other “carbonated” drinks this Christmas. Apparently popping the cork on a bottle of christmas cheer dooms yet more polar bear. There was much agreement on that point from the like-minded, and several further rounds of self congratulation followed.
These people are absolutely mad.
PS: They were so mad, in fact, I suspected Luke and Gavin might have been present. But there was no foul language, so Luke must have missed it. And as no one was drooling, Gavin must not have been present either.
Luke – what I posted was access to data that hasn’t been included in the debate so far. It is the data used by Torok et al in 1996 when they altered the raw data of the Australian data set for temperature. The files contain the data and instruction as to how it was altered and why. I have made no conclusions from the data – just a few charts.
BTW – here is the same data for the Dawin adjusted as per the method outlayed in the method notes.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T_Adj.png
Neville – yes I’m aware of that difference – I wasn’t trying to compare the two.
It’s starting to make sense now. The metho doesn’t state whether the supplied data is before or after adjustement.
So I did it both ways – this way where you subtract the adjustments as stated in the method
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T_Adj.png
and this way where you add them
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin_T_Adj_1.png
the green Data clearly looks like the raw GISS data albeit Max temp v Mean temp.
Take a moment to nominate a best blog post for 2009 here:
http://polling.nationalforum.com.au/index.php?sid=54429&lang=en
I’ve already nominated a few, my list is here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/12/nominate-a-best-blog-post/
Gavin,
“BTW cohenite; I’m still wondering about opaque air”
According to the IPCC and cronies the air IS opaque to INCOMING LW.
Now, how it can let outgoing LW out if it is opaque to incoming I am still wondering about. Can you explain that to Cohenite and I Gavin??
Obviously we don’t understand AGW!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
bazza,
” A GCM can only simulate the teperature trend of the last century if you include CO2.”
Have you heard the term circular logic??
The GCM’s were designed with CO2 in place as a particular level of influence. OF COURSE if you take out that particular piece they wouldn’t work!!!
Now, if you take the same GCM and call that particular subroutine CLOUD FEEDBACK instead, it would THEN NOT WORK WITHOUT CLOUD FEEDBACK!!!!!
The GCM’s are PARAMETERISED!! That is because there isn’t enough computing power to solve all the equations at each cycle. If they get that parameterisation slightly wrong it is FUBAR!!!!!! If they assign the wrong influence level to the parameters, like they did, then they have to BALANCE it with something like AEROSOLS, like they have done!!! Try to find deatailed Papers supporting their values and signs for their AEROSOL parameters!!!!
Sorry bud, you need to buy a CLUE!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
gavinette,
“Nobody it seems knows exactly how to standardize the entire string of remaining temp data without treading on someone’s toes, least of all kuhnkat!”
Funny, I don’t remember claiming to know how to standardise a pile of crap???
But then Gavinette needs to detract from some excellent work by people smarter than both of us!!
Gavinette, your referral to the “string of remaining temp data” is quite apropos as EM Smith appears to have shown that there are DAMN FEW remaining stations being used by GISS and with HadCrud tracking them so closely it is likely they are similar!!!
How about getting off your FAT DUFF and creating your own temp series with all the stations that are available in GHCN and directly???
Lukefartard,
“Simply Tony – it’s silly for you to quote him like this. Does Trenberth still believe in AGW – answer yes. He’s simply reflecting the lack of realistic decadal variability in the previous model generation.”
Ahh, it seems so siple when you say it like that!!!
BUT, you don’t mention that they don’t have the vaguest idea how to change their models so that they retain the sensitivity to GHG’s and STILL get that little 10 year with no cooling!!!
How do I know that?? BECAUSE THEY HAVEN’T DONE IT!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavinette,
I see you had your usual response to technical information with your own detailed technical information.
”
Mate; that parrot never gets it but in seeking something original I looked at the GHCN discussion and got annoyed thinking the original time series info gets muddied with every review that uses only selected data as the yardstick for analysis.”
Uhh, Gavinette, he used ALL the data that GHCN passes!! Would you like him to make up stuff instead??
“Nobody it seems knows exactly how to standardize the entire string of remaining temp data without treading on someone’s toes, least of all kuhnkat!”
Guilty as charged. I would not know how to standardise with or without treading on anyone’s toes!! That’s why I look for people who MIGHT!!
“My suspicion remains that the majority of weather data comes from a variety of max/min u tube devices that were notorious compared to strait mercury in glass types.”
Mate, it doesn’t matter WHAT kind of instruments are being used due to the perverted ways the data from them is being abused. Try to pull out long enough to notice what IS being done why doncha?? Following the links in RomanM’s post you can find some information on this!!
You might even go to RC and ask Gavin Schmidt or the other chimps how HADCruD is homogenised!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Kuhnkat; gavin is a bit of a dead loss; the opaque air has 2 meanings; AGW puts a meaning on it that CO2 infested air will not let LW through as it is emitted from the Earth; the other point which AGW ignores is that air becomes saturated; you raise a third point that opaqueness works both ways; AGW is both silly and arrogant; Bolta has a good example of the arrogance and stupidity of young AGW supporters in a thread on how they ambush Monckton; but recalling gavin’s concerns about ice-bergs recently I thought I’d do some on the back of the envelope calculations which relate to a recent program on the abc about ice loss and rising seas;
In the abc report the featured scientists have found that since 2006, the east Antarctic icesheet is losing more ice than it is gaining.
The majority of the loss is in coastal regions and is estimated at 57 billion tonnes a year.
The Australian Antarctic Division’s Dr Roland Warner says the study confirms Antarctica is contributing to a rise in global sea levels.
“This is confirming the sorts of things that one would expect in a warming world and the fact that this Antarctic system is not in some exact equilibrium at the moment, is in fact losing ice into the ocean, is an indication that things are changing,” he said.
“That’s contributing to half a millimetre of sea level rise per year.”
“It is estimated that sea levels are rising a total of three millimetres a year”, continues the good doctor. Now forget that 2 recent papers put the lie to this claim of the quantity of sea level rise;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/n/#commentsmore
Let’s assume the sea level rise due to melting ice claim is true: that is, 1/2 a mm;
57 billion tonnes is ~ 57 km3 of water
The radius of the Earth is 6400 km
Surface area = 4 x pi x 6400^ km2 = 514457600 km2
The Earth is 70% ocean
Area covered by oceans =0.7 x 514457600 = 360120320 km2
So the increase in depth which could be attributed to the 57 billion tonnes of ice melt presuming it all originates above sea-level and not making any allowance for it spreading over land as it rises (both of which maximise the anticipated rise) would be given by;
57 / 360120320 = 1.5828 x 10-7km = 0.0001528m = 0.1528mm which is NOT 1/2 mm
To Jennifer and Everyone on this site,
An very Happy Christmas!
May 2010 bring each of you happiness and achievement.
My hope is that 2010 will see a gaping hole torn in the mini dark-age we seem to be in at the moment.
Hopefully a return to some truth, reason, wisdom and plain old common sense and a rerejection of radical environmentalism.
We are off down to the high country of N.E. Victoria for some time walking and fishing the streams of the Murray catchment.
Will be able to give you a 1st hand report Luke.
All the best to everyone and thanks again Jennifer for the opportunity you have given us all with this blog.
Pikey.
Ron if you’re still there, I recently went to a conference where the keynote speaker talked about recycling storm-water by injecting it into the aquifer (Salisbury nth of Adelaide) which he said had a 120 year storage capacity. He was critical of desal and claimed that recycling by his method was about 1/4 of the cost of desal.
Conversely, over the weekend I was talking to a guy at a party who recently attended a talk by Kym Beasly who said among other things that effluent from desal is at sea water conc. within 50 m of the outlet and that desal has worked fine in WA for 15 years.
Personally, I like the idea of recycling but am still unsure about desal, do you have aby thoughts on these matters?
Cheers.
Thanks for your good wishes Pikey. Likewise to you and yours. Hope you catch a big fish or two.
As far as a return to commonsense etc. goes, I just hope so too.
Have fun Ron. Merry Christmas to all!
Likewise I’m signing off for the next many weeks to fight the fires on the northwest slopes of the tablelands. Although I do hope to get in some fishing down Sawtell way to clear the lungs. Me caravan has no dish. Whoo Hoo! Cheers.
And Jen, good luck on your research and writing. Now that I think about it, I never did understand how you found the time for blogging. I know that when I seriously write/think – the two compliment each other in ways sublime – I would never be able to blog at the same time…the energy drain and distraction factor would derail a total immersion into the subject of study. May your mind/soul fall like a pebble into the deepest, clearest pool of your imagination. You never know what you will find there. When you surprise yourself, you’ll know you are very much alive.
As for the Little Dark Age (LDA) we are experiencing, I fear that until mainstream media, whose job it is to accurately and fairly inform our voting citizens on all aspects of current events, reforms itself or goes extinct our democracy will be burdened by a caste of drones, semi-illiterate and most comfortable when basking in mass-media induced group-think. Nevertheless, we can hope the pendulum will turn in 2010. Thank God that Al invented the Internet!
…
Lord Monckton interviews a paradigmatic drone, (possibly Luke’s mum?) at Copenhagen…
http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875
Wes,
Mind that passive smoking and have a happy Christmas too!
Good link BTW.
Science history in the making.
I think ( note not believe) that what we are witnessing is the final death throws of the ‘old’AGW paradigm’.
Thomas Kuhn described this exact situation of scientists doing” science in support of the dominnant paradigm. When faced with anomalies they invent even more intricate excuses and mechanisms to support their consensus position until finally the anomalies and dodgy graphs and all the other crap becomes to much! The old paradigm collapses and a new one is born.
This is where all of the normal people on this blog and others like it need to make sure that the void is filled with real un altered data and verifiable and testable theories.
The MSM should hang their collective head in shame!
From now on we want bylines and references to all science stories!
let the revolution (scientific) begin
Thanks for the thoughts Spangles and Wes.
Derek,
You have opened up a topic that really requires a detailed and lengthy reply which I presently have not the time for.
However briefly, it is certainly possible in some areas to run water into acquifers, but we need to keep in mind that it then has to be extracted by bores which are relatively expensive to establish and maintain.
Also most of the large acquifers in eastern Australia are on the flood plains of the Murray Darling Basin a long way from city populations.
I have no problem with desalination where there is no alternative.
But that is not Australia.
We seem hell-bent on pursuing the most inefficient and costly responses to our supposed water problem, when the answer is simple.
There is huge capacity for cheap, easily constructed dams and run-off catchments all along the southern and east coasts of Aust.
We are still developing housing estates all over the country with NO provision for catching the increased run-off.
What has happened is, we have allowed Environmentalists with the unquestioning support of our incompetent MSM to convince the public of the following:
A: Australia is short of water.
B: This can only be addressed by making it more expensive.
This was cycnically done to allow Municipalities to use water as a new tax and allow State Labour Governments to appease the Greens in return for preference votes.
All of the towns and cities from Adelaide to Cooktown on the southern and eastern coasts of Aus. should never be short of water.
In fact there should have never even been any need for metering to households in these cities.
When I have more time I will give you some detail of what has happened here in Coffs Harbour.
Cheers for now,
Pikey.
Since I can’t work out what people are trying on with the old Darwin temp records or the reasons why I had another look at BoM online for clues but there are none to see. What we get is a pretty good service nowadays despite the skeptics and there are notes on quality etc. for the astute.
Climate data online
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
“Notes to accompany Daily Weather Observations
Data availability
These observations have been taken from the Bureau of Meteorology’s “real time” system. Most of the data are generated and handled automatically. Some quality checking has been performed, but it is still possible for erroneous values to appear.
From time to time, observations will not be available, for a variety of reasons. Sometimes when the daily maximum and minimum temperatures, rainfall or evaporation are missing, the next value given has been accumulated over several days rather than the normal one day. It is very difficult for an automatic system to detect this reliably, so caution is advised. For more detail about this or any other data quality issue, contact us.
Summary statistics
The summary statistics (mean, lowest, highest and total) have been calculated using the data available at the time of preparation. Statistics are only calculated where it makes sense to do so (for example, “total maximum temperature” and “mean maximum wind gust” are not calculated, but “total rainfall” and “mean minimum temperature” are).
The extremes for each field are also indicated in the body of the table: the lowest value is shown in blue, and the highest value appears in red.-“
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/dwo/IDCJDW0000.shtml
cheers to those off on a break
Thinking about the electro mag spectrum and air as a medium I usually put IR and UV in the same basket as visible light for all practical purposes. For instance we feel warm in the bathroom standing near the electric radiator or by the window on a sunny afternoon.
Also the digital camera is not bothered either way with reflected light and the focusing beam traveling through air with a little extra moisture.
As H2O is topical may I join the fun? Water treatment was mainstream over a number of decades and I suggest there was no bigger debate than fluoride.
In industry we routinely recycled large amounts of so called cloudy water back into the process, pulp & paper making, mining etc via screens, sand filters and so on. In the food and beverage processes even town water had to be de ionized before use. With sewage we simply churned the brew with lots of air and chlorine then tried to discharge a neutral clarified stream.
In all these processes, quality depended a great deal on constant flow and dose rates being maintained. Fluoride was the tricky one as the very low ppm chemical target could be masked by the heavier doses of chlorine required to kill off residual microbes after filtering.
This brings us back to sources. During my time with MMBW operations I became aware that the expanding metro storage and distribution system suddenly required extensive monitoring and treatment because some water had to bypass the age old Silvan Dam up in the Dandenong Ranges that previously provided pristine water to the city. Volcanic soils there once did the job of many treatment plants that had to follow supply from other sources.
Sun on the surface of a reservoir is not enough these days either considering what may collect in a catchment, besides rain and forest run off. Good ground water likewise needs a pristine environment up front. Trout may be the one exception.
Richard North has done some excellent research on our current IPCC chairman and former railway engineer Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/busy-man.html
The phrase “heads of the hydra” comes to mind.
Cheers Ron, have a good Christmas and a great holiday break.
As some of the corruption from the ipcc is highlighted and a breakdown ( hopefully ) in the Copenhagen talks we may yet have something to celebrate at the end of this week.
The ipcc head is certainly making money hand over fist from his personal involvement in this mad cult, but the pity is when it all comes unstuck it will be the poor taxpayer who foots the bill.
All those billions ( just Australia, trillions worldwide) will take many decades to repay and won’t have the slightest effect on droughts, cyclones, the MDB, great barrier reef, temp etc.
I certainly agree with the hansen idiot on one point , I hope the Copenhagen talks fail and fail miserably.
Copenhagen: Fatalities in protest over solar power
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i65161
Some jests are uncomfortably close to the mark…
Gavin,
I think you missed something in your last 2 posts.
A COHERENT POINT!!
Jabba the Cat,
Thanks for the information on the esteemed head of the IPCC. As always in climate matters, the legal question ‘cui bono?’ comes to mind.
http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/
Well this will put the cat amongst the pigeons and give Walker and his mum something to blather on about.
Goodness me, such a noisome rabble!
If you would all line up along this line here…., the bus will be along soon.
When we arrive at our summer destination I want you all to be on your very best behaviour. Anybody mucking up will miss out on special activities, like our water sports or basket weaving.
Matron will greet you all with some special sweets.
Be good now.
Rog ,
ie. nothing.
That which people call the greenhouse effect is really about H2O dithering around its phase change region. No other gas will have any individually important contribution because H2O is the only substance that is in its phase-change region at earths typical temperatures. This seems obvious once one drops the greenhouse paradigm. Where are temperatures the most even? Precisely where the H2O is doing the most dithering. That is to say where relative humidity is typically near 100%. H2O has both warming and cooling properties in its various forms. It is thought that water vapour is a warming agent. This is wrong. Taken totally on its own, water vapour would be the refrigerant to beat all. Its simply because its dithering between its phase change on a microscopic level, when its airborne, that creates this effect, which evens out temperatures..
The sun climate link has always been controversial, but now a new paper by G A Meehl et al. suggests they have discovered an atmospheric solar heat amplifier.
They coupled two models together and wallah!
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/atmospheric-solar-heat-amplifier-discovered
For heavens sake el Gordo – are you that inept.
Paper ends “This response also
cannot be used to explain recent global warming
because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a
measurable trend over the past 30 years (10).”
Sigh …. and you mean voila – you wallah
Jennifer,
It is sad to see your winding this blog down.
I wish you well on your other projects.
Merry Christmas, and may the coming new year be your best year yet.
Finally some words of wisdom from Rog! A breath of fresh air – heated, cooled whatever! Call it like it is, and wave as the bus leaves the curb RAOTFL!!!
And so as a lasting tribute to this Climategate thread – the entire is issue is BUNK !
Sums up the entire sceptic contribution to the climate debate – BUNK !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/are-the-cru-data-suspect-an-objective-assessment/
And stuff Xmas ! Druids don’t care for it.
There is a worldwide consensus among scientists about skeptics.
Nearly 100 percent of them describe themselves as skeptical, and describe those not skeptical as ‘gullible’.
Among the small subset of scientists known as climatologists, of course, this demographic is badly skewed.
El Gordo; the Meehl paper is another piece in the emerging jigsaw of how natural ‘variation’, the so-called stationary factors, can produce a trend; luke and his fellow prancing ninnies know this is a fatal problem for AGW; the Meehl paper looks at the sleeping giant of cloud contribution to temperature and general ocean/atmosphere coupling; this idea has been looked at elsewhere; these 2 papers look at ‘ENSO asymmetry’ or the fact that the natural ‘oscillation doesn’t produce a temperature neutrality;
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/adai/papers/MonahanDai_JC04.pdf
http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~sun/doc/Sun_Yu_JCL_2009.pdf
The cloud mechanism is spelt out in detail here;
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/sea-level-data-exposes-el-ninos-secret/
The thing is, a slight variation in cloud cover and location can have a major radiative and therefore heating effect; if that effect causes, as appears likely, an asymmetry between the PDO phases than there is a natural contribution to trend; the Meehl paper adds a new dimension to that, one that logically should be attracting the resource funds that AGW is now wasting; that is the solar effect.
Well, that’s about the last technical comment I’ll make; this has been a great blog; but who knows, perhaps a white knight will appear and take away the obstacles to Jennifer continuing the blog.
So Luke, climategate is a dead and insignificant issue? I think this letter to Penn State Uni blows your theories out of the water.
“http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mann_piccola_letter1.jpg”
More interesting research from Dr Richard North on our current IPCC chairman and former railway engineer Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html
yes climategate is irrelevant if you are blinded by your faith. It shows us just how this myth has developed the legs that it has, that believers (deniers in reality!!) can scoff over these emails.
how do you believers feel about the fact carbonhagen will achieve ntg, except huge quantities of co2 being produced? How do you feel about our krudd who wanted us to sign to binding cuts prior to anyone else that matters in the world?
did you hear rudd 2 days ago saying “we will do ntg more and ntg less than the rest of the world”! ….so what would he be saying if had got his ridiculous ets through? ( my 15 year old daughter heard his comment and promptly laughed at his stupidity and pointed it out to me).
sad, very sad, and you believers just go on being unsceptical about anything.
as luke appears to like calling me….drongo’s and idiots and sheep you are….perhaps dags would be more appropriate!!
merry xmas to all and a happy new year.
another open letter to the UN
http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
Wow – a letter on Wattsup documenting a letter to Penn State from Republican sceptics – be still my beating heart. What a try-on.
Pullease ! Politically motivated hack jobs are rather transparent don’t you think.
Toby be soundly sceptical – not stupid !
janama,
re your link, letter ends:
“It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.”
and is signed by 140 scientists.
Until Climategate the UNIPCC thought they had!
And a happy Christmas to the fluid Druid! [as in whisky priest]
The poor old Druids died out because they couldn’t cope with the Roman Warm Period. Very sad.
But did you know that Druidry still allows you to celebrate Christmas?
Luke, watch out for new tactics as revealed by Plimer v Monbiot last night on ABC Lateline. In addition to sidesteps to questions on his claim that the earth had cooled since 1998, Plimer said this decade wasnt over yet, followed by appeals to Monboit to “mind your manners young man” when asked to pls answer the question and then in desperation a mumbled comment suggesting Monboits manners reflected poor breeding. What next.
As a POI, the highest tide [or thereabouts, SLs are never a precise science] of the year is about to arrive and I always find it an opportune time to check my old benchmarks.
As a result I was again bashing a Gold Coast CC engineer’s ear about factual obs of SLR wrt the effect on their mean sea level datum point.
This bloke reckons that they are checking it regularly and in the last 4 decades it has changed in some areas as much as +5cm while in other areas it has actually receeded slightly.
I asked if the SLR had occurred more rapidly of late but he thought it had been a fairly steady change.
This puts it at between less than zero and 12.5 cm SLR per century.
This compares with the obs rate of the east coast of Aust which is around 9cm per century.
Obs SLR in Holland is also at the rate of 9 cm per century.
Probably not very scientifically precise but it tees in with official as well as my own obs of bugger-all SLR.
I thought Plimer performed badly but attack dog Jones was no better.
From 1998 – 2010 there has been cooling so 10 years of cooling is correct.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2010/trend
putting 1998 aside from 2001 – 2010 there’s even more cooling.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2010/trend
Saying that the past decade has been the warmest decade doesn’t mean that there has been continued warming!! it just means that the last decade was the warmest BUT we are showing a cooling curve despite the CO2 increasing – so AGW is shot!
that’s all Plimer had to say.
spangled drongo – this is a good article on sea level rise
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf
“a cooling curve’
Oh pullease ! The smell of cooked books.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/plot/rss/from:2000/to:2010/trend
bazza,
Would it have pleased you more for him to say, as a professor of the warming persuasion recently did in a similar situation, “What an Arsehole”?
Luke,
Just try that graph with the starting year of ’96, ’97 or ’98 and it doesn’t change.
WFT are just ignoring the ’98 peak.
If you climb the hill to ’98 you have to be going down from there. You can’t have it both ways.
Since we are on P37, my max.min is also hovering around 37C. Pity those down in Victoria not much above SL with their predicted > 40. No global cooling downunder yet.
so what Luke – either way there’s no warming!!
why not try Tasmania Gavin – where Hobart’s dec temps are -.2 from average and Launceston is -1.2 from average, or you could try Bega -.2c
well if you want to cheery pick!
Going back a little further……….
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
luke and his new toy; explain this or send it to Monbiot;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
I thought Plimer wasn’t too bad; he’s just not as slippery or meaninglessly coherent as Monbiot; Plimer needs to address this issue of this decade being the warmest which is bunk; ask me why bazza or luke, eh, eh? And as I’ve said as well as not being the warmest the last decade conclusively proves that CO2 doesn’t dominate temperature.
Plimer’s big picture injects some reality into the debate which Monbiot couldn’t counter. He can only deal with small, obscure, debatable issues. When it’s two against one it’s hard work.
The hockey team thought they had neatly disposed of the corpse but hopefully climategate will stick around long enough to expose it.
However, full marks to Monbiot for his opinion on climategate.
Thanks for those, cohenite. They will be of use over at lambert’s blog where I’m fighting a loan battle against the Deltoid larrikins.
Is it true that most blogs just fade away, but rarely die?
Wood for trees huh? Right now I’m in the mood to throttle any discussion that involves wood chip after finally destroying a piece of old particle board that was supposed to be a drawer base in a plywood tallboy cabinet. Rough disposal is all it deserves after crumbling under the weight of staples that were driven half thought it during construction. All the ply panels twisted too.
When I can’t salvage a product this young it has to be just rubbish in the first place. Now did anyone watch that clown from TAS Forests on the 7.30 report last night extolling the virtues of old growth logging? As the lass said; most of it goes to the chip mills.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2772743.htm
BTW nobody quotes fuels used in forestry during that lot.
There was a discussion this week on the continued search for suitable radiant heat shelters in Victorian bushfire prone towns (ABC RN) however I’m still drawn by the air opacity argument earlier.
The cohenites of this world – ooops thought he went, have a lot more thinking to do on the question of what energy comes in and goes out through the various mediums gas, liquids and glass.
After chasing the higher frequency emf form round circuit boards, into transducers and out to space one becomes blasé about the physics of an interface however that’s not to say a little appreciation won’t help. However it’s unlikely we will get round to discussing the opacity or otherwise of a dipole. In fact it’s highly likely we only need the wavelength of any emission to get a handle on distance traveled or the extremes of useful propagation.
with no white knight on the horizon I’m going to miss these stouches
El is going to be in trouble quoting pure climate science as it unfolds here
Derek; going back a topic, one of the problems with water purification is we all then to use the stuff as a cheap transport system. The pulp & paper industry, sewage infrastructure, also mineral refining are good examples of water based process.
Consider too what happens to used paint brushes at home. Do we rinse them down the toilet or the gulley trap out side? Your car weekly wash on the nature strip out front is a classic ground water hazard. Industrial sites and some parts of agriculture may be ahead of the community now in what’s possible with water reuse.
Wood for trees
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends
Smart fellow hey
gavin’s handy home hints number 3296;
“Consider too what happens to used paint brushes at home. Do we rinse them down the toilet or the gulley trap out side?”
Luke,
Every now and again your mate over in Deltoid makes reference to offerings from Hot Topic run by that Gareth Whatsisname ; you know that South Canterbury farmer I told you about who hunts truffles and has written a book. Apparently he also writes childrens stories too.
For your interest his 2nd most recent post on…..”Something potty in the state of Denmark” should provide hours of absorbing reading for you Luke, and give you an insight into just what sort of a raving looney you and your mate over in Deltoid aspire to give credence to.
http://hot-topic.co.nz/
Cohenite; most of my handy hints come at great personal sacrifice.
I’ve just spent the best part of 3 days working out how to get our dead extraction fan assembly out of the kitchen cupboard installation with out wrecking the room, then laboriously degreasing the works in order to find faults within.
To cut a long story short I finished up repairing burnt neutral tracks on the speed control board with copper wire after a weird lamp short where carbonized surface grease arced out the power supply. Seems this darned Italian made contraption can’t be properly cleaned with out complete removal and disassembly nor can the kitchen fitter locate the thing easily as I found numerous pozidrive screws besides my own lost replacements hidden in the various metal folds.
It took longer to put it up again than the time I spent searching the work shop for the trusty Weller and other electronic “tools” in this case an opened flex to apply 240v direct to the fans after the bypassed micro switch failed to fix the fault.
Reinstallation required a considerable period lying back over the gas rings with torch, ¼ drive and extensions trying to locate old holes in the metal case and chipboard retainer. The spice rack hastily divided by jig saw in a vain search for the extraction fan retaining screws went back this morning after a touch up with some white acrylic base.
Can you guess where I washed that brush?
There’s no need to get personal gavin.
On standardization; I don’t often visit RC but they recently linked to NOAA and “talking points – re station location and its impact on the overall temp record.
I reckon it verifies what I repeatedly say here about UHI as a non event after some intelligent considerations that includes types of instruments and people involved in their recordings.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
It can be as simple as the time our trusty max/min is reset.
Take this case; my max reading of 37C this arvo was neither a max or a min but the difference from both sides of the u tube ie 38-36 = 37 that suits me cause it generally agrees with other instrument when I bother to whirl it long enough in the shade from the house.
On the other hand they both tend to be higher than the official record for the local area Belconnen 35 today but it’s not exactly my suburb. Other ACT readings were 36 The question of my reading error is probably solved by considering the influence of drafts from hot masonry exposed to the morning sun but I don’t know if our hot bare soils likewise affect the official instruments.
One of my thermometers needs to go round to all three BoM sites about 3pm to find the average peak for the day.
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN10035.shtml
This is priceless … sceptics in Copenhagen have boarded the Rainbow Warrior and unfurled a banner … more here:
http://cfact.org/a/1674/CFACT-drops-the-banner-on-Greenpeace-ships-in-daring-land-and-sea-raids
I dunno what it’s like in Ozland, but this is clearly the major reason that US voters will demonstrate against any Cap & Trade initiative.
http://cohort11.americanobserver.net/latoyaegwuekwe/multimediafinal.html
Obama and the Dem leadership are clueless as to what is motivating the Tea Party movement (conservative demonstrations) which is a new phenomenon. I reckon the current political climate there is not too different as demonstrated by the few hangers on of the pro-AGW movement and the Rudd Govt.
G’day, to Y’all!
Lord Monckton V Greenpeace Drones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxIjygRPpmk&feature=related
Hilarious…
Jennifer, all,
You should check out the advisory board of CFACT. These are prominent experts in a number of fields, and quite stellar:
http://www.cfact.org/about/1551/CFACT-Board-of-Advisors
I have the impression that a number of scientists in a number of disciplines have become emboldened by the ‘leak’ of the ‘Climategate’ emails — they no longer feel like they are completely ‘under the thumb’ of the burgeoning Green Autocracy.
Even so, Green Autocracy thrives within the confines of the Climate Summit conclave. Phelim McAleer, famed for his documentaries exposing the wretched excesses of Green policies that drive destitute populations into desperation, was grabbed once again by UN security guards — for asking Al Gore the wrong questions.
Check out this link:
“Gore Refuses ClimateGate Questions “, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 15, 2009,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598333184878524.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
People, this is the face of the ‘climate police’ when it comes to enforcing CO2 limits. Part of the enforcement will be Orwellian thoughtcrime.
Well, you might say, ‘They won’t actually prosecute ‘thoughtcrime’. At least, not in such a visible manner.’
Except for the fact that they’re doing it now. Will the UN relinquish its grip on discussions of energy policy if an international treaty on CO2 is signed and delivered?
No way. You give that power away, that power is put to use.
With kindest regards, and best wishes in this holiday season for my friends Down Under, and encouragement for those courageous enough to oppose the Green Machine that has bloated coffers and shrunken scruples,
I remain,
Yours truly,
Schiller T.
Gavin, The bloke you identify as the ‘clown for Tas Forests’ in the ABC 730 report on carbon in wood, just happens to hold a PhD in forest science and has spent his professional career in managing forests in Australia.
He was quoting from two published reports that have stood the test of public scrutiny. Firstly data from Forestry Tasmania’s Carbon Sequestration Position – an independent audit by MBAC Consulting that shows the carbon stored by the growth in forests managed by Forestry Tasmania is equates 6.75 Million tonnes CO2-e of emissions each year compared to an annual log harvest of 2.19 Mt CO2e with an accompanying above ground residue of 1.46 MT.
These results are summarised at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2009/12/counter-global-warming-use-more-wood
The second report is from the former FWRDC called Carbon Wood and Australia’s Forest Balance available at http://www.plantations2020.com.au/assets/acrobat/Forests,Wood&CarbonBalance.pdf
This report states that wood and paper products produced in Australia in an average year (2004) stored 5.3 million tonnes of carbon (19.5 MT CO2e).
Yet the 7.30 report did not interview the authors of these reports but instead chose to interview Brendan Mackey the author of the Wilderness society funded report that modelled 1,500 tonnes of carbon per hectare quoted by Gavin’s “lass”.
The ABC chose not to state that Mackey’s relationship to this green group or of the funding received to publish his 2007 report that formed the opinions he expressed on the program.
The 7.30 report also chose not to mention that only last week the Wilderness Society released carbon accounting data they collected in the Upper Florentine over the last five months that found that in the 6 plots surveyed held only an average of 779 tonnes of carbon per hectare. Such a finding makes nonsense out of Mackey’s ANU model of 1500 tonnes.
This report continues the tradition of ABC news and current affairs of failing to question and failing to expose the flaws in the greens propaganda, perhaps we will also find that vision used in this report was supplied by but not identified as Wilderness society vision.
Janama,
I found the 2007 article by Dr Nils-Axel Morner interesting and convincing. The idea that the politicians of some island nations are simply beating the drum on sea-level in order to get money out of the richer nations is supported by recent riots at the Copenhagen Climate Circus. The island states have now been joined by clamour from other poor nations. ‘Give us money, or else’. Having worked in Africa since the 1950s, I know exactly what happens to that money, and so do Swiss banks.
Let’s help poorer nations, but in a constructive way, not by charity, or by daylight robbery, or by filling the bank accounts of political thugs. Mohammed Younis of Bangladesh, with his Grameen Bank, seems to have some useful ideas on how to go about it. He is a credit to Islam.
Green Davey check out this from Bolt’s site:
“The lead negotiator for the small island nation of Tuvalu, the bow-tie wearing Ian Fry, broke down as he begged delegates to take tough action.
“I woke up this morning crying,” and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit,” Mr Fry said on Saturday, as his eyes welled with tears.
”The fate of my country rests in your hands,” he concluded, as the audience exploded with wild applause. ”
So moving. But let’s now learn more from Samantha Maiden about this former Greenpeace official from “Tuvalu”:
But the part-time PhD scholar at the Australian National University actually resides in Queanbeyan, NSW, where he’s not likely to be troubled by rising sea levels because the closest beach at Batemans Bay is a two-hour, 144km drive away. Asked whether he had ever lived in Tuvalu, his wife told The Australian last night she would “rather not comment”….
Still, it’s a long way from the endangered atolls of Tuvalu, with his neighbour Michelle Ormay confirming he’s lived in Queanbeyan for more than a decade, while he has worked his way up to being “very high up in climate change”.
Ian Fry is a member of this mob
http://law.anu.edu.au/cclp/staff.asp
“Pump handle” Cinders
“The bloke you identify as the ‘clown for Tas Forests’ in the ABC 730 report on carbon in wood, just happens to hold a PhD in forest science and has spent his professional career in managing forests in Australia” Hmmmm; welcome back
ABC 7.30 “HANS DRIELSMA, FORESTRY TASMANIA: As we harvest the forest and it regrows, we can continue to – it’s like a pump, like a carbon pump, if you like. It’s taking carbon dioxide out of the air, putting it into wood, we harvest it, we put it into products, into long term storage and we grow more. So, if you’ve got a forest where you can maintain the carbon in the long term and create harvested wood products, you’re gonna be increasing your carbon store all the time
BRENDAN MACKEY, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, ANU: When you log a previously unlogged forest you cause a massive reduction in the forest carbon stock and a large – and cause large pulses of emissions over the following decades which actually take around 200 years to recover naturally.
HANS DRIELSMA: Yes, there’s an emission from harvesting, but it is more than balanced by the growth in the forest. So as long as you’re managing your forest on a sustainable basis, and sustainable, that means you’re not taking more out of the forest than it’s growing, then you’re maintaining the carbon, you’re maintaining the timber supply and you’re not creating net emissions.
CONOR DUFFY: Forestry Tasmania’s own research shows that as much as 65 per cent of the carbon trapped in native forests is released during burn-offs like these. The ANU team is currently working on calculating how much Australia could reduce its emissions by ending native forest logging”.
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2772743.htm
Mackey, B., Keith, H., Berry, S. and Lndenmayer D.B. (2008). Green Carbon: the role of natural forests in carbon storage. Part 1. A green carbon account of the eucalypt forests of south east Australia. ANU E Press, Canberra Note; some great illustrations
http://epress.anu.edu.au/green_carbon/pdf/whole_book.pdf
Mackey B.G., Lindenmayer D.B., Gill A.M., McCarthy A.M. and Lindesay J.A. 2002. Wildlife, fire and future climate: a forest ecosystem analysis. CSIRO Publishing.
Old arguments
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002263.html
Thanks Janama,
I note that Mr Fry is associated with the Fenner School of Ecowhatever at ANU. That makes me very wary of his views. Gavin might care to note that Brendan Mackey is of that band of scholars. I get the feeling that logic is not prominent in the curriculum there. Perhaps they are too busy in other fields, such as eco-politics. Besides, I am allergic to people who wear bow-ties.
And Bonyhady is the presiding Professor; enough said.
I notice Gunns is pouncing on mainland timber opportunities however I suggest that resource group and the state as a whole continue to be quite slack on local opportunities particularly in regard to value adding at home.
I have on good authority there are a couple of mills sites going up for sale. The old “Reflex” paper mill at Burnie is still in production and there are other assets such as the old board mill that is ideally sited close to transport etc and could become another industry
http://abc.gov.au/news/stories/2009/12/08/2765597.htm?site=news
Its been my view for a while that when customers go into a store such as Bunnings hardware for a new tool handle etc we don’t seem to be able to find a piece of Tasmanian hardwood all dressed up with their forest logo on it. I won’t mention particle board again as it’s been another bad week for factory made furniture recycling at my place and it’s my bet your forest guru has no idea how long forest products such as Reflex and furniture last in general circulation.
BTW I make new handle wedges out of very old broken handles because such good wood is very hard to find round about, besides a bought wedge made of metal costs a few dollars now.
Reckon I can do well in a low carbon economy?
cheers
Gavin, you forgot to copy and paste “We are grateful to The Wilderness Society Australia for a research grant that supported the analyses presented in this report.” from Mackey, B., Keith, H., Berry, S. and Lindenmayer D.B. (2008). Green Carbon: the role of natural forests in carbon storage. Part 1. A green carbon account of the eucalypt forests of south east Australia. ANU E Press, Canberra
Same old argument and over a year ago it was Jennifer’s blog that exposed the ANU model to be wrong now it’s the activists in the Wilderness society recycling the news despite their society funding the ANU figure.
But of course the Fenner School of environmental activism is back in the news not only hosting Mackey’s Wildcountry Hub and its collaboration with the wilderness society, but now providing the chief climate negotiator for Tuvalu, that has been hailed a hero for the island state for taking on Australia’s position at the Copenhagen Circus. This acadamic is also part of the ANU’s climate change institute who’s Executive director is the Australian Government’s chief advisor on the ‘science’ of climate change.
No wonder the Greens who replaced your Australian Democrats in the senate, said “Cheers for Tuvalu, jeers for Rudd”,
recent update from copenhagen from the Australian;
“Then President Chavez brought the house down.
When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.
When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.
But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ – “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.”
this is exactly what we are dealing with and you believers ( deniers!) need to wake up to this rubbish before you do some real damage to everybodies wellbeing on this planet!!
gavin, do you the timber that is cut down immediatly releases its stored carbon? it decays over hundreds if not thousands of years ( look at old english houses?).
old trees do not absorb much co2, new trees absorb a lot as as they grow.
so it is logical that to cut down trees and regrow them not only stores the carbon as timber, but also reduces emissions by absorbing extra co2.
further to this old trees die and decay and rot from the inside emitting co2! so chop them down before they start to decay.
In my area the mountain ash is a dominant species, nobody cuts down trees for woodchip, they cut them down for timber and the parts that are not good enough for timber are chipped. the same happens in tassie.
the money is in the timber, not the woodchips.
if you visit a logged forest 60 years later the trees are at or near maturity in height. They will continue to grow in width, but they stort to decay internally.
surely you don t take anything the wilderness society says on face value?!! no wonder you believe in this myth of AGW so strongly.
gavin,
sorry i sent before rereading, i missed a word “think” in first line, please read this instead.
do you think the timber that is cut down immediately releases its stored carbon? it decays over hundreds if not thousands of years ( look at old english houses?).
old trees do not absorb much co2, new trees absorb a lot as as they grow.
so it is logical that to cut down trees and regrow them not only stores the carbon as timber, but also reduces emissions by absorbing extra co2.
further to this old trees die and decay and rot from the inside emitting co2! so chop them down before they start to decay.
In my area the mountain ash is a dominant species, nobody cuts down trees for woodchip, they cut them down for timber and the parts that are not good enough for timber are chipped. the same happens in tassie.
the money is in the timber, not the woodchips.
if you visit a logged forest 60 years later the trees are at or near maturity in height. They will continue to grow in width, but they start to decay internally.
surely you don t take anything the wilderness society says on face value?!! no wonder you believe in this myth of AGW so strongly.
Also, timber that is not harvested burns, rots, or is eaten by termites. All these processes emit greenhouse gases. Especially termites which emit METHANE – oooer! But you can, of course, simply ignore some of the processes, and build models which only allow for emission of CO2 by burning or logging, but not sequestration by regrowth, or charcoal formation. Wonderful fun, modeling. Much like writing science fiction.
Toby “do you think the timber that is cut down immediately releases its stored carbon? it decays over hundreds if not thousands of years ( look at old english houses?)”
Being out and about in the landscape helps a lot Toby
Untreated regrowth mesmate stringy bark lasts only a few years in the ground, as bull nose weather boards- a few years longer. However as shingles I say there are no such roofs left anywhere in Tasv now but as a very large fallen tree in the bush on our place, several hundred years before crumbling. Myrtle timber as used for doors etc in Adelaide or Melbourne after it was shipped across Bass Strait by the “mosquito” sailing fleet has mostly dissappeared through urban renewal programs but the tas oak hardwood frame flooring etc in my Canberra home is all as it was but its only about 3 decades old.
“surely you don t take anything the wilderness society says on face value”
What I write is mostly from experience however the Wilderness Society was initially formed by Hobart folk who may have been influenced by a group based in Victoria where I was most supportive in opposition to the continued federal finance for Tasmanian resources exploitation when it impacted massivly on rain forest timber reserves. In fact I went back mid 70’s for about a year to follow state developments post the L Pedder/ L Gordon hydro scheme.
Unfortunately local unions failed to heed my quiet message on starting redeployments away from big biz then and later on with the proposed Franklin / Lower Gordon dam.
“Wonderful fun, modeling. Much like writing science fiction”
What you guys have to realize is our world has changed and this Fenner group, like me only have to look out the window to see a vast parched landscape flying over our heads again as hot winds tear this country apart. Official temperatures in the high 30’s were slightly above my max/min today and that is quite unusual.
This is already a horrendous fire season in the making but we still have contractors cutting more roadsides today despite the 40 C conditions. I fear some country towns have a long way to go yet
Gavin,
WRT painting, I did a fair bit recently and was dismayed by how much water it took to clean acrylic paint from a roller( at least 30 liters). Then my wife said to wrap the roller and tray in glad-wrap and simply reuse it for each coat, brilliant idea. I paint so infrequently that I would rather trow used stuff away than waste water cleaning it.
janama,
Thanks for that article of Morner’s. I had read it some time ago but it was worth another read. I can certainly relate to what he says.
gavin,
The carbon accounting manual on old growth forests, wetlands, peat bogs, and many long established natural situations is yet to be worked out in a believable way. Even for farms.
I personally hate to see magnificent old growth cleared or even partially scarred but then I also hate to see beautiful rock formations quarried.
I suppose, unrealistically, I want some part of my world to remain perfect.
GAvin,
Cinders has it right. Mackey’s work is flawed and has been for some time now. He takes no account whatsoever of internal degrade in the forests that he models. As one who has built models of forest growth for wood production I know that unless internal defect is adjusted for the end result will overstate the volume of timber in a stand that could be converted to sawn timber.
On the one hand Mackey carries on about habitat and tree hollows in senescent forests but takes no account of those same hollows and what they mean to his carbon figures. He has never been able to model Australia’s forests at a scale that captures their variability well. If he did his work would be used and respected by those that are responsible for forest management. As it does not capture the variability inherent in Australian forests real forest managers have no respect for it.
Pandanus “Mackey’s work is flawed” yes but it depends on which tram we ride, wood productin or carbon storage I googled ‘flawed Mackey’ for you and found this. Recall too Mackey is big on offshore jobs.
“Harnessing ancient primary forests for continued carbon storage requires ending industrial logging, and in Australia too”
http://candobetter.org/node/757
Beware thought I found these links only after Cinders quoted some PHD to humble me on Tassie issues. Also some of those pics in “Green Carbon” can speak for themselves as illustrations of total storage in that they are strait out of places where I have been too.
BTW on models for resource purposes I once recommended such photos accompany all maps as used by federal agencies for RFA purposes
Spencer points out where the GCMs could be wrong.
Occam’s razor?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/17/spencer-on-his-agu-presentation-yesterday/#more-14258
The reason pristine wilderness areas should not be disturbed has little to do with CO2.
They are the last refuge of much of our rare native wildlife which are disappearing all too quickly.
A next door neighbour a couple of years ago cut down a mature Moreton Bay Fig of ours that had a DBH of over 10 feet, to improve the view for his B&B. Since then, Superb, Rose Crowned, Wompoo, Topknot, White Headed and Emerald doves and pigeons have reduced considerably.
Sometimes just one such reliable food source like this can make the difference between life and death.
Spanglo,
Don’t despair. About ten years ago I cut down a large Tassie Blue Gum (E. globulus) at my place, because it was a fire hazard, and was drying up my borehole. A neighbour (we are good mates) complained that it was a nesting place for White Faced Herons, which was true. The herons disappeared for a few years, but then started nesting in a large native marri (Corymbia calophylla) nearer the house. They have raised two broods a year for some years. Now the neighbour on the other side is complaining, because the fish and frogs keep disappearing from his wife’s garden pond. Ecology is difficult.
P.S. Gavin, the fires in NSW have little to do with ‘global warming… er… climate change’. They are mainly due to too much fuel lying around, because of crackpot neglect of prescribed burning. I think I once heard your favourite expert, Professor Mackey, say on television that, due to ‘climate change’ bushfires would become more frequent AND more intense. I gave him a score of D minus on bushfire knowledge.
Christopher Monckton trying to enter the conference in Copenhagen has been pushed from behind by a danish cop, he consequently hit the ground and was knocked out.
That this sort of thuggish behaviour could be applied to an accredited delegate is a bloody disgrace, by the coverage at WUWT it seems that Aussie senator Steve Fielding was also prevented from entering the venue as well.
While leftwing maniacs like chavez and mugabe can address the conference and recieve standing ovations from an audience of fellow traveling socialist embeciles decent people are prevented from even entering.
The biggest cheer for chavez came when raged against capitalism and now of course those same free countries are expected to hand over billions to these basket cases to prevent a non problem .
George Carlin let’s loose on saving the planet. 🙂
Neville
“The biggest cheer for chavez came when raged against capitalism and now of course those same free countries are expected to hand over billions to these basket cases to prevent a non problem”
The truth is out!
It’s all about money, and destroying the western-capitalists system.
When China and India, both nuclear powers and major exporters of manufactured high tech. goods can claim “developing” nation status, AND ask for money, one has to despair at the stupidity of our politicians.
For Mugabe to claim CC has destroyed Zimbabwe’s economy and we owe them compensation there is nothing to do but laugh (and cry at the same time at people’s gullibility)!
Cohers and his mate DS have been up to some GOOD STUFF!
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/stat-model-predicts-flat-temperatures-through-2050
Folks,
When are you going to stop arguing over the science and realise what is really going on – it’s a well orchestrated charade to implement the Fabian agenda – a world socialist system and they are close to achieving it. The ETS is to fund their parasitic lifestyle. Remember Rudd and the ;political class don’t produce anything but consume capital.
Go read http://www.keynesatharvard.org and see what the intellectual basis that underpins Rudd and the ALP here in Australia.
This blog seemed more to blind side us than anything else – and it seems to have worked – many of you are still arguing over the science, when it has nothing to do with science.
The only hope is that the US senate rejects the cap-and-trade legislation.
SD; the idea of breaks and sudden steps in the temperature are not new;
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/Seidel&Lanzante.JGR2004.pdf
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_2001GL014074.pdf
David, however is the first to do a Chow test analysis; the thing is the 1976 transition or break is well supported with observable oceanagraphic events and the coincident PDO phase shift; so to the 1977-8 transition although the other writers pick other dates.
I think even Luke would be outraged at this cheering for a criminal against humanity like Mugabe. I wonder how our left leaning freinds who work for the various aid agencies feel about this.
cohers,
the finer points are over my head but I strongly agree that the climate shift of ’76 [33 y ago, and it had been cooling for 33 years till then] is worth focusing on as it was not progressive as though driven by progressively increasing ACO2, it was very sudden.
As I have said before, we have not had one TC cross the coast south of the TOC since ’76 whereas we had several PER YEAR prior to that.
Folks,
It turns out that Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, is just as much a Climate Profiteer as Al Gore! His conflicts of interest are so glaring that there are now calls for his resignation.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/busy-man.html
Monckton’s open letter demanding Pachauri’s resignation:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/pachauri_letter.pdf
Excerpt:
“We should be grateful for your response within 48 hours, failing which we shall be entitled to presume that you, the IPCC and the EPA – to whose administrator we are copying this letter – intend to conspire, and are conspiring, to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deceiving the public as to the nature, degree, and significance of the global surface temperature trend. ”
“Given this and other mistakes that an international body of this nature ought not to have made, and given your numerous and direct conflicts of interest that have, in our opinion, been insufficiently disclosed, we are also copying this letter to the delegations of the states parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change with a request that you be stripped of office forthwith.”
The AGWers have long been insisting we ‘follow the money.’ Taking their advice has totally bit them in the @$$!
Here’s an article by Pat Michaels, in the Wall Street Journal, on the difficulties of staying relevant in the climate debate.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
It seems we have a deal of sorts ABC RN 9 AM NEWS
“US officials say the agreement includes a commitment from wealthy and key developing nations to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/19/2776502.htm?section=world
Dr Richard North sums up the “deal” well here http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/theatre-is-over.html
“This slugfest was not about saving the planet. It was not about the climate, global warming or any of that shit. It was and is about money, renewing the “Kyoto Protocols” and thus protecting the income stream generated by the carbon market.
They had to buy off the “bunnies” with a few bribes, and the Mercedes salesmen will do mightily well out of the deal, but most of the funding is “funny money” which will be tied up with the carbon market and the “Clean Development Funds”.
The greenies are, of course, screeching with fury. But then they have every right to be – they have been stitched up, kippered and spat out.”
As does Gerald Warner
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100020279/copenhagen-climate-summit-most-important-paper-in-the-world-is-a-glorified-un-press-release/
janama,
It seems as if the science of AGW has run out of breath and now hopefully most people are awake to the hysteria which is all that the carpetbaggers and the greenies have left to sell.
12 months ago we had these discussions on a higher level.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/dip-in-global-sea-level-won%e2%80%99t-save-tuvalu/
D’ja get any rain? Looked like a good storm down your way. Very dry here.
Big storm but no rain – just enough to wet the veranda. I thought it was heading your way and you might have got some 🙂
So despite the best efforts of the dishonest sceptic movement, illegal CRU hackers, good progress has been made at Copenhagen.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/18/obama.copenhagen/index.html
Bad luck dudes !
Also of note
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/ben_santer_open_letter/
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/12/open-letter-to-climate-science.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones
Shame on the dishonest sceptic movement – history will judge you harshly.
Oh dear Luke – poor old Ben and Phil.
Don’t worry – they will have their day in court to claim back their tarnished reputations.
It’s a nonbinding goal, and the emissions targets “will not be by themselves sufficient to get to where we need to get by 2050,” Obama said. However, he added that it is a first step, and that for many countries “this is going to be the first time in which even voluntary they offered up mitigation targets.”
Yeah, China’s gonna open the books!
It’s simply an agreement to disagree in the future.
And isn’t it interesting that Luke can read the UEA emails and call the sceptics dishonest?
From Lules link at the Guardian….
“If we allow personal attacks on individual scientists or criticism of irrelevant software to be used as an excuse to discount data that people don’t like, it will be open season. Presumably they will be hunting through the emails of someone involved in the Nasa temperature series next, and so it will go on.”
Where could they possibly get those ideas from?
Wikipedia’s Wm. Connolley coming in for a bit of overdue.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
Luke, Calling Hypenhagen anything other than a complete and utter debacle is simply to lie.
It imploded into irrelevance due to its flagrant corruption.
Cheering for Chavez and Mugabe is a perfect illustration of jsut how wacked you poor maroons are.
And you can no longer pretend it is about the science.
It is about sleazy corrupt lefty politics wrapped in a veneer of pseudoscience.
You lost.
Deal with it.
cya,
“Australia has thrown its support behind a controversial new climate deal that world leaders have agreed on at the Copenhagen summit”
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/rudd-backs-new-climate-plan-20091219-l6e8.html
“The summit is dragging on through the small hours on Saturday morning, Danish time, as the 190 countries participating work out whether they will formally approve the deal.
But the world’s powerbrokers have backed it”.
Luke Mate,
An intellegent person does not continue to “flogg a dead horse.”
Learn, comprehend, adapt and grow.
Have a pleasant Christmas and New Year.
Pikey.
Well known deltoid gadfly, BJ has posited these questions for sceptics to prove their case against AGW:
“1.the Arctic is not warming
2.that sea ice extent is not decreasing
3.that sea ice is not thinning
4.that ocean heat content is not rising
5.that the stratosphere is not cooling
6.that plant and animal species are not shifting their ranges and/or their phenological traits, and/or are not suffering from alterations in their bioclimatic envelopes
7.that glacier mass-loss and -retreats are not increasing
8.that sea levels are not rising?
Oo, and one last – what is your best piece of evidence that demonstrates that mean night-time minimum temperatures are not increasing?”
I can do all but 6 as I have misplaced a good paper recently; but it is obviously a fool’s errand since ANY human activity will have that consequence; one anthropogenic factor that BJ will have overlooked is the effect of wind-farms on migratory birds. Anyway, here are the responses;
1 http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Arctic_1.jpg
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
2 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004254.shtml
http://www.climate4you.com/images/SeaIceNHandSHlastMonthSince1979.gif
but it is a mixed bag;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
That may be all I can get in one post.
3 http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007JC004254.shtml
But I’m not sure what BJ means by thinning since ice is usally measured by area and extent;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/31/arctic-sea-ice-continues-rebound/#more-3933
4 http://climatesci.org/2009/05/05/have-changes-in-ocean-heat-falsified-the-global-warming-hypothesis-a-guest-weblog-by-william-dipuccio/
The official OHC measure is NODC;
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
This graph isued by Levitus but it is wrong;
http://landshape.org/enm/possible-error-in-ohc/.
5 http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif
6 will get back to BJ
7 Another fools errand but that’s ok, I like to drop to Bj’s level; some glaciers are advancing such as those in Alaska;
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/07/10/ak-sci-forum/icy-bay-glaciers-advance/
Some like Pine Island glacier are retreating. The movement of many glaciers is independent of AGW, if it exists;
http://www.farnorthscience.com/2007/07/10/ak-sci-forum/icy-bay-glaciers-advance/
8 http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/n/#commentsmore
9 Night time minimum temperatures are not increasing;
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2009/04/analysis-of-australian-temperature-part.html
Now, in the spirit of quid pro quo, let BJ explain why any of these disproofs of AGW aren’t legitimate:
1 Miskolczi and MEP
2 No change in the measure of optical depth for the last 60 years
3 A decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in contradiction of every AGW model as found by Lindzen and Choi
4 A decline in specific humidity as found by Paltridge Arking and Pook, and a decline in relative humidity as found by Minschwaner
5 That clouds are a negative feedback as found by Ramanthan et al, Spencer and Braswell, The Climate Process Team on Low-Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity (cloud CPT) which includes three climate modeling centers, NCAR, GFDL, and NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), together with 8 funded external core PIs led by Chris Bretherton of the University of Washington (UW).
Go for it BJ!
“What was agreed at Copenhagen – and what was left out”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/18/how-copenhagen-text-was-changed
“The UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen broke up last night with Gordon Brown hailing the night a success on five out of six measures but most observers united in damning the meeting a grave disappointment”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/19/copenhagen-reaction
Brown “- one of the outcomes of the day’s negotiations was that Angela Merkel would be announcing shortly a conference in Germany to deal with the issue of monitoring emissions targets. This body would be tasked with developing the most effective means of monitoring whether a nation is cutting its emissions without intruding on its sovereignty – a major stumbling block in this week’s negotiations”
Proof ?
6.that plant and animal species are not shifting their ranges and/or their phenological traits,
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/up-a-gum-tree-out-on-a-limb/1709817.aspx
howzat?
No gavin, not really; I think BJ, who is currently convulsing in snide, is referring to something along these lines where animal populations are having their habitats displaced by AGW;
http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/Holocene_v12a.pdf
That is, things are moving polewards due to the extra heating and seasonal disruption and this is causing extinctions of animal populations; well, the polar movement of temperature zones isn’t happening except in computer models; and as for extinctions from this non-existent ‘side-effect’ of agw, this is rebutted here;
http://landshape.org/enm/errors-of-global-warming-effects-modeling/
With apologies, but as I am forever banned from Lambert’s Deltoid, I feel the following mendacity there yesterday should not be allowed to pass unchallenged
“Evidence doesn’t seem to change Eric Raymond’s mind
Category: Global Warming
Posted on: December 18, 2009 11:25 AM, by Tim Lambert
“Eric Raymond (the one responsible for the botched analysis of the stolen CRU code) responds to my post on Essex and McKitrick’s error in treating missing values as zeroes in a spreadsheet:
The error described is so stupid that I have trouble believing a statistician actually made it. Whether McKittrick understood thermodynamics or not is red herring; even somebody with my non-specialist knowledge of statistics alone would have known better, let alone a pro like him. The most plausible theory I can think of is that the spreadsheet was expressing temperatures as deviation from mean, that the “zeroes” actually pegged missing observations to that mean, and that the author misunderstood McKittrick’s response”.
“Raymond clung to his theory even after a commenter pointed out that I included a link to the spreadsheet and that you could easily check that they counted missing values as zeroes.”
Well, just using the McKitrick Excel spreadsheet linked to by Lambert, I immediately found that it does NOT count missing values as zeroes. It tells you all you need to know about university education in Australia that a “top” computer programmer at a “top” university (UNSW) that regularly cons Asians to register in droves for its costly but worthless degrees is unaware that the Excel function AVERAGE does NOT include zeros in blank cells when it computes the average of a series. Use the Lambert link, and compute the average “by hand” – they do not include “missing values as zeroes”. But then what else would you expect from a fervent supporter of Phil Jones, Tom Wigley, et al., crooks all, at UEA’s CRU?
Lowe “No rise in temperature when the sun goes down” is clever hey
hence
‘Curious” asks (via blogspot) “I’m interested in how you’re calculating your averages – specifically:
– are you combining your stations into a national value using a straight arithmetic mean, or some kind of area-weighted average?
– are you calculating differences from normal for each station and then averaging those values across Australia, or averaging the temperatures across Australia and then calculating a difference from normal for that value?”
Answer –
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2006/11/analysis.html
However I tried this for say an inland station over the Divide mid winter with 3C at midnight then -6C at dawn According to Lowe we can discover wonderful insight by subtracting minimum anomalies from a midnight; but before we start with anomalies;
on the trusty calculator 3 – -6=3? gav’s way 3 – -6 =9 or perhaps 3 + -6 /2 = -1.5
Well Cohenite, as far as I am concerned it is up to warmers to prove the hypothesis of AGW, not the other way round….. Natural climate change is the accepted science.
Deltoid’s gadfly needs to support his Human caused Global Warming case first… With empirical evidence, not computer modeled predictions.
cohenite,
I’ve been trying to find some photos of old tree stumps in the arctic islands [somewhere near Ellesmere Is.] but this is the best I can offer, showing how much warmer it was a few thousand years ago and how flora was closer to the poles then.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/21/researchers-find-arctic-may-have-had-less-ice-6-7000-years-ago/
cohers,
It was Axel Heiberg Is., close to the North Pole. Not much there these days.
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/14645.php?from=138955
Guardian Headline – Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure
When the Guardian, that champion of everything “green” says it, you know it was a failure.
From WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/
Political winds of change blowin’?
Thanks SD; as usual gavin is muddying the waters with the Lowe analysis of Australian temperature trends for all hours; this is helpful:
“There are many things that we can talk about with regards to the above graphs. Readers will first note that night time temperatures (Midnight, 3am, 6am) show little increase in temperature. In fact, they average just 0.43, 0.26 and 0.28 degree increase in temperature per 100 years. This is a lot lower than the expected, which clearly indicates that night time temperatures in Australia are only increasing a very small amount.
But how can this be when the minimum temperature is shown to be increasing a lot more? Well the answer is simple and surprising to many, in that, the minimum temperature more often than not occurs during the day. Basically, as soon as the sun sets, the temperature decreases over night. When the sun rises it starts to heat up the atmosphere, and only after 30 mins to an hour after sunrise to we fall to a minimum and the temperature starts to increase again for the day.”
The decrease in the diurnal temperature range is one of the cetre-pieces of AGW temperature predictions such as the THS, even though the reason why AGW should produce such a result ar not clear.
Looks like this El Nino has reached its maximum strength and will be gone by Easter. With a neutral IOD and La Nina on the horizon, I predict 2010 will see the end of the drought in NSW.
When participants in a meeting like Copenhagen describe it as a ‘success’, and add that ‘it’s a first step’, you can figure the meeting accomplished next to nothing at all. Which is good news.
The other good news is that, whatever may have been accomplished at Copenhagen, will have to be later sold to the citizens back home. Since we’re likely to see a spate of resignations, and perhaps even a couple criminal prosecutions over Climategate, selling AGW to the public at large will become even more difficult than it is already. Which is also good news.
All of this means that Climategate is far from over — which is also good news. Long live Climategate!
What really amazes me is that the AGW fanatics think that by throwing a few more billions pa on the fire the global temp can be adjusted down another fraction of a degree C, simple as that.
The bob brown idiot last night said that krudd should negotiate with the greens to make sure the temp only increased by 1.5C , simple as that.
This from a country producing just over 1% of co2 emissions, perhaps we should call on NZ to throw in their hefty 0.1% as well, I mean china, india, brazil etc will comfortably cover our decrease in a few months of BRAND NEW emission growth, so while the idiots feel that warmer inner glow our economy gets flushed down the plug hole.
Nev “What really amazes me is that the AGW fanatics think that by throwing a few more billions pa on the fire the global temp can be adjusted down another fraction of a degree C, simple as that”
Mate; you’ve got to remember that your billion makers can’t their dirty filthy rotten loot with them when their time is up but they can sure leave a mess for others
Gavin, that was actually quite a silly thing to say. It’s not the Packer fortune that they would throw at the “problem” but your tax-payer dollars!
Folks, does anyone know Lord Monkton’s email address? He needs to realize that for coral to be able to grow at the same rate as sea level rise, it needs to be UNDER WATER!
Gavin that’s my point , it’s what we do with ( post krudd not Howard) borrowed funds now that should concern us.
Krudd has saddled us with $115 billion of new debt and seems to want to increase this by another $120 billion giant tax to pay for this AGW hoax.
Until the left can address this issue properly / honestly you can’t blame people of sanity and reason for their scepticism.
If china and india will not allow a proper audit of their emissions growth why should we Aussies spend a further dollar reducing our tiny 1.2%?
The FACTS are that the only real growth in emissions will come from the developing world, not from the USA, Europe etc.
The plot thickens
“Why would a Middle Eastern kingdom be funding a British Climate research business?”
http://jamesdelingpole.com/2009/12/19/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/
NZ temperature record exposed yet again.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/12/nz-study-may-hold-key-to-faulty-world-temp-data.html
“A long-forgotten scientific paper on temperature trends in New Zealand may be the smoking gun on temperature manipulation worldwide.
Since Climategate first broke, we’ve seen scandal over temperature adjustments by NZ’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research, NIWA, which in turn prompted a fresh look at raw temperature data from Darwin and elsewhere.
Now, a study published in the NZ Journal of Science back in 1980 reveals weather stations at the heart of NIWA’s claims of massive warming were shown to be unreliable and untrustworthy by a senior Met Office climate scientist 30 years ago, long before global warming became a politically charged issue.
“
Janama
The Russians also confirmed that UK scientists manipulated Russian data.
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2009/12/russians-confirm-that-uk-climate.html
WTF! My son is watching a show on ABC as we speak with guys wearing T-shirts with “carbon cops” written on them, who go around to peoples places and help them improve their carbon footprint. It’s some sort of Bob Brown version of “backyard blitz”.
“US officials say the agreement includes a commitment from wealthy and key developing nations to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius”
HAHAHAHAHAHAH What a bunch of idiots. Well thats a relief. We don’t need to do a damn thing since there is no way we are going to be fortunate enough to get temperatures up to that level again until the next interglacial. So its over. What a relief.
We have to go back to the start with the analysis of the effect of CO2. When the CO2 level increases at sea level it also increases all the way up to an altitude of about 100 kilometres. But this is not the distance that the light has to travel through this increased CO2 level, except at the equator at noon. In all other cases the light must travel through extra CO2 for a far longer distance prior to the light hitting the ground.
More then 40% of the radiation from the sun is in the infrared region. Hence the first step to understanding this matter is recognising that prior to the heat coming up from the ground, that same energy is earlier blocked by extra CO2 doing its work for hundreds of kilometres, depending on the angle of incidence. So right from the beginning the extra CO2 is having a cooling effect. There are also other cooling effects along the way. So any alleged warming effects has to over-match this initial cooling effect, and all the other cooling effects as well.
Now watts and joules are not equal as to their usefulness in heating us. The extra warmth from a change or other is not independent from at what level that change is made insofar as the joules are concerned. A heater in the basement is doing double and triple duty as compared to a heater in the attic. So the joules that the extra CO2 prevent from lodging deep into the ocean during the daytime, are far more important than some joules that the CO2 might allegedly slow from leaving during the night-time. By this I mean if an initial tally is made of the joules blocked coming inwards with the joules slowed going outwards, still we have to put a much heavier weighting on the inwards joules blocked to reflect that they are blocked from lodging deep in the ocean.
Empirically this movement has to be rejected as a clear fraud. But where is the apriori assumption in its favour coming from? Clearly it is coming from ignorance and the effect of propaganda on the sheeple. Clearly it is coming from these sources alone.
Janama; it never ceases to amuse me where some posters get their stuff from. I can just about bet now on a handful of common sources for most of its origine. Sure, as authors come and go, as few of us will decide which lot should go on the same shelf as Dan Brown.
So I say it again; many posters and authors in Blogsphere Climate Science have never attempted a series of practical measurements in their entire life.
In passing I found a blog on silly beliefs and their relation to fundamentalism however I’m not about to delve into that here except to say that concept shorts out some circuits I could have built in handling a lot of dogged nonsense about detail before science.
In the past many, temperature recordings could have errors with a magnitude about 5-6 % of range so even with today’s hindsight we have to work with them as they were without good documentation on proceedings back then. For the pure statistical analysis it’s a stab in the dark which side of norm those errors are.
For the first case I suggest those interested can work back to how readings were made with and without a Stevenson screen and what differences we can expect from housings in general. The next step could be the types of thermometers employed then try to estimate how many country stations were in fact based on a substantial building before airports etc were utilized.
This leads to what is “urban” and how many bricks do we need to create the so called UHI.
Note: With a whirling instrument airspeed becomes almost a constant thus spot readings made with a “sling” cyclometer with its matched pair of thermometers provides the best spot check of all for the old timers, +/- 1C or better.
Now we may consider backtracking station elevation with all else about equal.
Todays Yahoo poll…
Do you think the world meeting in Copenhagen was a success?
Yes–its a step in the right direction—-13%
No–nothing concrete was agreed—–67%
Don’t care—-20%
as usual Gavin you’ve written another post I can’t understand a word of 😉
As a long time supporter of the solar theory of everything climatic, I was surprised to come across a snag.
Solar cycle 4 was a long one and the downward January mean temperature trend from 1790-1820 in Philadelphia appears to tally with the Dalton perfectly.
But ten years earlier, in the winter of 1779-80, the US suffered one of its worst winters in history. No big deal, but we had just come off solar max and chugging along comfortably. Which seems to put the sun out the window.
La Nina was in charge of operations and just by coincidence 1780 is know as the ‘great hurricane year’. The fleets of the British, French and Spanish navies in the Caribbean all suffered serious damage.
What was the trigger if it wasn’t the sun?
“This leads to what is “urban” and how many bricks do we need to create the so called UHI.”
gavin old chap,
It’s not so much the bricks as the people. All six billion of them. They would have a slight bearing on temperature what with their varied land uses etc.
If you could remove them alone and still have the ACO2e you would have definite cooling.
However, arguing about the incrementals, the science and the politics is pointless when, as Mark Steyn said on Counterpoint the other day, it is all about the self loathing of many with comfortable western lifestyles and targeting the western [mainly American] way of life. And he is so right, America haters are invariably of the warming persuasion for so many completely non scientific reasons.
The combination of guilt and hate is never going to be washed away by simple reason.
Thanks for the great blog, Jen.
To the anti-alarmist community, I would say ‘maintain the rage’. This talk of ‘failure’ by the MSN is nothing more than a call to arms to the faithful. They will be using it to step up activist rhetoric and crisis propaganda.
They are not going to take it well. Most of them have known no other career.
Janama; beware of Johnny come lately booksellers flogging their wares on the net on behalf of some not so sound empires. Blogsphere is full of unauthorised critics in all manner of things including genuine climate science by a handful of professionals.
It’s true a lot of msm commentators are saying now, many of those who would be skeptics if they only knew how simply can’t handle the prospect of AGW. Yes; we consumers as a whole balk at any sacrifice in personal lifestyle for the good of a wider community but it doesn’t alter the fact a whole lot of what we do is unsustainable in the long run.
Although climate science was not one of my fields I do have considerably sympathy for those few veterans whose job it is to get it right knowing how limited those old weather records are for the task of determining long term change.
Working with worst case scenarios is second nature to me after decades of support in a wide range of situations involving engineering and physical measurements. For instance I used to do instrument installation calibration and repairs in a few hazardous industries with furnaces, reactors and the like on chem. manufacturing or gas & fuel sites.
Predicting explosive conditions in advance was often dependent on my associates learning to trust the apparatus however it’s so common to blame the gear when there are uncertainties. I consider myself a veteran of campaigns to spoil the record
But safety regardless of industry standards, regs etc is a subtle art at the best of times. Where I was sometimes hired because of the trusty references in my personal kit it evolved into merely handling the available literature for creating reports to cover advanced technology used in say VIP protection, personal medical aids or mobile communications generally.
Visualizing the spectrum of users in complex environments was another job us technical types could be employed to do during major infrastructure transitions before stats people and computers got into it. Hence my cautions re these half baked smarties from blogsphere
@ janama
“…as usual Gavin you’ve written another post I can’t understand a word of ;)”
Ditto, but then we are bereft of the organ grinder and merely stuck with his monkey…sigh!
“So I say it again; many posters and authors in Blogsphere Climate Science have never attempted a series of practical measurements in their entire life.”
I have. So I can see that your point is that the pressure to fudge the results is very strong. I agree with that. There is no doubt about that. But you have no real point. Since we can be sure that this pressure was less the further we go back. It was less prior to this science fraud. And it clearly was less in prior centuries when people took science seriously. So you have no real point gavin. Though you’ve mentioned this business a number of times.
Here is Piers Corban. He explains his technique for predicting the weather. It works in with the actual science presented at this forum. With the idea that the solar wind is by far the most important determinant. With the idea that the solar wind is akin to an electric current. In that Piers determines when the suns and earths magnetic fields are working with and not against eachother. And he’s figured out how this is affected by the moon. He predicts pretty much what I’ve said about the longer term. I said that we can be sure the the 2030’s at the very least will be a lot colder than the 90’s. I said we are no way recovering from that anytime short of midcentury. Piers says that we will be cooling all the way into the 2030’s. And that he expects the cold period to last all century from there. Well at least thats what I think he’s implying.
So its really just about looking at the evidence gavin. If you learnt to fudge the data in your life as a professional still that doesn’t matter. Its remains the case that the idea is to block out all sentiment and stick with the evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qi8oZ2vG0c&feature=PlayList&p=ABACFC214CE1C4C8&index=0
This is where the science stands right here. This is a qualitative step forward from the Archibald summary. Because Archibald knew that the solar wind was probably more important than the nuts and bolts of the solar cycle and the solar cycle generalisations. But since he had no way to predict the solar wind he had to work with the material he had for his excellent summary of where the science stood. But Piers has made progress on predicting how the solar wind will work. So here we have a step forward, backed up by good predictions. This is where the science is at. This ought to be established as where the science is at officially. Its consonant with the actual evidence. And not with the pseudo-evidence that your crowd of idiots come up with.
Jabba “you’ve written another post I can’t understand a word of”
hey I’m not surprised but I won’t go on with why other than say Graeme too is way out of his depth with solar winds, fudging data and so on.
Unsupervised max min temp readings are not by themselves a decent data base for the study of climate change however imo they are far more suitable than a pile of old tree rings and ice cores for recent time series global temperature analysis
Some folks looking on may not agree but all we have still squeaking here is the sceptical rear guard, no science, no physics or practical experience. Its only junky zealous opinion based in an order provided by some religious style sect working for certain big biz behind the seen
For those still interested they can’t do much with those early temp time series with ever increasing uncertainties as we go back other than complain about those who have had a go and been accepted by the boarder community.
Arguing the science is fiddling while Rome burns.
‘Global warming’ was never about the climate. ‘Environmental safety of GM crops’ was never about the environment.
You can explain the facts to the AGWers all you want, and it makes no difference. Here’s some fun new headlines:
CLIMATE CHANGE: “We’re Not Finished Yet,” Civil Society Warns
IPS/TerraViva
Dec. 19, 2009
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=49757
World must prepare for climate migration, IOM warns
Agence France-Presse
Dec. 19, 2009
http://rawstory.com/2009/12/world-prepare-climate-migration-iom-warns/
“Climate change and environmental degradation are already triggering migration or displacement all over the planet,” the IOM [International Organization for Migration] warned …
What’s interesting is that they’re the ‘International Organization for Migration’.
If this is a problem, wouldn’t they rather be the ‘International Organization against Migration’?
This is not a trivial question. In the US, the Sierra Club has come out against migration into the US.
The reason? People who relocate to the US, especially from poverty-ridden nations, invariably use more energy, and therefore increase their ‘carbon footprints’.
At bottom, this ‘climate refugee’ thing is just a play on xenophobia.
If you didn’t think global warming was a problem, think again — your neighborhoods teeming with unwashed hordes of slants, gooks, beaners, wops, kikes, and who knows what else!
This is so abysmal.
“hey I’m not surprised but I won’t go on with why other than say Graeme too is way out of his depth with solar winds, fudging data and so on.”
No thats rubbish gavin. I’m not out of my depth with any of that stuff. You are. Basically you are saying that you, as a professional meter reader, were under pressure to fudge the data. When you didn’t get a reading you thought was credible or that people would take seriously you felt under pressure to introduce a fudge factor, to at least bring the series to within the alleged normal bounds. And what you are doing is extrapolating backwards in time in an arbitrary and self-serving way to anything you don’t want to believe. So you don’t want to take seriously Becks history of CO2 levels? Well you decide that you are not going to take it seriously.
But any sort of thought about it would have told you that this is another stupid anti-science argument out of many, since back in time the pressures were never so great, and people to take science far more seriously. They still held strong scientific values rather than priesthood values. And the case for individual instruments being no good back then doesn’t hold up either since outliers will cancel.
So its just more bullshit on your part. No more or less than if you had been FDB or Luke or any other nutter.
“Well Cohenite, as far as I am concerned it is up to warmers to prove the hypothesis of AGW, not the other way round….. Natural climate change is the accepted science.”
Well yes of course Mr Hansford. But the whole trick of the fraud side of the argument, for several years now has been to NEVER come up with evidence. Always come up with attacks on the opponents case but always avoid coming up with any actual evidence. The discipline these guys have exercised in this regard is astonishing. For example George Monbiot filibusterd for weeks and refused to come up with any actual scientific evidence or argument. And maintained this ability, even through the entire TV showdown, and even after he pulled the leftist reversal on Plimer.
I’ve been looking into this since about 2003. And they are totally consistent in this regard. It would be an incredible faux pas within their circles to even so much as try to come up with any evidence. Since once they do so, it can quickly be refuted. This is the entire secret of the movement. And they don’t really have anything else going for them but this tactical inspiration of pure genius and discipline.
So were I to say….. “Enough is enough gavin. You’ve been filibustering long enough. Lets have that evidence have a nice day fool”
Then the tactic is to filibuster and talk all around the subject. Like drug talk. Until such time as the conservative is house-trained never to ask for primary evidence of the other side. Or until the persistent conservative can be banned from the site in question.
Thats it. Thats their whole secret. Never once have these clowns come up with any evidence for a specific hypothesis, justifying their policy goals. Never. You cannot find someone who could find someone to track it down for you.
Fascinating documentary from Ch4 17 years ago questioning the validity of the Global Warming scare.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5949034802461518010&hl=en#
Yep, I do like the dalek guarding the thermostat.
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/shock-un-finds-earths-thermostat/#more-5530
“Meter reader” and so Graeme goes on but he knows not
One for the sceptics on record snows .
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/dispatches/news/3334-valdez-socked-in
What caused this event? Record lows in the tropics?
Hey; lets go to Booksellers Inc. US style
http://www.iceagenow.com/Order_book_Not_by_Fire.htm
bloggers follow this wiki “Advance of Whitney Glacier” for my answer and an insight to rising moisture reaching much higher altitudes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Glacier
@ gavin
“….bloggers follow this wiki “Advance of Whitney Glacier” for my answer and an insight to rising moisture reaching much higher altitudes…”
Ah yes, I see your David Icke moment racing towards us with increasing velocity…
For those too young to remember here is a rerun of the original Wogan Icke interview…
It’s great to see London’s Daily Telegraph doing a solid piece on the Pichauri fraudster and all the cash he is rolling in and where it comes from, you know like strong and gore etc.
This corrupt fraudulent group will soon be seen for what they are and hopefully the krudd idiot will be branded with the same iron. He’s just handed Pichauri another lazy million to play with, go to Bolt’s blog top find out the detail.
Looks like the climate delegates are returning home to unhappy crowds — the heaters, the coolers and the realists are all, in their curiously divisive way, united in a general agreement that Copenhagen was expensive balderdash.
Now, if everyone could at least agree that ‘global warming’ has nothing to do with global warming, and it’s just politics writ large, we could get back to the usual business of condemning the lying fraudsters who contend for popular votes.
Or, in the case of Third-World kleptocracies, to condemning their perennial begging for Mercedes and Learjets and shoulder-launched missiles whilst the indigenes languish from the lack of infrastructure which Greenpeace et. al. are insistent on denying them.
Anyone have a problem with Warwick Hughes lates post:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=378
Seems Luke et all still has it WRONG!!!!
Jabba,
Are these guys [Strong et al] the conspiracy group that Icke was talking about?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-lead-author-admits-deleting-inconvenient-opinions-from-ipcc-report.html
Viva climategate!
its been a good year for climate sceptics… climategate confirming what many suspected…
and i’m going to enjoy this christmas week – its hot in central Queensland, I can hear the sea, there is a tree laden with mangoes in the backyard, and I’ve been watching a green frog catching insects by the kitchen light…
and I now see there are lots of useful links to read provided by contributors to this thread…
merry christmas and happy reading.
Yes I have a problem with it Dumb Bum Kat – it’s pretentious cherry-picked drivel.
http://www.ioci.org.au/pdf/IOCI_PaperJan6.pdf
WAKE UP !
And dudes you made not have noticed – “ClimateGate” is goooonnneee. It’s now yesterday’s fish and chip wrappings.
Merry Christmas to you too Jen.
If you’re near the sea you’ll get good trade winds to keep you cool.
Today I had a visit from Barred Cuckoo Shrikes from NQ and Latham [Japanese] Snipes from the Kushiro wetlands in Hokaido, both rare visitors.
@ spangled drongo
“Jabba,
Are these guys [Strong et al] the conspiracy group that Icke was talking about?”
Could be, though we won’t know for certain until we can verify that they have turquoise track suits in their closets, and, sport OND or HND measurement certification as their sole academic qualifications. If so then we have an open and shut case and Cohenite can proceed with drawing up the indictment.
Dr Richard North continues his investigation into the esteemed IPCC chairman and railway engineer, and exposes Pachauri’s expenses scam
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-basques-in-glory.html
kuhnkat,
How can you possibly suggest that Luke et. al. have things wrong? Their main concern is about pretense, drivel, and ‘fish and chip wrappings.’
There’s no way to objectively verify or falisfy ‘findings’ of such a nature! At most, their ‘findings’ can be described as irrelevant.
A new paper by a Canadian scientist shows that a combination of CFC’s and cosmic rays could be the driver of CC over the last 100 years.
Who knows but you can read about over at WUWT.
Ah luke, the gift that keeps on giving; the Sadler paper has some issues; I’ll do some last minute xmas shopping and get back to you.
Latest paper from Canadian scientist (via Uni Newcastle) claims GW over the last century may be due to cosmic rays and CFC’s.
See at WUWT or Bolt blog.
cohers,
While you are out shopping Luke will be at the movies.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_avatar_the_answer_to_a_copenhagens_dream/
Neville,
Yeah, Luke needs to read that too.
For warming delusionists to be claiming that natural climate change combined with land use change from 6 billion people [two given situations that both sides surely agree on] is not accounting for the bulk of any measurable climate change is bizarre.
These two factors could be responsible for more than 100% of measurable change.
Luke,
The world does drought and has done so forever.
“multi-decadal, non-linear shifts of this scale might be natural in this region.”
Well, well eh! Who’d ‘a’ thunk it?
And I was also under the impression that the WA wheat crop was doin’ OK. {like doubled}
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2490349020080425
Schiller Thurkettle.
“kuhnkat,
How can you possibly suggest that Luke et. al. have things wrong? Their main concern is about pretense, drivel, and ‘fish and chip wrappings.’
There’s no way to objectively verify or falisfy ‘findings’ of such a nature! At most, their ‘findings’ can be described as irrelevant.”
These are extremely important issues for AGW. On them the whole edifice holds or falls.
Fish and Chip Wrappings are an especially contentious issue. Have you ever tried to do an inverse regression of the oil spots on an appropriately selected sampling??
I though not. Lukefartard has this one all over us!!
Lukefartard,
too bad you linky doesn’t have data through the current 5 years!! If they did I MIGHT pay more attention to it. As it is, the one chart that runs through 2001 only shows cachement inflow, NOT rainfall.
I guess the amount of rainfall has nothing to do with whether there is a drought huh??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You are such a gullible BOOB!!!
merry Xmas to Jen and all. I’m also moving to the coast for a few days to smell the sea air and layabout with fine food and wine 🙂
No Luke – it’s not last week wrappings – it’s just starting to unfurl. It will fully break out next year.
Leave Luke alone you bullies. He is still stiff from that baton therapy served up by the nasty Danish plod in wonderful Copenhagen – the heartless thugs call it ‘shiatsu for smellies’. Try cold cucumber poultices, Luke. Then a nice cup of Earl Grey.
I haven’t told anyone about your trifling error with the Central Limit Theorem in calculating ‘global mean temperature’. Statistics can be so tricky – but then, Dr Pachauri won’t know any different either.
Did Phil Done travel to Copenhagen? And did you see Pinxi in Nyhaven? How is she?
Well, I answered BJ’s questions and had my questions effectively ignored at Deltoid and got insulted by the usual crew; I don’t know why I expect a rational debate there. Jakerman did ask about the Lindzen and Choi paper which finds that OLR is increasing which contradicts the GCMs’ predictions and demonstrates much less sensitivity in the climate system than is required for AGW.
Lindzen allegedly was rebutted on this point in 2 recent areas; the first is the Colose thread but this is easily dealt with at WUWT; basically the allegation was that Lindzen based his assertion that OLR was increasing on faulty data from Wong et al who had corrected an earlier piece finding increasing OLR; Lindzen’s reply to that allegation is here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/
The pdf source is no longer extant but I believe that Lindzen will supply it on request.
The second rebuttal is by Roy Spencer;
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
frankly I find Roy’s comment contradictory; even though Roy did include the obvious caveats about different data sources and methodology between his analysis and the Lindzen effort he still concludes this;
“While the authors found decreases in radiation loss with short-term temperature increases, I find that the CMIP models exhibit an INCREASE in radiative loss with short term warming”
The authors are Lindzen and Choi. This is the paper [GRL version];
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
And can you believe this?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=09&fy=1999&sm=12&sd=09&sy=2009
Season’s best wishes to Jen and everyone over the work break.
I hope you can enjoy the weather for the duration. We ought to expect more rough stuff Imo like the cat 4 cyclone off WA and those big fires. Have a kind thought for the fire fighters where ever they are working
Re AGW; before deciding whoz side you are on; something sceptics should consider over the holidays – Mark Lynas of the Guardian
“How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/22/copenhagen-climate-change-mark-lynas
For the hard headed evidence seekers that need proof of this “climate change” I will cobble recent BoM info on the local situation that I witness everyday, then rant on about it here with a good tossing of home grown “meter” readings as our Graeme would put it.
In winding up I hope Santa provides you with a good sprinkling of domestic thermometers in the form of a digital station that has remote inputs for outside monitoring. Too easy hey
Trust me; in a decade or so you too won’t need help from WUWT etc.
A selection of recent BoM statements and my “evidence” for something unusual.
Please note its not their stated intention to demonstrate “climate change” here however follow the link to the Nov Max Temp Anomaly map for NSW
“Record heat for Canberra during spring-
It was the warmest spring on record at Canberra Airport for overnight minimum temperatures. The mean minimum temperature was 7.9 °C, which is 1.9 °C above the historical1 spring average. Canberra Airport has now experienced 15 consecutive springs with above average mean minimum temperatures. There were 6 days in spring with a minimum temperature of 15 °C or higher at Canberra Airport, above the historical spring average of 2.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/season/act/summary.shtml#recordsTminAvgHigh
“Record breaking heat in November for the ACT
Below average rainfall was recorded throughout the ACT for the month of November. Canberra Airport recorded a total of only 17.0 mm during the month, which is well below the historical average of 64.6 mm, and the 5th lowest for November since records commenced in 1939. This is also in contrast to the last two years, where November falls were above average. The rain fell on 6 days, compared the the average of 10 days. The biggest fall of 11.6 mm at the Airport was recorded in the 24 hours to 9am on the 27th, due to local thunderstorm activity. The highest fall in the Territory was recorded at Mt Ginini on the 1st of the month, also due to thunderstorm activity (on 31st October). Mt Ginini was the wettest overall location (despite missing some days of data), with a total of 62.0 mm recorded for November.
The majority of the falls in the ACT during November were due to thunderstorms associated with the passage of low pressure troughs.
See a map of rainfall deciles.
Temperatures
The ACT experienced extreme daytime temperatures for November, with large parts being on average 6°C warmer than usual. The mean maximum temperature for Canberra Airport was 29.0 °C, which is well above the historical average of 22.7 °C and the highest on record, exceeding the previous record of 28.7 °C (November 1982). It is the 8th consecutive November to record above average temperatures. The Airport recorded a significant 15 days during the month where the temperature exceeded 30 °C, which is also the highest on record (previous, 13 days in 1982). The Airport also recorded three days where the temperature exceeded 35 °C, which has only happened on two other occasions (in 1982 and 1997). The hottest day was reported on the 20th, where Canberra Airport reached 38.9 °C. This is equal to the hottest November day since records commenced (also occurred on 26th November 1997).
Minimum temperatures were also extreme, with average nighttime temperatures being up to 5 °C warmer than usual in some parts. The mean minimum temperature for Canberra Airport was 12.7 °C, which is 4.0 °C above the historical average of 8.7 °C, and the highest on record (previous record 11.8 °C in November 2007). It is the 6th consecutive year where November temperatures have been above average at this site.
Similar very high temperatures were experienced through much of New South Wales and the ACT. The high temperatures were mostly a result of a persistent high pressure system in the Tasman Sea, which restricted the passage of any significant cool changes and directed warm northwesterly airstream over the ACT. In addition, an El Niño event has matured in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. These events are usually (but not always) associated with above average temperatures in eastern Australia. The recent high temperatures experienced are likely due to the current influence of El Niño combined with the background, long-term warming that has been observed across Australia since the start of last century.
A special climate statement was released during the month giving further details about the heatwave conditions that were experienced through central and south-eastern Australia.
Some sites had their highest November temperature on record.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/act/summary.shtml
The met office has released a large ammount of data and code, let’s hope McIntyre can give us some useful info in a short while.
What a hero the man is and what a fight he has fought, not surrendering to pig ignorance and bigotry and enduring all sorts of intimidation, but quietly he has held his ground.
Good luck Steve and good hunting.
Wikipedia is now embroiled in Climategate. William Connolley, Green Party activist and insider with the RealClimate/Mann “Hockey Team”, created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles to bolster the AGW cause. With administrative permissions, he also ‘disappeared’ over 500 ‘skeptical’ Wikipedia articles.
Two of his main projects were to remove evidence of the Medieval Optimum, and of the Little Ice Age — events which distort the famed, discredited Hockey Stick. And that’s just for starters.
Thus, the behavior of the Climategate scientists is mirrored by a similar effort by one of their colleagues to deceive the public via Wikipedia. The amoral impudence of these zealots is astounding.
Links:
Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
Wikipedia’s climate doctor
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409
Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx
Schiller thanks for these links. Jen
gavin,
Cherry picking weather is a waste of time. This is what it is all about:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704238104574601443947078538.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
And this too:
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/climategate-30-years-in-the-making/
Merry Christmas to you all!
If The Guardian report is correct, and Copenhagen was deliberately wrecked by the Chinese, then that is evidence that the Chinese leaders are more intelligent, and better educated, than those in the west. They see through the pseudo-climatology, and pseudo-economics, and pseudo-ecology. They are confident enough in the real strength of their economy not to need ways of generating funny money, by such things as carbon trading. I doubt if Ross Garnaud would get a job in China.
On the other hand, western leaders, with a few noted exceptions, are taken in. The real crisis facing the west is our way of selecting politicians. We seem, more often than not, to end up with glib duds, who increasingly rely on ‘media advisers’ to tell them what mantras to chant. Their policy is sometimes determined, or supported, by cunningly staged street demonstrations. The education system must be failing somewhere.
I think I love Joanne Nova.
Well said SD; the best to everyone and may Jennifer change her mind in the new year!
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Y’all.
Yes even the Believers!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
or should I say
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO
Green Davey,
Western pollies have to make a long term ideology problem into a short term political quick-fix without getting their fingers burnt.
So far so good for those pushing the catastrophe barrow but how far till they run out of plank?
And will this endless supply of young ideologues that support them keep extending it?
Gavin,
you haven’t been paying attention obviously. GISS, GHCN, NOAA, HADCrud, BOM… are all biased HIGH!! Your quoting record highs is meaningless!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And Davey, how’s all that “catastrophic” weather goin’ over your way?
I always managed to survive the “extreme” weather in summer but I dunno about this “catastrophic”.
I’ll just have to spend more time out sailing.
Quite pleasant here in the south-west, Spanglo, but the north-west has had a cyclonic soaking. I gather the BOM think it might even get down to NSW. As far as I can remember there have always been cyclones, but younger people might think it is ‘climate change’
I think the ‘catastrophic’ label truly applies to the lack of prescribed burning and the amount of leaf litter lying around. The fire authorities would do better to issue ‘Catastrophic Fuel Warnings’. We had a 10,000 ha fire south of Perth a week or so ago. Uncontrollable, until it ran into an area burnt a few years before. I doubt if it made the eastern news, because nobody was killed.
Watch out when sailing. In the summer of 1841 the smoke from Aboriginal fires was so thick off Fremantle that a ship ran aground. Nobody on land was killed, because fires then were in light fuel, with flames less than a metre high. People used wet bags, not expensive helicopters from the USA. Nobody had white shirts, silver braid, or rows of medals, or million dollar budgets. The first Bushfire Ordinance was in 1846, and provided for flogging of Aboriginals lighting fires. After that, fires in the settled areas started getting bigger. Really clever, those whitefellas. Must have a lot of scientific insight.
Have a good Christmas, and may you prosper in the New Year, despite Kevin, Wayne and Penny’s best efforts.
“I’d be inclined to agree, wbb (Marohasey will never admit she’s wrong, whatever her private thoughts), but when someone does a drive-by (as she did), they need to be ridiculed to within an inch of their lives to discourage them in the future.”
Look at this little bitch. Jennifer shows up and asks for evidence and debate and thats a “drive-by” for this holocaust-denier and his namesake. Look at that hey Jennifer? A punk like Bahnisch can get you out on some blog dinner. Splash your photo all over the internet as some sort of trophy. But when you show up and ask for debate or evidence the word “troll” gets bandied around, you get blocked, you are lucky to have your say at all, and these mental midgits reckon its a “drive-by” I could not loathe and disprespect these low-rent retards more than what I do. I hope Bahnisch and David Irving and that fat idiot that teach at Swinburne particularly have a crap Christmas.
A drive-by.
Ask them for evidence you are a troll and thats a drive-by.
They ought to be put down before they breed accidentally.
What’s the difference between Santa and Tiger Woods. Ans: Santa only has 3 ho’s.
Very amusing luke only 3 ho’s, quite funny.
BTW Green Davey there is a forcast tonight for flooding in the NW corner of NSW due the leftovers of the cyclone, nature certainly is a powerhouse.
Merry Christmas everyone, and thanks to Copenhagen, have a better than anticipated new year.
Folks,
You will find this article interesting and instructive, especially since it puts forth a solid physical foundation for much of Luke’s position on AGW.
Physicist: global warming ‘will happen all at once’
22 December 2009
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i65634
After all, a good theory actually fits the data!
Merry Christmas to Y’all, and that even goes for Luke. Jenn, what would it take?
On a bright note for the day, we had rain overnight and according to BoM there is more thanks to Cyclone Laurence. Three cheers for that hey!
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDN10035.shtml
A special thought for our dear friend Graeme; the world seems to be still in good hands regardless of our best efforts in 2009.
SD; you can wait for another basket from this old cherry picker
CHEERS !!!
gavin,
As a frustrated cherry picker myself and the possesor of a lone cherry tree I have tried many times to propagate a few cherries for Christmas but a single tree forms fruit but they will not grow without cross pollination from another cherry tree of a different genus and as my tree is a very early flowerer, there is not much hope of this.
Anyone know about cherry trees?
And good luck with the rain. Be good to see the MDB get a good soak for the sake of all of our sanity.
Wiki had a green editor who set out to misinform and successfully eliminated the MWP.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=119745
el gordo,
yeah, I hope that gatekeeper gets shown the gate.
gavin,
Looks like that big rain prediction for the west from Laurence is a fizzer [as if we didn’t know. Why can’t they just keep quiet?]
Folks,
Below you’ll see an attempt to compile a list of the money paid to AGW proponents– from whom, to whom, and amounts involved. It’s quite incomplete, and a thorough listing would be a project well worth the time.
There are some factors which vastly complicate this effort.
For instance, the IPCC has a ‘modest’ annual budget of 7-8 million Swiss Francs. (Its forecast of future budgets resembles a hockey stick.) The problem is, the IPCC does not conduct research. So, this money is for spinmeistering the work of the “thousands of scientists” who supply research. Diversions of public and private funds to these “thousands of scientists” isn’t part of the figure, and so will be accounted for elsewhere.
Another complication is that there’s lots of AGW money that’s not diverted to research, but rather, to companies that profit from AGW, or to lobbists who push for regulations that will create demand for certain technologies, such as carbon capture, smart grids, bird choppers, tidal turbines, photovoltaics, biofuels, fluorescent light bulbs, you name it.
The figures below are obviously quite substantial, but considering the complications just noted, these figures must be considered as merely the tip of the iceberg in the global warming industry.
Funder – Amount (US$) – Recipient*
European Commission – 3 billion – general climate research
US Gov’t – 1.3 billion – NASA climate research
US Gov’t – 400 million – NOAA climate research
US Gov’t – 300 million – NSF climate research
California – 600 million – Calif. ‘climate initiative’
Heinz Award – 250,000 – James Hansen
Dan Davis Prize – 1 million – James Hansen
Exxon Mobil – 100 million – Global Climate and Energy Project, Stanford University
Richard Branson/Virgin Atlantic – 3 billion – ‘fight global warming’
European Union, NATO, US Department of Energy – 19 million – Hadley CRU
Al Gore etc. – 1 billion – 40 companies set to profit from new environmental and energy laws and regulations
BP, governments, etc. – 20 million – Robert Socolow/Princeton
————-
Sources:
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2009m12d23-Spreading-global-warming-doom-delivers-big-money-to-climate-researchers
http://cultofgreen.com/2009/06/19/al-gore-texts-me-about-his-finances/
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/12/10/taking_liberties/entry5964504.shtml
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/dec/19/follow-the-money-in-global-warming-hoax/
“Wikipedia is now embroiled in Climategate. William Connolley, Green Party activist and insider with the RealClimate/Mann “Hockey Team”, created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles to bolster the AGW cause. With administrative permissions, he also ‘disappeared’ over 500 ’skeptical’ Wikipedia articles.”
I’ve been trying to tell people about the Connelly menace on wikipedia for a long time. I’m glad that they’ve finally caught up with him.
William Connelly is a fellow who is anti-thetical to science he didn’t realise that one of his wiki-threads amounted to a confession. I wound up saving his whole page for the permanent record so as to not let him alter it when he discovered the confession he had made.
http://graemebird.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/empirical-evidencewpsm-models-never-the-twain/
Here is what I wrote on the discussion page two years ago. Amazingly it remains lovingly preserved for the moment. If only they had listened to me earlier.
“These factors suggest that CLIMAP systematically overestimated the temperatures in the tropical oceans during the last glacial though there is at present no consistent explanation for why or how this should have happened.”
This is the most idiotic conclusion imagineable. Its the models that are wrong. When you are constructing models you don’t, for fucksakes, turf out the empirical evidence in favour of the models.
Can we have some real scientists here?
Instead of alarmist idiots pretending to be scientists?
This is all people like Connolley do. Fit a square peg in a round hole. This is science fraud.
Its come to my attention that William Connelly has basically been on an obsessive crusade to warp the Wikipedia as propaganda for the “global warming” science fraud.
Its not any sort of one-off with this guy but an intentional crusade to co-opt Wikipedia as an instrument of propaganda.
There is no use invoking the “There is no conspiracy” bullshitartistry. Thats just more dishonesty. Connelly’s entire activity on the wiki ought to be investigated and his dishonest warping of topics ought to be mitigated. He’s not a scientist. He’s a maths and software guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.183.191 (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Birdy,
It’s amazing what conspiracy theories arise on little evidence, yet when it is all here in black and white, in the handwriting of the guilty, not just the warmers but the rest of the world remain in denial [or at least keep quiet and do nothing].
Hard leftism is a conspirational outlook. Hard leftists act in conspirational ways at the same time as they vigorously run down any notion of conspiracy. One leftist on my site was successfully pretending to be a teenage Chinese Christian rapper, as well as an outright marxist, as well as an unmasker of people allegedly pretending to be sockpuppets, when all the time it was him.
Conspiracy is second nature to these people. They are always up to something. The TV rigup with Monbiot has all the markings of a setup and the signs are in this case the ludicrous lengths that Monbiot goes to maintain “plausible deniability.” When you see such a thing you ought to just start sacking all the public servant “journalists” involved. Since spying on them all the time has terrible precedent implications. Once you see or smell the sort of behaviour we got from Monbiot and Jones one ought to just suspect the worst and start sacking people.
Tony Jones ought to be down at the Centrelink. Doing some sort of job to spread more thinly the tax burden. He ought not be conducting rigups with other leftist lunatics under the pretense that he is a journalist.
More fuel for the conspiracy fire, particularly Rajenda’s little “conflicts”.
http://www.examiner.com/x-3854-Cincinnati-Weather-Examiner~y2009m12d23-The-Copenhagen-Crash-and-Global-Cooling
Graeme,
I admire your willingness to actually look at facts.
When it comes to conspiracies, I’d invite you to consider that when eight dogs go after the same bone, it’s not a dog conspiracy.
When you throw a bone to the dogs, the dogs will show up.
If the dogs have anything to say about the matter, and, in this case, they do, the dogs will actually beg for more.
That’s no conspiracy, that’s just how things work. You reward a certain behavior, and it gets repeated.
An extreme example: the government of India used to offer a payment to the family of anyone who committed suicide.
A spate of suicides ensued, which the freaks attributed to farmers planting GM cotton. The government withdrew its ‘suicide subsidy’, and suicides among farmers declined.
Bottom line: if people will take money to actually kill themselves, they’ll for sure take money to fake climate data.
And you don’t have to allege a conspiracy either way.
When there’s money on the table, and all you have to do is tell lies to get the money, well, the liars will show up.
When the game is rigged in favor of liars, the liars will lie. That’s where the ‘smart money’ is. Like, a few hundred billion or so.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a crooked game, where honest people lose.
Yes, that is right Schiller, although I think the machinations now taking place behind the various closed doors do resemble some mini-conspiracies. But overall AGW is not a conspiracy. It is a convergence of truly divergent values and groups; the pollies can see rivers of revenue and social control and vast opportunity to pork-barrel; the spivs see even vaster opportunity to channel government funds into their pockets; we are already seeing strong criminal interest in carbon trading and procuring land for carbon credits; this will spill over into the manufacturing and energy sectors where productive businesses will be closed, carbon credits received, which will be redeemed in the international trading market and the funds used to set up the same businesses in other countries with no restrictions on emissions. The whole apparatus of carbon trading is a business with no asset base; even the recent GCC at least had some asset base with the houses which had been bought by the ‘deserving poor’ propping up all sorts of asset splitting, derivatisation, amortisation etc; but a carbon credit is worth nothing more than hot air; in fact a carbon credit actually has a negative value because it was created by closing productive businesses or farming land.
Then there is the UN which wants to become financially independent; which it will achieve as the banker for carbon trading and intermediary for the wealth transfer from the Western to the third world.
The various pro-AGW scientists are motivated by variously money, power, ego/glory; the usual human failings.
Lastly there are the ideologues, the nature freaks and the other assorted misanthropes who think nature is more important than humanity; this ratbag element controls, with a few exceptions, the msm, and more than anything [except perhaps the cost aspect] will cause the general public to become disenchanted with AGW.
“When the game is rigged in favor of liars, the liars will lie. That’s where the ’smart money’ is. Like, a few hundred billion or so.”
Schiller, true but when jointly getting rid of a few inconvenient facts via a common ajenda and workplace promotes the game?……
Schiller Thurkettle
“It’s not a conspiracy, it’s just a crooked game, where honest people lose.”
To a certain extent you are right, there probably was no conspiracy to begin with, but as the facts emerged and the “scientists” realised, that the theory was false, and that their funding is threatened, then the conspiracy began.
See data hiding, obstructing other’s publications, suppressing inconvenient fasts etc.
You know the saying,”if people really are out to get you it’s not paranoia”, well I think that what’s happened at the CRU and Connelly at Wikipedia definitely constitutes a conspiracy.
Right thats the other side of the coin of course Schiller. What we mistake for conspiracies a lot of the time are often probably just the way the puny humans work when they gather together in the millions. Not many people could interpolate the behaviour of air molecules as winding up causing anti-cyclones by merely looking at the molecule on its own. And so it probably goes with human behaviour as well. The larger workings of complexity coming out of the individual behaviour of millions.
I don’t want to say its right to see conspiracies everywhere. But Australians generally have the opposite vice. They are embarrassed to interpolate guile and cunning to their antagonists. I think its important that we drop this automatic disrespect for people who are more conspirational then ourselves. For example Ron Paul is about the same level conspirational as me. Alex Jones is far more conspirational. But it was a personal character fault of my own to automatically disrespect Alex Jones because of this. And I think we have got to go beyond this sort of Pavolvs dog reaction when we see people that are more conspirational then ourselves.
It becomes a matter of semantics. Since we don’t have any cutoff as to where conspiracy starts and finishes. Nor between the prime movers and the useful idiots in any conspiracy so-called. The most important thing is we don’t let these leftists control us by making us feel embarrassed about conspiracy or the speculation of potential conspiracy.
This sort of stuff always has the whiff of conspiracy to me:
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” Timothy Wirth, President of the U.N. Foundation and former Democratic U.S. senator from Colorado.
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment who led that country’s delegation to Kyoto.
“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” John Holdren (Obama’s Science Czar) wrote in a 1973 book he co-authored with Paul R. Ehrlch and Anne H. Ehrlich. “De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation.” See also John Holdren and the Anti-Growth Malthusians for interesting links and quotations.
“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton professor and member of Environmental Defense Fund.
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” Maurice Strong, a native of Canada considered by some to be one of the leading environmentalists in the world. He is an official at the U.N.
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.” Paul Watson, co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace.
“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” Dave Foreman, U.S. environmentalist and co-founder of radical environmental group Earth First.
That was from this and John Ray
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2009/12/12/why-the-global-warming-hoax/
Merry Christmas from Minnesota where we are buried under snow. (It’s still Christmas here.)
Jennifer, thank you for all the time you spent on this website. I keep checking every week to see if you are back. The postings and commentators were were always interesting.
Best wishes for the New Year
Minnesota hey? Do you know these guys?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Set the Flamingo free.
Schiller is this helpful http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
I think we are in the end game, what is the guess how long before it ceases to be of any interest. For all of you what triggered your disbelief. For me it was the environmental film on Tuvulu it rang for me alarm bells of scam. Following that the mathematical manipulation that 80 ppm being stated as 20%. We must be all grateful to whoever or whatever organisation let loose ClimateGate. Those involved will suffer how much remains to be seen. Jail time would be less than deserved but a doubtful outcome, we can only hope. May Luke, Gavin, SJT etc be among the punished.
In 2010 many are saying particularly the Western world has very severe financial problems. They say we have not seen the last of the GFC and that it will develop into a deep depression. Look here http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ it scares the hell out of me and hope it is another fabrication but I suspect not.
So this really will be my last comment here. Thanks Jennifer and thank all of you for a mostly erudite discussion of the doom mongering called “Climate Change”. Happy new year and I wish you all well.
“On her web site, Jo Nova has posted a 30 year time line of Climategate created by Mohib Ebrahim. It is long, but demonstrates that the Climategate scandal is not isolated or insignificant. http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/ ”
info from Kenneth Haapala
As with all home grown philosophy, with a little cheer from the festive season we continue to go round in tiny circles….and end up contemplating navels.
The fact that we can think at all is the wonder of it all.
With some regret that I won’t be better stationed this time even as a minor observer on the wharf as the salts celebrate their Sydney Hobart classic, its worth contemplating the expeditionary spirit that endures despite the actual weather or the predictions of such.
http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/default.asp
BTW we met Paul Watson and several crew a while back in similar circumstances.
Jen,
How is the MSM managing to ignore this. Says heaps about journalistic [and editorial] ideology.
But wait, people don’t want to hear this what with Chrissy and the cricket unless there is a warming story, and at the moment it’s cool and raining.
100 mm so far fo us this month but I thought there would be more in the Macquarrie Marshes from cyclone Laurence.
Just checked the falls in that area in the last couple of days; Dubbo 85 mm, Trangie 74, Nyngan 47, and Coonamble 112, so maybe there will be enough run-off to do some good.
I suppose you could say the glass was half full.
gavin,
That yacht tracker link of yours gives ten times as much info as the MSM. Also the yachts have been getting a lot of bad predictions from the BoM.
I get that link also from Google Earth.
This year the MSM don’t even seem to have any aerial video of the yachts as they leave the coast at Gabo and head out into the strait.
Dr Richard North and Christopher Booker continue to shed further daylight on the conflicts of interest surrounding our esteemed chairman of the IPCC and former railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/more-lucrative-by-day.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6890839/The-questions-Dr-Pachauri-still-has-to-answer.html
Jabba,
Hope they rip it up ‘im.
Meanwhile back in the swamp it might be better than I thought.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/wrap_fwo.pl?IDN36501.html
Isn’t that interesting. As soon as the money runs out, the astroturf dries up.
Having spent some time in civilisation over the past few days I finally managed to grab a copy of Ian Plimer’s book and I immediately searched out his info on volcanoes as it was the first question put to him by George Monbiot and Tony Jones on Lateline. In the interview (and the book) Plimer stated that 85% of the world’s volcanic activity isn’t measured and accounted for as it’s in the deep oceans. Monbiot and Jones pounced on that stating that T Gerlach from the US Geological Survey had been asked and he confirmed that undersea volcanoes were taken into consideration so Monbiot went on to accuse Plimer of deliberately lying.
On this page at the USGS http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php they make the following statement:
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts.
equal amounts?? the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface, how can they be in equal amounts – also – they reference Gerlach 1991, as does everyone else who makes the claim that man’s emissions are 140 x volcanic activity. so how many submarine volcanoes were found and measured in 1991?
Plimer’s 22 referenced pages on volcanoes covers the various types of volcanic activity we know about and makes a clear case that when we take into account what we do know and estimate what we don’t know, his conclusion that volcanic activity is greater than human CO2 output is perfectly valid.
The CO2 from tens of thousands of submarine hot springs associated with these submarine basalt volcanoes dissolves in the high pressure deep ocean water and does not bubble to the surface. Water at the bottom of the oceans is undersaturated in dissolved CO2 , hence very large volumes of CO2 can dissolve. One hot spring can release far more CO2 than a 1000mW power station. page 208.
I remember reading that in 2007 they discovered a group of 33 active volcanoes just north of White Island in New Zealand. They were 200 km deep!
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=34926
Clearly neither Monbiot or Jones had read that chapter in Plimer’s book.
But what I find to be more disturbing is that they immediately took T Gerlach’s information as fact and Plimer’s info in the book as lies despite the fact that Plimer has referenced everything!
Considering the huge amount of time and effort Prof Plimer must have spent gathering all the info together with references etc surely he deserves more respect than to be hounded by a couple of consenting journalists on national TV!
janama,
Good stuff. There are new undersea volcanoes being discovered all the time and Monbiot should know this but doesn’t wish to. Another known unknown that the warmers and their models choose to ignore.
You should bring it to his attention. I think his Plimer post is closed now but others were also pointing out new under sea discoveries to him.
I’m sure Tony Jones would be interested to know too. [sarc]
Be good if current affair show hosts had a website where the common herd could set ’em straight.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
SD – I sent a copy of this post to Monbiot via his contact page on his blog.
Janama it just proves the rationalist case once more, if the fantasists were so sure of their argument they wouldn’t have to lie and display their desperation.
Moonbat and jones are desperate to ridicule anyone who holds a scientifically rational view and would give a fantasist fraudster like gore a free pass everytime he tells a blatant lie about sea levels or co2 leading temp or lake Chad being depleted by CC or kilaminjaro suffering reduction in ice cover etc because of CC.
At least moonbat concedes they are losing the argument on AGW, which I’m sure will drive him to even further desperation, great time to be alive.
Good old Bruce Petty
http://images.smh.com.au/2009/12/24/997795/petty24cartoonofday-620×0.jpg
Spangled; it’s raining steadily and I guess widespread throughout my region after an almost sunny day. Before; I had over half a bucket full just sitting on the back lawn. That been the best rain all year. There isn’t as much gouging of the front garden from run off round the block as we had with some thunder storms, in all a very unusual period.
For another aspect, see “March of the 40 footers”
“The Bureau of Meteorology told crews to expect mixed weather throughout the 65th edition of Australia’s summer ocean classic. Owners, tacticians and navigators agreed on Boxing Day it was one of the most confusing weather reports they had ever received. It was welcome news for many though, as it meant every yacht in the fleet would have the opportunity of shining, as is being witnessed tonight”
http://rolexsydneyhobart.com/news.asp?key=4581
Finally got to read Monbiot’s blog “Ian Plimer’s volcano claims vaporise under questioning on Australian TV” but I’m not surprised having known dozens of geologists, drillers, miners and off shore types who never mentioned CO2 venting through the crust anywhere.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
Yes Gavin – that has been Monbiot’s claim – “how I slayed the Plimer Dragon”
please stop for a second and ponder what you claimed…….. a journalist has slain the science of one of Australia’s leading geologist.
“http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot”
Has anyone noticed how the Grauniad has censored out all the critical comments following the article, and then locked the comments completely?
Folks,
Judging from the relative tone of discussions here, I am inclined to conclude that the AGW crowd is on the run, with no place to go — unless they’re willing to change their minds.
By definition, skeptics change their minds when the evidence points in a new direction.
Why? Because our notion of reality, a ‘mental picture’ of what exists, is a model. It’s a model in the same sense that a climate model models the climate. Skeptics adjust their notions of reality — their internal model — to match the best available data.
In fact, they’re eager to change their view of reality in light of new data. It’s the adaptive thing to do. In fact, it’s the smart, pragmatic thing to do.
Non-skeptics stick to one model religiously — literally and figuratively. Like the Hadley ‘hockey team’, they change the data to fit the model.
With a mind-set like that, a sea-change in public opinion based on a sea-change in available information will send these people into hiding, or into denial. Because, quite simply, they can’t change their minds, and, religiously, can’t even countenance the notion. It would be heresy.
Here’s a real gem: “Forget Climategate. Watch the animals and the plants and judge for yourself if they are adapting to climate change.” http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/21097
The author worries “that animals will have to adjust their ranges by several hundred meters per year in order to keep up with global warming.” At that rate, even snails and slugs can keep up, and with the way seeds disperse, plants would have no problem, either.
The non-skeptics, in spite of Climategate, will fight every inch of the way, because they can’t change their minds. The public at large can, and does.
But the non-skeptics sure have been quiet here lately. Perhaps that has more to do with the holidays, and their penchant for imbibing.
At WUWT, physicist Luboš Motl demonstrates how easy it is to show that there is: No statistically significant warming since 1995
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/26/no-statistically-significant-warming-since-1995-a-quick-mathematical-proof/
Jabba,
Historic accounts agree with non-fudged temperature data: The Medieval Optimum was a great time for civilization, and we haven’t warmed things back up to that level.
Getting temperatures back to the MO level is, from all indications, a good idea.
Which probably accounts for how there are no ‘Global Cooling’ advocates, i.e. people wanting the planet to get colder.
After all, wishing for an Ice Age, even a little one, would sound as ridiculous as it sounds.
Personally, I’m very concerned about climate change. Because I have to live in the climate.
Adjusting the climate is a very appealing notion. It would be great if we could actually do that.
I’d be totally in favor of setting the Earth’s thermostat if we could do it. We can’t, at least not with CO2. We’re very nearly at the upper limit of the warming we can induce with CO2 emissions. Increasing saturation of CO2 has a lesser effect as saturation increases.
We’ve had Ice Ages where CO2 was ten times as high.
Increasing methane emissions may be the thing to do.
We have a ways to go before we come back to the Medieval Optimum.
@ Schiller Thurkettle
“Personally, I’m very concerned about climate change. Because I have to live in the climate.”
Well you’d better get used to it and just get on with your life because climate changes all the time, always has and always will…
We have a new climategate going on where all these leftists are standing by a brazen lie and calling it the truth. I would hope you might go to Deep Climate, Tim Lamberts site, The ABC and anything George Monbiot has got anything to do with and complain about all of these people lying with the same excuse. Instead of “The Devil Made Me Do It” they are shifting the blame for their lying onto the USGS. The United States Geographical Survey.
Here is the excuse for the lie they are all anticipating in, along reader commentary proving that the lie has been brought to the blog owners attention. I think it would be helpful if as many people got to the various blogs and protest this matter as strenuously as possible. Its important to do this with malice afforethought so as to let these frauds know that we know what they are up to. Its important to set up a lot of moderated statements. Then to copy and record those moderated statements. So that it becomes clear to the public that this lie could not possibly have slipped the attention of the liars who are now willing participants in its propagation. This is what I have done as you can see below. Its not important that your post makes it through since it won’t. What is important is recording the fact that these people have been informed of the lie, and hence they are themselves liars for using the lie.
Alfred Nock // December 27, 2009 at 8:57 am | Reply
The idea that Plimer is lying does seem to hinge on the notion that we put out 130 times the amount of CO2 as the volcanoes. Does anyone wish to stick up for this point of view? Would you put your knowledge of this matter up against Plimers?
If so why? What do you know that the rest of us don’t know? Can you give us a breakdown by region of CO2 output? We are talking tens of thousands of kilometers of volcanic activity here. I wonder what is making people so sure of this matter?
“[DC: I would put up the US Geological Survey (USGS) against Plimer.
Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) – The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php (and click on the Effects tab).
By the way, Plimer recently reduced his volcanic CO2 claim by a couple of orders of magnitude. Several more to go, though. I’ll post about this soon.
The facts are beyond debate, and so we must stop there, unless you can point to peer-reviewed literature substantively disputing the USGS sources cited above. Thanks!]”
Alfred Nock // December 27, 2009 at 5:43 pm | Reply
Why would you put up the USGS against Plimer? What do you find so convincing about their argument? In fact they don’t make an argument. They rely on a 1991 study by Gerlach. The facts are indeed beyond debate. The study claims that underwater volcanic CO2 release is equivalent to above ground CO2 release. Which is a lie.
So why do you put up this USGS claim, which in 2009 everyone must know to be a lie?
A lot of people appear to be relying on this lying claim. When they ought to be listening to Plimer.
“(Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. ”
About in equal amounts? There is no relevant Gerlach 1999 study. So we are talking a deliberate lie.
And yet you are saying you put this deliberate lie ahead of Plimers estimate? Why so?
Here’s one going off 4000 feet down.
It seems that in areas like the Pacific, Antarctica, Gakel Ridge etc., there is still plenty to learn.
Greame, I’ve been trying to access Gerlach’s original paper to see how he came to his conclusions but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know if he did an actual survey or is he just making it up , what’s the empirical basis for his claims?
I couldn’t find Gerlach’s paper either Derek. I spent hours the other day searching for it.
Don’t we already have to do this in Australia even without an ETS?
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f14/cap-and-trade-license-required-your-home-44750/
The thing about the volcanoes vs anthropogenic CO2 emissions is not just a 70/30 split based on the ocean land ratio; most of the Earth’s volcanoes are along tectonic plate divides; 90% of these divides are in the oceans;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg
Therefore the USGS assumption of an equality between land [subaerial] and submerged [submarine] volcanoes is drastically wrong.
SD; in QLD there is this;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/selling_your_house_it_could_be_a_green_crime/#commentsmore
And nationally there is this;
http://www.energetics.com.au/services/government-programs/nger
Thanks cohers.
“most of the Earth’s volcanoes are along tectonic plate divides; 90% of these divides are in the oceans;”
That makes for a lot of unrecorded CO2.
This was an interesting comment on house licenses:
——————————————————————————–
Old Butch
———— ——— ——— —
John was in the fertilized egg business.
He had several hundred young layers (hens), called ‘pullets,’
and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs.
He kept records, and any rooster not performing
went into the soup pot and was replaced.
This took a lot of time, so he bought some tiny bells
and attached them to his roosters.
Each bell had a different tone, so he could tell from a distance,
which rooster was performing.
Now, he could sit on the porch And fill out an efficiency report
by just listening to the bells.
John’s favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen,
but this morning he noticed old Butch’s bell hadn’t rung at all!
When he went to investigate, he saw the other roosters were busy chasing
pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets, hearing the roosters coming, could run for cover.
To John’s amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn’t ring.
He’d sneak up on a pullet, do his job and walk on to the next one.
John was so proud of old Butch, he entered him in the Renfrew County Fair
and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the No Bell Piece Prize
but they also awarded him the Pulletsurprise as well.
Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making.
Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most highly coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the populace and screwing them when they weren’t paying attention.
Vote carefully next year,
the bells are not always audible.
——————————————————————————–
Doug Edwards, CMI
cohers,
There’s nowhere on that form that gives me any credit for having 150 acres of scrub c/w natives and no farting livestock.
“That makes for a lot of unrecorded CO2” hmmmm
http://www.marine.csiro.au/marq/edd_search.Browse_Citation?txtSession=8385&brief=Y
Schiller; unfortunatly for you guys, there is no original scientific evidence for “The Medieval Optimum” downunder
Janama; on Plimer being top dog in climate maters here I find some local sources would dissagree
I say; try the Australian Institute of Geoscientists –
http://aig.org.au/conferences-and-seminars/aig-climate-change-debate
and on what’s most topical in “MINING”
Michael Mills – “The top 10 groundbreaking events of 2009”
But Janama, why not consult Australia’s “leading climate scientists” David Karoly, Amanda Lynch, Andy Pitman etc
gavin, what is your point in linking to GASLAB; and Karoly Australia’s leading climate scientist, or Pitman; you’ve been eating the mushrooms again.
More sterling work by Monckton
http://sppiblog.org/news/scientific-american%e2%80%99s-climate-lies
They should give him an Honorary Order of Australia because he is go to save us from spending heaps uncessarily and at the most from a trivial outcome.
Much more deserving of our recognition than FlimFlam himself
Gerlach et al CO2, H2S, SO2 method
“Gas Emissions and the Eruptions of Mount St. Helens Through 1982”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;221/4618/138
Soil efflux and total emission rates of magmatic CO2 at the Horseshoe Lake tree kill, Mammoth Mountain, California, 1995–1999
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V5Y-4379FWY-9&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1147866945&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=9838e26702e4b40ce328fef04420ea30
“Eruptive and diffuse emissions of CO2 from Mount Etna”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/abs/351387a0.html?rel=nofollow
“Summit CO2 emission rates by the CO2/SO2 ratio method at Kīlauea Volcano, Hawai i, during a period of sustained inflation”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VCS-4T0FF5G-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1147862509&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0519c10a7252ddaaaa5267edec94db43
“The influence of a sulfur dioxide point source on the rain chemistry of a single storm in the Puget sound region”
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n2877m32m881317n/
Janama; on Plimer being top dog in climate maters here I find some local sources would dissagree
Gavin – despite your denial Ian Plamer is one of our countries leading geolgists. Accept it!
I’m not going to post his credentials here – I can’t be bothered but I suggest you check them.
But Janama, why not consult Australia’s “leading climate scientists” David Karoly, Amanda Lynch, Andy Pitman etc
I have and they just parrot the establishment – their “climate change departments” are dependent on it – as is their income.
They are quite happy for Penny Wong to state that sea levels will rise by 1.2m because either they believe it or they are too dependent to speak out.
OK gavin, Mammoth Mountain had emissions of 93t per day; Kilauea 2900-6900t per day and the Mount St Helens link does not work; keep connecting your dots.
Edmonds & Gerlach on “Vapor segregation and loss in basaltic melts”
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/8/751
See also Edmonds “New geochemical insights into volcanic degassing” 2008
Well, I’m lost gavin, although your last link says this:
“A CO2-rich gas slug travels up the conduit at a few meters per second, displacing magma as it expands”
“A CO2 rich gas slug”; that would be Al Gore?
“A CO2 rich gas slug”; that would be Al Gore?
nice one 🙂
“Greame, I’ve been trying to access Gerlach’s original paper to see how he came to his conclusions but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know if he did an actual survey or is he just making it up , what’s the empirical basis for his claims?”
Well thats funny. Because I found a summary. And I found a list of Gerlachs different studies. And it was pretty clear that not any of Gerlach’s 1999 studies were relevant. So the 1999 date mentioned on the site is just a lie to cover for the fact that they had to go back to 1991 to pull this lie off. That they’ve got the date 1999 thrown in shows this is an orchestrated lie.
Now there is a bit of background to this. And more than one scientific scandal. The plate tectonics theory and the theory of continental drift gave everyone the impression that the Atlantic had been growing. And since the Atlantic had been growing its floor will be young. Therefore it was believed that the Pacific floor would be old. And that there would be as much subduction zones going on to balance the spreading floor and volcanic rift-zones in the Atlantic.
Now here is the scandal. When they checked out the Pacific its floor was young too. And instead of finding much in the way of subduction zones they found thousands and thousands of kilometres of volcanic rift zones. Now this contradicts the extant theory of continental drift. This is a scandal as well. And this is yet another reason why its hard to get good information on this matter. Because now we have two science maffias covering things up. The man to ask about this matter is probably Louis Hissink. But he’s unlikely to contradict this basic outline.
Now I’m a bit hazy as to when everyone was apprised of these matters. But as you have seen, when there is a science scandal involved big holes start developing in internet information. And here there are two big scandals. But consider in the light of all this. The miscreant controlling the website at the USGS had to go back to 1991 to find a study which appears to be incredibly ignorant of the reality that most of us would know about now.
“Greame, I’ve been trying to access Gerlach’s original paper to see how he came to his conclusions but have been unsuccessful. Does anyone know if he did an actual survey or is he just making it up , what’s the empirical basis for his claims?”
Yeah I saw a summary. And you know. I probably cannot prove it now. But I tell you it was no survey. They didn’t ask the American navy for a favour in this 1991 study. Most of the talk I saw was speculative statistics. And in light of the sheer magnitude of kilometer after kilometer of more or less constant activity that we now ought to know about …………….. the 1991 study could not be more ridiculous as to its conclusion if it were judged retrospectively in the light of what we now know. So this is almost definitely another Climategate.
All these leftists are practicing plausible deniability. And they ought to be taken down for doing so. If you look at Monbiots act before and after setting up Plimer, it fair reeks of plausible-deniability. We know what he is up to by the incredible pantomime of plausible deniability. I’ve been sending Monbiot emails saying that I’m onto his act and generally harassing him. So if Gerlach’s record has disappeared from the internet, thats enemy action right there.
Here is a very good link and right here we see the magnitude of the gyp that Monbiot and the others are trying on:
“The Yellowstone volcanic province produces 6-7 x 1012 mol of annual CO2 (72-84 MtCpa), which is about three times more CO2 than the total subaerial volcanic emission of Kerrick (2001) and Gerlach (1991). It just goes to show that consensus is political, not scientific.”
Yellowstone province alone gives off three times the CO2 output that Monbiot is trying to sell us on. Also this link makes it pretty clear that Plimer in 2009 is obviously a better authority then Gerlach in 1991.
“and Plimer (2009) maintains that the amount of CO2 from volcanoes is enormous, and without estimating an amount suggests that it dwarfs anthropogenic contributions. If we take the updated estimate, correct the conservative bias, and extend to submarine environments we still wind up with a figure around 1.575 GtCpa for total passive volcanic emissions (excluding imponderables such as mid oceanic ridge emissions) and that is still only 20% of the 7.8 GtCpa attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
As it turns out, there is alot more to the distribution of volcanoes across different tectonic settings, and Plimer (2009) omits the rather small detail of a 2007 paper presenting primary evidence that underpins his claim in spectacular fashion.”
I tell you this is a full blown scandal that Monbiot and the others are trying on. And I can confirm that I wasn’t able to find websites that I was looking at just a couple of weeks ago. They do appear to have gone missing.
This ought to be the study that backs Plimer up, and it may be the most recent serious relevant study.
Hillier, J. K., & Watts, A. B., 2007, “Global distribution of seamounts from ship-track bathymetry data”, Geophysical. Research. Letters, Vol. 34, L13304, doi:10.1029/2007GL029874
The 1991 Gerlach study is of no use whatsoever. Not hassling Gerlach himself mind you. But its clear that the fraud side of the argument has just dragged Gerlach’s study out of mothballs to further their lies.
I’ve downloaded the Hillier study. And they are calling underwater volcanoes “seamounts”. They have managed to suss out an order of magnitude more of these seamounts then previously thought. That is to say more than 200 000.
And more speculatively they put forward an estimate of THREE MILLION OF THESE “SEAMOUNTS” of the size 100m or more. On top of this I think you’ve all seen those fairly flat riftzones that just spew out small amounts of the red hot stuff day and night.
So yeah there is massively more activity then anyone thought in 1991. The rort that Monbiot and the others are trying to pull off is just incredible. And Plimer was well within his rights to make an estimate based on the proxy of sedimentary rock chemistry.
Plimer making an estimate is no scandal as liars all around the world are now claiming. Rather its what we would call a single proxy estimate. Surely this is the sort of thing that Plimer has done for a living for half a century. Is making estimates now forbidden?
Where is the scandal in a single-proxy estimate? Its not going to be the revealed truth since you need three or more convergent proxies to get to the revealed truth. But these lunatics are calling it science fraud.
Its as if all their poxy estimates are official and all ours are criminal. We need to hit back hard at these lunatics. This is business. Sometimes you’ve got to fight fire with fire. Think of how many people this movement has damaged professionally. Lest we forget.
Gerlach stuff is lost on folk in cyber space hey
Tut tut….
Cohenite can check this out though –
“Identifying the Molecular Origin of Global Warming”
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp905097g
Gavin, 28th 4.07pm,
Yes, there is scientific evidence for a MWP down-under;
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l2_laketutira.php
Malcolm, I read the Sciam article as well as about half of the 967 comments, Monkton is spot on. For interest sake I clicked on many of the links within the article and was astounded to find that the majority were to either Realclimate or Tim Lambert’s blog. Fancy a “respected” science magazine referencing blog sites as evidence for their claims.
A vast number of the comments were from disgruntled subscribers who were strongly critical of Scientific America’s decline over recent years from an informative magazine to a biased, politicised front for the AGW crowd.
gavin; the dipole moment and the change in dipole moment in the various greenhouse molecules is a tough subject; Barrett explains it best;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/barrett_ee05.pdf
eli of course thinks that CO2 saturation cannot occur;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.html
But eli fudges because he assumes that CO2 dipole moment increases [ie the higher rotational levels] with temperature [or pressure] increases; this is really a restatement of the AGW tautology that CO2 causes temperature increases with more CO2 causing more temperature increases AND, as well, an expansion in the absorption capacity of the CO2 molecules; BUT, as Barrett explains CO2 doesn’t have a dipole moment? Perhaps you can explain?
Folks,
Your discussion about volcanoes and plate tectonics raises some interesting questions.
First off, the interior of the Earth is a very dynamic place, with ‘convection cells’ transferring heat from the molten core outwards to the mantle and crust. These convection cells are discontinuous and vary by location — constituting a sort of ‘weather’ in their own right.
Temperature at the center of the Earth is 4150 Centigrade/7502 Fahrenheit.
That’s darned hot, and there’s a lot of it. Consider: most of Earth’s mass is its interior, not its surface. And that internal heat is radiating toward the surface constantly.
Seems to me if a calculation of global heating rests entirely on sunlight, it’s ignoring a huge factor — so huge as to generate erroneous results.
As far as we know, has anyone determined the relative contributions of sunlight and the molten core to observed heating? If not, the climatologists will have to start all over again.
Handy links:
http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/PlateTect/heathistory.html
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/mar97/856964891.Es.r.html
https://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/geo_history_wa/The%20Restless%20Earth%20v.2.0.htm
“Gerlach stuff is lost on folk in cyber space hey
Tut tut….”
What is that supposed to mean gavin you idiot? Are you claiming its not a scandal. The scandal is confirmed by the fact that you, being an idiot, were not able to post one of the relevant Gerlach studies.
Seriously you complete idiot. What do you mean by the above? You are a blockhead mate. What do you mean by “Tut Tut” you brain dead insect?
I’ll check back on you a bit later gavin to see if you have some excuse for your idioctic statement. See if you reckon you can explain why this isn’t Climategate Mach II. What a moron you are.
Cohenite; you are just a skimmer i.e. no depth when it comes to technology but hey I don’t hold that against anyone who hasn’t had the necessary background. Just sit back and wonder at it all while the pros fight it out.
Today there are a lot of fields we can latch onto with relative safety and one of those is the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 regardless of interruptions from volcanoes, undersea vents etc. That world wide study above even allows identification of CO2 sources.
Graeme; just sit down and calmly go through my “Gerlach links” and find the numerous works and references that remain on the internet via geoscience academic papers re findings, methodologies etc.
I notice commentators since have not mentioned the physics of gas measurement, SO2 ratios and so on associated with well established vulcanology.
Look gavin, your Will Rogers, ah shucks, folksy ramblings are wearing thin; I put a specific aspect of eli’s musings on how ACO2 supposedly cannot be saturated in contradiction to the Barrett paper; it has nothing to do with skimming, how do you reconcile the conflict; is CO2 incapable of ever being saturated in its ‘heating’ effect; and mind you we are not talking about feedbacks, this is the unlimited capacity of CO2 to continue interacting with IR at a seemingly endless frequency range; I know eli believes this, what do you think? And does CO2 have a dipole moment or not? Now’s your chance gavin, enlighten us.
“A little knowledge…” says the chirpy one who hates the PC, blogs, sceptics and me for bothering but one last try.
Cohenite; your Jack Barrett dos not feature in authorised sources with his greenhouse stuff however I did look into it and concluded it was too narrow to be real.
Yours truly has retired and won’t do the math but I can pass on a few tips. Last week a retired science teacher looked at my TV antenna and thought his makeshift device made with a metal doughnut could be better in this difficult reception area. My recently installed device has 2 complex sets of V & H polarised dipoles and was recommended by a former Telco engineer. Oddly the guy who lives next door but up one level was the Fed Dept’s TV reception rep before he retired and uses a tower to gain some extra height. In such a situation any thing that works is OK for the day.
My former work allowed some spectrum snooping too and I found dipoles simple enough till we went from band to band in big steps. We go from whips to an eye in a circle in no time. Also band pass in a channel requires a fiddle too and we could start with some feathered ends on the dipoles. I could go on but I guess there is some slackness in your average gas molecule too. In the end we must use the broad spectrum approach an receive the radiation as a fuzz from all directions then be satisfied with only that warms the sea and me.
Schiller can buzz off with thoughts of Mother earth warming our tail as crust insulation is way good enough to keep us freezing up top with out help from our jolly old Sun
I might have known; I ask a specific question and I get the parable of the TV antenna; Barrett references HITRAN and K&T, so his source for first principles is immaculate; for those who are interested in a good discussion about saturation see;
http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf
Cohenite, let me jump in here and say that no, CO2 does not have a dipole moment. Although it has polar bonds between the C an O atoms, if you refer to to CO2 diagrams in Barrett, the molecule is linear and the polar bonds are exactly opposite to each other and equal in magnitude, so cancel each other out resulting in a zero net polarity. A molecule has to be a net dipole to have a dipole moment.
Now the 2nd and 3rd vibrational frequencies create dipole situations by changing the net geometry of the molecule. Note that all 3 vibrations occur at the same time butt at different frequencies so you get a nodal system similar to Milankovic cycles.
Hope this helps, cheers.
Yes Derek, this is the gist of eli’s piece where the vibrational or excited states of the CO2 molecule cause rotational changes and create dipole moments which allows aborption; eli takes it a step further to argue that saturation doesn’t occur, that is the vibrational caused dipole moments can increase further, but he relies on temperatures which don’t occur on Earth.
‘Graeme; just sit down and calmly go through my “Gerlach links”
I have done you worthless pondscum moron. They are the wrong ones. They are not the least bit relevant to either this new scandal or to the question of global volcanic CO2 release.
You couldn’t find the right one dopey.
This is a scandal so the 1991 study in question was removed. No Gerlach study is relevant. Since he only had one study to do with worldwide release, this was 1991, and as it turns out it was hopelessly wrong, His calculation for the entire globe bested three times over by the yellowstone area alone. You are just a blockhead mate. You’ve been taken in by this rubbish. Which means of course you never had what it takes to be employed in any science job.
So the scandal is on. No-one can find the Gerlach study. He had a whole page with a summary of all his work. Seems to be that this page has gotten to be hard to find as well. Of course none of his studies are the least bit relevant to the question of CO2 output. Only to the Climate Gate Mach II Scandal. Otherwise known as George Monbiot and the outer limits of plausible deniability. Personally I hope they don’t put the relevant studies back. I’m fine with these morons hiding stuff.
Hello All,
I have been scouring the daily papers and I still cannot find any headlines or articles on climate gate. Piers and Andrew did have some comments before Xmas.
Climategate should be being screamed about from every rooftop. How dare these leftist wankers with their “use your trick to hide the decline” brand of non science waste our tax dollars and threaten our economy .
The sooner these AGW idiots are outed for all to see, the sooner we can all move on ( third world incuded ) to a brighter futre!
That should read; brighter future!
“N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gasses but make up 99.9% of the dry atmosphere.”
That puts it in perspective, cohers.
Here’s Hansen making his alley good post climategate:
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20091216_TemperatureOfScience.pdf
Although not my field, from practice associated with physical chemistry we get this approach
“Spectroscopy is the study of the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter. There are many forms of spectroscopy, each contributing useful information to identify substances and to determine various characteristics of their structure” see ‘bonds’ &
“Molecular responses to radiation”
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm
I also continue to avoid Maxwell’s equations, the Schrodinger wave equation etc from quantum physics but suggest others use the ‘selection rules’ according to electronic, vibrational and rotational transitions at the molecular level
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_rule
The cohenite post mentioning “moment” caused me to think bum steer because the pure physical chemistry approach does not allow for wave complexity or non ridgid dipoles. Again from wiki in “Dipole moment density and polarization density” we get the following discussion –
“but for a neutral array it is simply a vector property of the array with no directions about where the array happens to be located. The dipole moment density of the array p(r) contains both the location of the array and its dipole moment. When it comes time to calculate the electric field in some region containing the array, Maxwell’s equations are solved, and the information about the charge array is contained in the polarization density P(r) of Maxwell’s equations”
Derek “A molecule has to be a net dipole to have a dipole moment”
An electric dipole moment ? perhaps! But before we find a gaseous medium with charge and dipole densities we should consider another basic, the dielectric sphere in a uniform external electric field but not the whole raft of info from modern particle physics symmetries, CP violations etc
Back to spectroscopy and coupled transitions for another fudge in impacts to niggle the purists
“Two-dimensional IR spectroscopy can be designed to eliminate the diagonal peaks and expose only the crosspeaks needed for structure determination”
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11265.full
spangles; unfortunately that “hockey stick” temp graph stands
“spangles; unfortunately that “hockey stick” temp graph stands”
gavin,
Is that right? What sort of a handle would you like?
http://i45.tinypic.com/iwq8a1.jpg
gavin, you are either eli in drag with a corn-cob pipe or making things up; as I said the dipole moment issue is complex; I have already linked you to eli’s, IMO, erroneous discusion on the expanded capacity of CO2 to continue heating; let me respond to your cut and paste with another link to eli;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/03/what-is-local-thermodynamic-equilibrium.html
In effect an LTE establishes that CO2 absorption and heating is a near surface phenomenon; the LTE is defined by internal equalised thermalisation; it is the same temperature; it does not matter whether the CO2 molecule has an expanding absorption capacity as eli has described because the LTE has no temperature gradient; in effect the LTE has no dipole moment; the CO2 inside the LTE cannot heat further the parcel of air which is the LTE; further transfer of the heat in the LTE to the external gases by diffusion is defeated by convective uplift which is much more rapid; the LTE loses its heat differential with the external atmosphere as it rises until it becomes the same temperature as the surrounding atmosphere; at this level which is the characteristic emission layer [CEL] the mean free path of the CO2 molecules is expanded because there are less other molecules to collide with; the CO2 emits and then convectively sinks.
The point about the above macro process is that such processes are not determined by the quantum properties of CO2 as gavin’s mention of “wave complexity” implies: decoherence sees to that and the “butterfly effect” is nonsense and Schrodinger’s cat is not similtaneously alive or dead but one or the other; the relevance to AGW is that there is no such thing as a tipping point. Now if only gavin would decohere.
“spangles; unfortunately that “hockey stick” temp graph stands”
No no. It doesn’t stand. You are a liar. For starters, before all the other fraud involved with this graph, you clearly cannot use tree rings data as a proxy for temperature, since CO2 makes the tree rings grow faster.
See you are an idiot pal. You cannot get the simplest thing right. The hockey stick lie is just like the volcano lie you guys are into. Over at deltoid there is one person claiming that the 130 times business overstates the volcanic release. “luminous beauty” has tried to wing it that volcanic release is actually negative. Eli Rabbet is also buying into the 130 times figure. They are just like you. They lie all the time.
HAPPY NEW YEAR ONE AND ALL!
Well, Mother Nature really is a feisty but temperamental old Dame, isn’t she?
She has NO time for those who would assume to know her moods, predict her actions or seek to change her ways.
Recent weather events around the Globe and particularly here in Australia are typical of the old Dames response to people like Al Gore, Tim Flannery and James Hansen.
Not only is she treating them like precocious children, she is demonstrating their irrational foolishness in a manner familiar to most farmers.
However, her greatest delight seems to be in making gooses of Politicians like Mr. Rudd, Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Brown and Penny Wong.
She is demonstrating her displeasure at Politicians and their “Gravy Train” supporters who have allowed themselves to be swept along in a flood of hubris and immeasurable arrogance, boasting they can legislate to change her moods.
She will have none of this impertinence.
Mother Nature is complex beyond comprehension, unpredictable always, fiecely independent and will continue to make fools of Politicians (and AGW supporters on this site) who have allowed their egos to subdue their common sense.
How great it is to see the rivers of the Darling system flowing again.
If you have read the release put out by Prof. Mick Young yesterday via the BOM. in relation to the present flood in the Darling.
It was mostly false and is just another example of self proclaimed “experts” getting unquestioned coverage in the MSM.
Another one this morning in the Aus. from my adversary Prof. Richard Kingsford.
Pikey.
The point about the above macro process is that such processes are not determined by the quantum properties of CO2 as gavin’s mention of “wave complexity” implies
Hey Cohenite, if Harald Schneider, Wolfgang Wernsdorfer or George Christou said that I would be worried also this decoherence thing get everybody into deep water
As I said previously no math and that includes Dirac notation and Copenhagen interpretation
“Many physicists and philosophers have objected to the Copenhagen interpretation, both on the grounds that it is non-deterministic and that it includes an undefined measurement process that converts probability functions into non-probabilistic measurements. Einstein’s comments “I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice.”[14] and “Do you really think the moon isn’t there if you aren’t looking at it?”[15] exemplify this. Bohr, in response, said “Einstein, don’t tell God what to do”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Criticisms.
BTW cohenite, several posts above were composed before I read your most recent serves and I have deliberatly avoided your eli links, prefering to do my own revision from more familular stand points associated with practice. That has yet to include some old thoughts on harmonics re dipoles at very high frequencies and radiation v H20 the liquid and its vapour for a contrast since the atmosphere is virtually transparent
Physics as theory hasn’t moved much since I gave it up a long time ago but we can start here with confidence
http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm
“These different types of motion occur at different frequencies”
http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html
Pike
Happy new year to you too!
“Recent weather events around the Globe”
Some years back, before this hysteria about CC started we would put this down as the vagaries of weather-climate.
Now everything is interpreted according to the CC bible.
Too cold, too hot, too much rain, not enough rain?
It’s all caused by man made CC!!
Makes you despair of human stupidity.
Gavin, I’ve noticed you seem to refer to Wikipedia a lot, perhaps you have more confidence in it than the rest of us. I’ve also noticed that you found the same sites that I did re;CO2 spectra, so I’m wondering if you are just pretending to know more than you do. Case in point, the “Dipole moment density and polarization density” section isn’t referring to molecular dipoles but an array of point charges so I’m not sure if you actually understood what you were referencing just trying to blind everyone with technical stuff.
Gavin,
I am surprised you didn’t jump on Cohenite’s statement:
“Yes Derek, this is the gist of eli’s piece where the vibrational or excited states of the CO2 molecule cause rotational changes and create dipole moments which allows aborption; eli takes it a step further to argue that saturation doesn’t occur, that is the vibrational caused dipole moments can increase further, but he relies on temperatures which don’t occur on Earth.”
Of COURSE these conditions occur on earth. In COMBUSTION CHAMBERS!!!
Some of those gear heads could school those touting Atmospheric Radiative Physics!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Dr Richard North continues to unearth the intricate spiders web woven by our esteemed IPCC chairman and railway engineer Rajendra Pachauri. The plot substantially thickens.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/pachauri-teri-europe-enigma-part-1.html
Derek “Gavin, I’ve noticed you seem to refer to Wikipedia a lot, perhaps you have more confidence in it than the rest of us” Sure; I studied physics more than 30 years ago but I come here with an open mind to help re you lot and wiki
A search begins – see NO wiki, no text books either
“Although Carbon Dioxide is a triatomic molecule, it behaves much like a simple diatomic molecule because its structure is linear”
http://www.phy.davidson.edu/StuHome/derekk/Resonance/pages/co2.htm
Quantum harmonic oscillator – note the index, the Planck hypothesis, Bernoulli, Voltage law, First law Thermodynamics..
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/hframe.html
kuhnkat; clown I really did a lot of work on combustion chambers. What about you?
Spangles; we have seen the mystical “floating mountains” and the “tree of life”
gavin, what is the point of this? The fact is the quantum process by which CO2 interacts with IR of certain wavelengths is well-known; there is no evidence that it has any, let alone a dominant effect on climate.
gavin
give it a rest, you are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper and embarrassing yourself.
When you stopped posting a year ago I thought you came to your senses, alas not!
You are quoting popular sci. stuff meant for interested laymen as part of general knowledge.
You even fail to distinguish between the different roles CO2 plays in the atmosphere and as used in a laser.
Like it or lump it fellows, it’s there no wiki, no sceptics blogs!
“The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space”.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html
“The greenhouse gases
Quantum mechanics provides the basis for computing the interactions between molecules and radiation. Most of this interaction occurs when the frequency of the radiation closely matches that of the spectral lines of the molecule, determined by the quantization of the modes of vibration and rotation of the molecule”.
http://en.allexperts.com/e/g/gr/greenhouse_effect.htm
“Greenhouse Warming is Classical.
A new joint study by French and Russian scientists shows in detail how carbon dioxide molecules absorb and sometimes scatter light energy not only singly but also during inter-molecular collisions. The absorption by single molecules is indeed governed by quantum laws, but absorption by molecules during collisions is, the new study shows, a process governed by classical laws of motion. The new look at this important greenhouse gas should help scientists better model greenhouse warming. Visible light coming from the sun pours down daily and is reflected back from earth as infrared (IR) radiation”
“ the new study improves the study of greenhouse warming in several ways: (1) It allows us to calculate exactly how much of the IR photon energy (intercepted by a CO2 molecule during a CO2-CO2 collision) is transferred directly to the neighboring gas molecule, where it is converted to kinetic energy of translation; it’s about half of the IR photon energy. The other half of the IR photon energy goes to rotation of the two molecules, which will then start spinning more quickly. (2) It shows how to introduce higher-order effects, such as the simultaneous collision of three molecules. On Venus such collisions should add significantly to IR absorption. (3) It provides evidence that inter-molecular interactions at close range separations (interactions acting when the colliding molecules approach to within a few angstroms) have no effect on absorption, a conclusion in conflict with the mainstream belief that short range interactions should play a substantial role in collision induced molecular absorption. Instead, the new study argues that absorption owing to CO2-CO2 collisions is exclusively governed by long range interactions, which can be modeled and interpreted with the known laws of classical physics alone. (Chrysos et al., Physical Review Letters, 4 April 2008)”
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2008/split/862-1.html
If you can, it’s time you guys to moved from the micro to the macro
gavin,
Here’s a bit of macro for you:
http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/appleyard_12_09.html
gavin; your paper is junk; the Venus analogy is the AGW equivalent of Godwin’s Law; it is thoroughly disingenuous; how can collisions between CO2 on Venus greatly add to IR absorption when SW cannot penetrate the cloud cover of Venus? Little SW [about 5%] reaches the surface of Venus so IR cannot be reemitted; Venus warms from the bottom up not down as Earth does. Another slight problem is that because the mass of the Venusian atmosphere is 4.8×10^20kg, about 90 times as massive as Earth’s, the pressure at the surface of Venus is 67kg/m^3 which means that CO2 at the surface would be a supercritical fluid which could not absorb IR even if there were any. Furthermore the mass and density of the Venusian atmosphere ITSELF causes the temperature profile of Venus and explains why it is 500K greater than Earth’s. In any event if CO2 was causing Venus’s temperature why isn’t Mercury warmer than Venus since Mercury’s atmosphere has a greater % of CO2 than Venus, while Mar’s atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the same as Venus’s but it is colder than Earth?
Cohenite, the graph at the following “http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/CO2_infrared_sorption_Tom.jpg” shows that the absorption band that Eli is so excited about is already saturated. The peak at 675 at Rabbit corresponds to the CO2 peak at around 15 micrometers and you can see that the width of saturation is already much wider than the one on Eli’s graph. Not to mention it’s already strongly absorbing from H2O at that wavelength.
Derek; that graph of radiation transmission is from wiki; I’m surprised that gavin didn’t find it; the crucial area is the IR window from about 8-12 microns; eli’s alleged point is that under temperature increase and consequent increase in gas pressure an increase in collisional activity will cause the absorption range of CO2 to cover that window; but to achieve that the temperature rise for eli’s prediction would be considerable; for a more realistic look at the widening of the absorption range of increased CO2 look at figure 3 from this article;
http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2_20080124.pdf
Cohenite, I don’t miss much but you do your Eli homework I while scout hey.
Back to school for Derek. I see the atmosphere this way. Do you? “NASA’s eyes on earth” The big picture darn it, shows the curvature and it spoils my flat earth approach. BTW in Feb 09 I took some pics over the Tasman Sea, Bass Strait etc.
See “Sea Level Data” updated 12.01.09, also Artic Sea ice, CO2, Global av temp, Ozone hole,
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
This lot only goes half way “Cold Facts on Global Warming”
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html
“Carbon dioxide, the ocean and climate change”
http://www.csiro.au/resources/ClimateChangeCO2inOceans.html
“Greenhouse Gases”
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg
Gavin, could you please explain to me (probably via wiki) why all of the “greenhouse effect” diagrams have IR not interacting with CO2 until it gets higher up in the atmosphere?
You’ve lost the plot gavin.
Gavin, your first link? Seen it all before, your point? 2nd link? Been there before too so I didn’t bother reading it again.
3rd link? Please, CSIRO media releases that don’t give any data or references? Total waste of time. 4th link? Now you’re trying to insult me.
BTW, haven’t we danced around this “ocean acidification” thing before? I read a news article recently that claimed a projected acidity increase of 120% by some time in this century and it had some Swedish sounding professor doing a “frightening”demonstration to the pollies in US of the effect that level of acidity would have on sea shells. Did the calculations and found that 120% increase in “acidity” results in a change in pH from about 8.2 to about 7.9, whoopteedo! You know what happens to sea shells (hell! use limestone ) at a pH of 7.9? SFA!!!!
We stick boiled eggs in vinegar and leave them for a COUPLE OF DAYS to dissolve the shells away so I’m wondering just how strong the acid was for this professor to get a “frightening” demonstration.
BTW#2, hydrothermal vents generally have very low pH’s, as low as 2.8, but are still often surrounded by crustaceans
including muscles, not to mention corals.
It’s interesting that gavin is the only expert here who will comment on the notion that an internally-heated planet would have a climate influenced solely by the Sun.
In gavin’s scholarly estimation, the 7,000-plus (F) heat at the Earth’s core which, after all, must go somewhere, cannot be a factor in any equation regarding ‘warming our tail’ since ‘crust insulation is way good enough to keep us freezing up top’.
That refutation is certainly worthy of Hadley CRU’s hockey team, obviously.
Curious persons will still want to know: where in the equations is the Earth’s internal heat factored in?
AGW proponents complain about arguments which rest upon the notion that CO2 is ‘only a teeny tiny component’ of the atmosphere.
Well, what about a planet with a molten core powered by the decay of transuranic elements running red-hot, 24/7?
They wanna do a competent model, ignoring a stable heat factor is flat ignorant.
Schiller I wish you’d get your temp correct, didn’t big Al tell a tv interviewer recently that the earth’s core had a temp of a million degrees or so.
You’ve got to stop quoting that measly 7,000 F, but I can’t understand how cool the soles of my feet are lately, must be good insulation or something.
Gavin,
“kuhnkat; clown I really did a lot of work on combustion chambers. What about you?”
then you should know better. The magnitudes of physical properties often vary based on the specific state of the material.
There’s no fool like an old fool!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Gavin,
““The carbon dioxide strongly absorbs infrared and does not allow as much of it to escape into space”.”
Specifically “…does not allow as much of it to escape into space”.”
Not even the warmers believe that!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh, and Gavin, how can Venus emit more than it absorbs??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“The magnitudes of physical properties often vary based on the specific state of the material” kuhnkat; you should try feeding that back into google before posting. “specific state of the material” is a clanger hey. BTW the state of some gases in the presence of O2 improves with presure in the hot box. Now it’s your turn to detail the ratio of emissions re “does not allow as much of it to escape into space”
Neville; next time you and your folks take a paddle in the briny; ask all which process heats your bare soles then tell Schiller.
Derek; if you can’t use CSIRO info page by page then we are doomed by a more ignorant next gen. Recall; I don’t do calcs but I can assure you that I had a long assocation with pH controlled process streams and fully appreciate your input on that issue. Disolving complex mineral bonds and hardening celulose fiber webs depended greatly on our pH loops.
The “Cold facts” link gives simple diagrams of radiation in and out through the atmospheric layers, even strike angles such as they are however I not convinced any of it could be used as the basis for those calculations.
These diagrams in particular are misleading and the best proof of that is a glance at the expanded “backround” photo on the NASA page where the atmosphere is all down under the observer. As I say its’s the flat earth and its rather thin atmosphere below that determines what happens on the perpendicular from the sun
Cohenite; Gavin has no plot other than suport for good science that gives us indicators such as those on the NASA page above. That great global thermometer, Sea Level tells all whats up not the hired guns on blogs who have never noticed the fragile coastal evidence for both recent and past changes. Sand dunes every where protect much old sea bed we now live on.
I urge younger families to re discover wet caves, dry caves, shell middens, barren bottoms, mangroves, coastal lakes and river estuaries then compare with our fixtures such as historic jetties, breakwaters, shacks, shipwrecks and so on.
To all, Happy New Year! May 2010 be a great year for us all!
Gavin Schmidt has been caught out lying and supporting liars in his promotion of AGW catastrophism.
It is long past time for even the most strident supporters of AGW theory to stop pretending other wise.
Gavin,
As it turns out, heat from the Earth’s molten core provides a great deal of heat to the Earth’s atmosphere, via mechanisms that are increasingly well-understood. See links below.
The major mechanism is the heat transferred into the oceans from the Earth’s core, since the crust beneath the oceans is thinner than continental crust — facilitating heat transfer to the oceans, which account for most of the Earth’s surface. And oceans circulate and transfer a great deal of heat.
We’re looking at about 62 mW/m2 for the average oceanic heat flow (Hofmeister & Criss, 2003). About half of this is a transient effect from the plate-forming process and half is the background flux from the mantle. Measured oceanic heat flow varies from about 300 to 25 mW/m2 with 45 to 55 mW/m2 being a representative range through old oceanic crust.
Since it appears there is a consensus that this source of heat is *not* factored into AGW models, then it should appear easy to form a consensus that these AGW models are flawed to the point of uselessness.
Links:
http://www.es.ucsc.edu/~thorne/TL.pdfs/LWG_cmb_Nature1998.pdf
http://www.mantleplumes.org/Energetics.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O112-heatflowintheEarth.html
So gavin you agree with al’s estimation of a million degree temp at the earth’s core do you?
Please, say yes so we can speed the process and send for the white coat brigade to cart you off to the funny farm for the barking mad and save everyone the trouble of responding to your increasingly silly posts.
G’DAY and best wishes to all in 2010. Now let’s get down to battle
“Earth’s molten core provides a great deal of heat to the Earth’s atmosphere”
Schiller I suggest you feed that statement straight into Google then spend some time up front studying the results. Also; your links don’t exactly cover the issue of the heat source we feel most on the surface of earth, but thanks anyway.
Similarly a Google search for “Earth’s crust cooling” finds not a lot on our predicament with global warming however Lord Kelvin appears to have found the appropriate handle on the science. See
“Cooling of the Earth and core formation after the giant impact”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7063/abs/nature04129.html
Beware; we have to contend with clowns with their a pen or pc,
“Is the Earth actually cooling?”
http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/soundbytes-209-is-the-earth-actually-cooling.htm?opendocument&comments
One thing for certain, they won’t find a temp series by thermometer to assure them about global crust trends
Okay Gavin,
I have succumbed completely to your awesome powers of persuasion.
Obviously the molten core of the Earth would not emit anything noteworthy. There’s obviously an unknown factor that works as an impermeable insulator to prevent the internal heat from escaping outwards.
Oh, wait… then we’d have to cook up a new theory. Who installed that mighty insulator? Perhaps the space aliens who erected the pyramids, and Stonehenge, and all that.
On second thought, no.
Gavin, the strength of your denialism is a credit to your faith.
Be not abashed before the unbelievers! Go forth and proclaim!
You’d be better received by your fellows, though. This doesn’t appear to be the right audience. Us being interested in facts and so forth.
Neville “you agree with al’s estimation of a million degree temp at the earth’s core do you?”
Mate; al’s estimates are about as good as yours since neither can verify exactly what goes on below our feet. But for me, after walking around on an aged fire brick dome over moulten tin and glass it’s easy to imagine the earth’s core is mostly moulten rock immediately below the crust we stand on. What escapes the cracks is the best clue in both cases.
About thermal reactions in general, Ive had a fair amount of experience in industry with various vessels including reactors operating at extremes for continuous proceses and can say that besides operating temperatures, pressure is a major factor. On the old imperial scale 2000 psi requires a pretty robust steel container and given that the magma below needs a massivly thick crock pot to keep it under control. Here I’m assuming some volatile reaction keeps the whole brew churning.
It’s your turn to impres with something solid first hand but I’m thinking we are dealing with another parrot.
Schiller, facts are what you make them
“Schiller, facts are what you make them”
I read this and I thought to myself “This must be the idiot gavin” And sure enough.
If I may interrupt this discussion just for a second. Southwest and central Eastern China has experienced a strong cooling trend of between 0.1 to 0.3 degrees C per decade because of brown cloud.
If natural cooling takes place over the next two decades, the AGW signal in China will probably disappear off the radar.
Schiller Thurkettle,
I think Gavin breathed too many fumes from his ethanol and mercury thermometers over the years.
The really fun stuff they have been finding in the last few years!! Supercritical Water!!
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/08/extreme-water-f.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060522/full/news060522-15.html
Now that pumps a couple joules into the oceans from the bottom!!
Yup, ocean vents are the baseboard heaters of the Oceans!!
Hope everyone had, are having, or will have a great New Years!!!
“interrupt this discussion”?! What discussion? The situation is we are trying to salvage what is left of gavin’s cognitive faculties. Personally I can’t understand gavin’s last comment; has he worked at the molten core? What union represented him; does his pension plan cover feet blisters and fried brains?
On a more productive level, AGW has never considered the input of the ocean, core heat or atmospheric pressure into atmospheric heating of the Earth. Arthur Smith’s much lauded response to Gerlich and Tscheuschner does not consider any of these 3 determining factors;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf
2 papers which do consider them are;
http://biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Rethinking_the_greenhouse_effect.pdf
“The major mechanism is the heat transferred into the oceans from the Earth’s core, since the crust beneath the oceans is thinner than continental crust — facilitating heat transfer to the oceans, which account for most of the Earth’s surface. And oceans circulate and transfer a great deal of heat.”
Schiller, very good point.
Added to what cohenite said about 90% of tectonic divides being under the ocean….
A happy new year to Jen and everyone. I managed to keep well away from those hippocritical fireworks displays that the MSM just love. Noticed in Japan they just let balloons go and Paris merely lit up the tower. I had my earth hour in protest and got up early on the one morning of the year when the world is quiet, to listen for birds.
this article may interest you.
http://www.gsaaj.org/articles/TempPaperv1n22007.pdf
Interesting snippet here
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Cohenite – I believe you also have a legal background. I do not, but do have a science background. I wish to pursue a FOI action in relation to one or two of the Climategate emails relating to Australia. Please contact me at marybATpowerup.com.au if interested.
Hey, did anybody see this article? Which says
“ScienceDaily (June 11, 2009) — Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University’s Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment has found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. Matthews, together with colleagues from Victoria and the U.K., used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change.”
And “These findings mean that we can now say: if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.”
Wow, I guess it’s case closed. Someone tell Luke he was right all along and that we are all going to vote for Bob Brown from now on.
Sorry, I’ll try again, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610154453.htm
This is a crucial paper Jabba, which contradicts conventional AGW theory that sinks are not expanding to accommodate the increase in CO2 which is also assumed to be due to increases in ACO2. In fact sinks are expanding which can only explain why less than 1/2 of ACO2 is the measure of CO2 increases; in addition if sinks are increasing then it is likely that CO2 is increasing which would mean that ACO2 is not responsible for the increase in CO2
Here is the Damon Matthew’s paper which purports to have established a precise and historically consistent carbon-climate response [CCR];
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/abs/nature08047.html
This is of course utter bunk as these demonstrate;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUCRUvsCO2.jpg
Excellent links, thanks Cohenite.
Since global warming models don’t take into account the heat contributed by ocean circulation, they have to account for the heat that shows up that you can’t attribute directly to sunlight.
As a result, it’s necessary to invent some mechanism to account for that extra heat from the source you’re overlooking.
This is as bad as Climategate, and it’s been in plain view the whole time.
janama,
Thanks for the link to “MAGNETIC INTENSITY AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURES: A STRONG CORRELATION”, at http://www.gsaaj.org/articles/TempPaperv1n22007.pdf
It puts forward an interesting and very plausible theory, but there is a terrible problem: the authors find a ‘strong correlation’ with the GHCN climate data, which we now know to be highly questionable — if not hopelessly corrupt.
I wonder how many other scientific findings in other fields have been dealt a devastating blow like this through unwitting reliance on the false results presented by the Hockey Team.
Plotting this against the hockey stick could be a revelation:
Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
ScienceDaily, Dec. 31, 2009
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
“It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.”
“Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found. “
Flooding has been reported in n.e Vic around Albury Wodonga overnight, I hope the Murray gets some long needed rain in the catchments.
Won’t luke and his team be disappointed if Hume and Dartmouth get a bit of a fill.
Schiller; although your Science Daily reads somewhat like a Popular Mechanics mag. I can recommend it as a relatively broad source provided its climate change articles are not cherry picked by our average skeptic bloggers so let’s dig deeper hey
“Oceans Absorbing Carbon Dioxide More Slowly, Scientist Finds”
ScienceDaily (Nov. 27, 2009) — The world’s oceans are absorbing less carbon dioxide (CO2), a Yale geophysicist has found after pooling data taken over the past 50 years. With the oceans currently absorbing over 40 percent of the CO2 emitted by human activity, this could quicken the pace of climate change, according to the study, which appears in the November 25 issue of Geophysical Research Letters
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091124140957.htm
Cohenite: when I find your links lead straight back to What’s up I immediately dismiss your post on the simple basis there in most likely no other citation of merit. Your Frank Lansner doesn’t rate in mainstream science.
Kuhnkat “I think Gavin breathed too many fumes from his ethanol and mercury thermometers”
Good guess but did you know that apart from the mercury in my buckets mostly coming from manometers not thermometers; the vast amount of liquid that I could readily access was used in chlorine production plants. IMHO yours truly was a very careful chap indeed.
Spangles; you need to address my NASA link on SL etc before joining the congo lines searching the deep.
Maryb; imo Australian science over many decades has been quite robust and easily accessed. From personal experience a direct approach is productive except perhaps in cases of commercial restrictions. Stats on the other hand are generally embargoed till authorized.
Derek; see some interesting adds on Science Daily links above. check also the tarantula story
Gavin, I did in fact check out a number of the other articles at Science daily but not the tarantula one. Of note was the fact that one or two articles contradicted others (which is weirdly refreshing from the one site) so when it comes down to it , we can play the “my article versus your article” game all day and not reach a satisfactory resolution.
One of Schiller’s excellent links http://www.mantleplumes.org/Energetics.html , apart from it’s intrinsic value, also shows that good science never “settled” but should always be open to conflicting views and rigorous debate.
BTW, if you have been brave enough to get a hold of “Heaven and Earth”, I recommend reading pages 323 to 339 which covers the whole issue of submarine volcanism, oceanic CO2 solubility and pH quite nicely.
gavin, your disclaimer about not reading my links because they are not peer reviewed would be funny if it were not so grotesque coming from the the great anecdoter and perveyor of truth from the hallowed halls of CRU; disprove this or be a troll;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg
Gavin, how about this one re: the hockey stick? http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/292/
I guess you’re right about Cohenite’s links to WUWT, whenever someone posts a link to Realclimate I almost never go unless I want a good laugh as it is a PR site for the CRU clowns and full of BS. So hey, each to his own eh?
It seems the oceans and trees have been soaking up all that CO2, so there is nothing to worry about.
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm
Cohenite; those dashed lines performing the USA temp zig zag are unauthorized and its my opinion points on the graph is too wild for it to be useful
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/mean2.5X3.5_pg.gif
BTW we could be impressed by new methods of detecting undocumented discontinuities in the ref’s but why bother with tatty US data anyway? If someone had the time it should be here for us
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDT60701/IDT60701.94954.shtml
however I found this
“CLIMATE CHANGE – ANNUAL MEAN TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES”
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/8E310CC0B0BD392ACA2572340020DDC0?opendocument
Given my region remains at the top for records, with details that I expect to be available soon, the following observation is still relevant
“When it comes to climate change, people in the Australian Capital Territory showed the highest levels of concern (eight in ten people concerned), while the Northern Territory had the lowest (seven in ten)”.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/53DA36DD9E7B3FD2CA2575D80081F4FE?OpenDocument
You don’t get it do you gavin; the ‘official’ sites you quote are tainted; the BoM national temperature is contradicted by the majority of the temperature histories of the particular locations which are averaged to give the national record;
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/#more-5172
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818
The reason for this is BoM and the IPCC ‘adjust’ raw data to suit the AGW theory; it was initially sad that you cannot see this corruption but now it is pathetic.
A quarter of all men are not concerned about climate change. That couldn’t be true.
The ABS said a record temperature was set in 2005 because both ‘daytime and night-time temperatures were high’. If there were more clouds at night and less in the day, it may account for the DTR spike.
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/
Your first graph of USHCN temps seems OK Gavin , but guess what ! it stops at 1999! Like at the very highest point eh. Too out of date Gavin and worthless.
Your second referral sends us off to Aust. govt b/s (ABS) where the boffins there are trying to convince us that some of the years in this century are virtually the hottest in living memory. The same b/s about temps in this century being the warmest is being voiced by the top brass of our meterological service here in NZ also. You read it in their statements in the papers about the weather,and it relies on the fact that the public just soaks it up because they have no option . Just more abuse of science. They know that nobody can remember past climate.
But your Aust BS meterologist unashamedly reveals his hand Gavin……
” Scientific studies have linked global and Australian temp increases to the enhanced greenhouse effect”
Your last linkage merely proves there are more brainwashed boffins in ACT .
Mack
Like this?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6924898/The-Met-Office-gives-us-the-warmist-weather.html?state=target#postacomment&postingId=6925094
And
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/boffins-may-be-illegal/story-e6frg6zo-1225815349833
Another Ian,
Thanks for the links. They both invoke a popular preconception among ‘skeptics’ that AGW is a ‘religion’.
To be sure, it behaves like a religion, which is, essentially, an unassailable model to which facts must either be fitted, or ignored.
There is an important message here, which even atheists should heed: the scapegoat is too convenient. Far too convenient.
What sort of religion would it be that seduces the rich and powerful, from nations and cultures around the Earth? The rich and powerful haven’t been co-opted by a religion — if they had, the obviously secular religion would co-opt their wealth as a natural consequence.
The rich and powerful have what they have largely because of not being stupid. The money and power behind AGW naturally attract the most corruptible.
To say that AGW is some sort of ‘spiritual/religious affliction’ is to divert attention away from motives far more powerful and persuasive than the accident of choosing the wrong god to worship.
Schiller Thurkettle,
Calling it a religion is a compliment. As you point out, it would appear to be more of a Cult where those running the scam gain from their followers and try to take from those they can coerce!!
Among the followers it is believed LIKE a religion.
In support of Shillers comments.
This whole AGW scam is far more important than the theological debate about the new religion and its true belivers faith.
These misguided fools are threatening our whole way of life that has been based around affordable’and sustainable energy.
The debate should not be allowed to simply live in the academic world of “should we do science this way or that way?”
The quasi scientific promoters of AGW should be exposed for what they are . Liars and misanthropists who If they had their way would see the first world economies and living standards back in the middle ages and the third world suffering as they are today, or as the warmaholics would prefer, even worse off.
Thurkettle
The people of Britain will vote with their feet if this goes on for 20 years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NAO.jpg
When Arthur Phillip was raising the flag for empire at Sydney Cove, the Thames was frozen solid. The weather system operating at the time was probably a negative AO/NAO, so the possibility of a serious freeze-up may see the UK Met in very hot water.
Yes, El Gordo,
Ya wonder if the “experts” ever come out and apologise. [And of course it fills you with great confidence in their ability to guide our future]
http://www.prisonplanet.com/cru%E2%80%99s-forecast-uk-winter-snowfall-will-become-%E2%80%9Ca-very-rare-and-exciting-event%E2%80%9D.html
Has anyone here read Lance Endersbee’s book “A Voyage of Discovery”?
Look at the big picture and get some perspective folks.
Cohenite “the ‘official’ sites you quote are tainted”
Ok, which sites did I mention besides Cape Grim?
But reading on we get only second hand references (post after post) joanne, watts, gusto, who ever blog after blog, great company you keep cohenite
Every time I read a post with a blog ref there is nothing to bother me in the least. Not even the rhetoric from their exclusive cult bothers me because nobody above has the experience to do a simple temp test by themselves.
For the benefit of others I don’t worry about official statements either as I have always done my own checks and balances where possible before reaching conclusions about this or that system. In fact we were all born with the necessary tools and references to do our own navigation through events as they happen. After all what have I got to loose in these challenges? Crusaders acting as a front for vested interests are the real problem here.
As a veteran of climate control I offer this insight to all temp series. Max / Min records are of no use whatsoever in this scenario as we are after efficiency in our stabilizing systems not records one way or the other. However I could read a max / min thermometer after a basic calibration check to obtain data for the ambient temp record by constant observation of the device as I often do at home in my retirement. The next step may require some guess work however with experience it gets better and this is finding the RH value needed to adjust temp before say adjusting the chillier plant connected to a large cool room.
Its worth noting here imo all old temp series based on max min records from weather stations are somewhat redundant in climate change analysis and one reason is they won’t fit as is with other non instrument temp series so in the end we are left with a great deal of guessing apart from instrument calibration issues with those histories in particular long lost by a disinterested public at large.
http://www.bom.gov.au/info/thermal_stress/
Please read the section on AT
http://ams.confex.com/ams/89annual/techprogram/paper_149894.htm
At this point I’m going to relate directly to one instrument and that is the “Rosemount” at Cape Grim. From memory Peter of such and such instruments based in Melbourne won the govt contract based on two thing’s price and reliability. Big Peter had a winner on various counts including system ruggedness in hostile environments. Other guys I knew then were also into data logging design for deep sea research an so on.
We could be sure US manufactured equipment similar to these Rosemount peripheral devices would come on stream in the States too as other NASA contractors searched for opportunities to expand. Continuous weather station data had arrived.
I suggest every one study the advantage of continuous single point data logging from ideal stations over stats from the max min era. This is the real hands on stuff.
http://www2.emersonprocess.com/en-US/brands/rosemount/temperature/Single-Point-Measurement/Pages/index.aspx
“Rosemount was founded in 1956 and initially built up its business through government aerospace contracts until it diversified into PCIs in the mid-1960s. After gaining a reputation for manufacturing reliable pressure and temperature transmitters, Rosemount merged with Emerson Electric in 1976 and, in 1993, acquired Fisher Controls International to form Fisher-Rosemount, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of PCI equipment”
http://business.highbeam.com/industry-reports/industry/industrial-instruments-for-measurement-display-control-of-process-variables-related-products
prisonplanet is hardly a science show is it spangles? comments are a bit tribal too
Can somebody let me know when icecap links “ambient” temps to ice cores?
Um…… is it just me or does anyone else also think Gavin has got lost down the rabbit hole?
We may need a ferret, gavin is deep down splitting hairs. Proud, arrogant and intractable, but I don’t think he’s a member of the Gaian faith.
Derek’s early response is as weak as ….
Anyone else up for the congo line?
Gavin says….
” As a veteren of climate control I offer you this insight”……
AAaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha….a veteren of CLIMATE CONTROL…Aahhahahahaha .That’s man-made climate control isn’t it Gavin? You’ll have plenty of insight into that to offer us.
Just try to offer the insight without doing the rounds of govt. depts. if can please Gavin.
is Gavin Luke’s holiday persona?
Folks, we have some excellent news!
Michael Mann and his twenty-odd colleagues at the Earth System Science Center (1) have all received a very interesting offer from an attorney in the US who specializes in whistleblowers and federal fraud.
The offer? Bring forward evidence of fraudulent use of grant funds in Climate Research in the US, and take a share of the reward money. (2)
Here’s the information sought: “When they lie to get the grant or keep the grant or if they use the funds for purposes outside the grant, they are liable under the DOJ program”, said Joel Hesch, Esq., of Hesch and Associates.
And there’s big money tied to ‘doing the right thing’ in this case. As Hesch puts it so eloquently:
“30% of $50 million [of possible fraud in this case] is more than $12 million. Ask your friends to do the right thing, and be rewarded for doing it. Our country, and in fact, the entire world is counting on someone to stand up and tell the truth about climate research.”
In the US, NOAA and NASA (the latter being home to the infamous James Hansen) are obviously vulnerable to the same approach. Which puts quite a bit more than $12 million on the table for those who expose climate fraudsters.
I have to wonder if there aren’t some climate skeptics who jumped ship from the IPCC and elsewhere who might be eligible for a rightful reward.
Pass the word!
——————-
1. http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/people/index.html
2. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100021135/climategate-michael-manns-very-unhappy-new-year/
Folks,
As I mentioned earlier, faculty and staff at Penn State University associated with Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann are being asked to come forward with information about misuse of US government funds in the course of ‘researching the climate’.
The next question is: what other US universities might be targeted for inquiries regarding the use or misuse of federal ‘climate change’ money?
The results below were gleaned from the first two pages of a Google search on the topic. The amounts of money are staggering, the topics are somewhere between astounding and weird, and of course, the opportunities for misuse of funds are obvious to anyone who likes to spend other people’s money.
The scary element hidden amongst all of this is that you can sell nearly anything, from coffee-pots to university research, by tying it to climate change. Coffee-pots and research are both excellent things, but now, the sale of either — and anything in between — that has been linked to climate change is open to scrutiny. And possibly condemned as outright fraud, right out of the box. But who knew? IPCC and others were thought to be legitimate, for a long while. There could easily be a great deal of finger-pointing over who wrote the grant applications, and why they wrote them the way they did.
The information presented below is: recipient(s), federal funding agency (designated with a ‘+’ symbol, the amount of money (in US$), and the stated purpose of the funded project. The information was gleaned from newspaper articles and press releases.
Western Washington University
+NASA
$289,000
study how the planet’s cold-weather forests are responding to climate change
University of Florida
+NASA
$870,000
analyze relationships among climate variability, climate change, land use and land cover change
Texas Tech University
+US Geol. Survey
$634,000
bring together a team of experts to learn how to model, study and predict the influence of climate change on Texas surface waters
University of Kansas
Kansas State University
Two Oklahoma universities
+National Science Foundation
$6 million
research that will examine how climate change affects various elements of the environment
University of Georgia
+NASA
$450,000
study the effects of climate change on birds
Iowa State University
Idaho State University
Boise State University
+National Science Foundation
$15 million
Idaho Research Infrastructure Improvement: Water Resources in a Changing Climate
Western Washington University
+National Science Foundation
$419,000
research how plants have reacted to historic climate change so scientists can better predict species’ reaction to the current worldwide changes in climate
ASA has awarded an
Auburn University
+NASA
$1 million
Land cover and land use changes impact on the variability and intensity of the Asian monsoon
University of Michigan
+NASA
$900,000
study of humans, adaptation and climate change on Mongolian Plateau
University of Texas – Austin
+Department of Defense
$7.6 million
identify how climate change could trigger disasters in Africa that undermine political stability
University of Wisconsin
+Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
$900,000
prepare the state for public health problems related to climate change
Schiller; the Australian equivalent is interesting;
http://sciencespeak.com/ClimateFunding.pdf
And now lads, shall we join gavin’s CONGO LINE; malapropisms are such a delight.
gosh, goodness, merde, stercorum, and other expletives.
cohenite, that is such an incredible list at that link.
And of course, if you’re a ‘denier’ or a ‘skeptic’, you’re denied your place as a hog in the trough.
Exxon et. al. never laid down this kind of cash money. Never had a ghost of a chance against such a torrent of greed.
I have to wonder, though — does Australia have something to compensate whistle-blowers who point out misuse of public funds? It would be great fun, not to mention, a great deal of justice, to appropriately compensate those who expose bogus science for what it is.
Suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish, suck, squish……
I hear a flat footed centipede or Congo line with a severe right lean trudging round in it’s own pool of slush trying to find it’s own Khyber pass and any potential sturdy barriers moving within to on going public interest in AGW associated climate change. Pass another stinky bundle hey
Schiller; which alternative book flogging outfit or shady corporate front are you so diligently working for?
Cohenite; have you ever worked for a pure research instruction where independent teams compete within and with out for various grants that may enable ongoing work beyond the current projects?
From experience your average professor often with considerable international recognition struggles to fund the necessary research assistants, visiting academics, appropriate equipment and maintenance etc to support both old and new lines of inquiry.
In fact most teams I saw, hardly had time to write up current research let alone ongoing proposals. Team leaders in particular are distracted by the need to be multi tasking and multi skilled themselves to the point they can stay on after the expiry of appointments to complete unfinished works in their leisure time.
So how about we return to that latest NASA sea level etc research link instead of farting round in blogsphere
I note those very loud AGW believers Karoly and Hoegh-Goldberg are big recipients of grants. Hoegh-Goldberg has been caught several times pronouncing that the barrier reef will die out in five to ten years when in fact other researchers and dive operators say the reef is better than ever. It seems that not only do you need to say that the research work involves climate to get a grant but shout loudly and praise the government climate department you will then get lots more money to line your pocket.
It’s a CONGA line you knucklehead!
Oh my heart just bleeds for the poor under-funded ,under-resourced scientists who struggle desperately to ram this quack science down our throats.
It hasn’t seemed to have sunk in to you Gavin that your AGW theory was hanging by a thread . Since climategate the thread has severed. Our opinion of some scientists has hit worse than rock bottom. We don’t even trust meterologists any more. The science of climatology has been hijacked by politics from the left starting with Al Gore back in 1980 leading to any politician today who thinks that a fistful of graphs saying we’re doomed will trump the common sense of the public.
So you see Gavin some of us would much prefer to “just fart around in blogosphere” than follow any more loony goose-chases you have in store for us.
Just pop yourself over to Tamino’s for a bit of comfort from your fellow travellers; theres a good boy Gavin.
http:// tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/exogenous-factors/
They’ve got some reassuring graphs for you ,all pointing straight up saying were doomed with 2009 being the warmest year on record!
I wonder how many more years worth of hot air they can pump into their balloon before it bursts.
AAaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I prefer it when you guys provide web links – useful links with info – rather than ‘poetry’
The current gavin is Luke. The ‘real’ gavin prefers to engage in specious argumentation and pseudoscience, while Luke is content to rely on bizarre ad hominems and non sequiturs. Not that it makes any real difference — it’s merely interesting.
December is back down.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Current January temperature is pretty well spot-on average since “reliable” global temps began [via satellite] in 1979
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/daily-monitoring-of-global-average-temperatures/
Just think of the money we could’ve saved. [not to mention the ACO2]
Thanks for those links Spanglers,
You see Gavin this is just the reason why we all just fart around on the blogosphere. It’s because its the only place you’ll get the truth about global temps.and we have no reason to doubt the accuracy and authenticity of sattelite recordings.
Mack,
How do you know that the satellite data haven’t been ‘smoothed’ and ‘adjusted’ to take care of those gosh-awful ‘anomalies’?
Those nasty anomalies, after all, are data which fall outside someone’s model of what-should-be.
It’s worthy to give evidence a favored place in one’s considerations, but after the data have passed through so many hands, so to speak, are those data really your friends?
If there’s any casualty of Climategate, it’s trust.
And Climategate has taught untold millions the value of skepticism. Once we re-learn the value of skepticism, we can go back and try to learn about trust.
gavin,
“So how about we return to that latest NASA sea level etc research link instead of farting round in blogsphere”
Still can’t force yourself to look into the adjustments and error range in the satellite sea level measurements can you. I love watching alledgedly technical people shove their heads in the ….
Hey Gavin, wiggle your butt so we know which one is YOU!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Schiller Thurkettle ;
You seem to have reservations that the satellite data displayed at Spencers might be “smoothed” and “adjusted” to take care of “anomalies” in favour of scepticism.
I would be grateful if you could direct me to some other site where there is a different version of the satellite readings.
Cue Luke?
Schiller Thurkettle ;
You seem to have reservations that the satellite data displayed at Spencers might be “smoothed” and “adjusted” to take care of “anomalies” in favour of scepticism.
I would be grateful if you could direct me to some other site where there is a different version of the satellite readings.
Cue Luke?
Schiller,
I’ve read your posting 11.52am again and again and realise you are only being sarcastic on my behalf. You have to be careful on this format.
The global temps. revealed by Roy Spencer (thanks Spanglers) are (to borrow Coher’s terminology) the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . 😉
This melts all the cooler clowns hey
“Annual Australian Climate Statement 2009
Issued 5th January 2010
2009 will be remembered for extreme bushfires, dust-storms, lingering rainfall deficiencies, areas of flooding and record-breaking heatwaves
Second warmest year for Australia
Data collected by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that Australia’s annual mean temperature for 2009 was 0.90°C above the 1961-90 average, making it the nation’s second warmest year since high-quality records began in 1910. High temperatures were especially notable in the southeast during the second half of the year, with Australia, Victoria, South Australia and NSW all recording their warmest July-December periods on record.”
http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20100105.shtml
“South Australia’s 2009 Annual Climate Summary
Warmest year on record for South Australia
In 2009 the mean temperature was 1.3°C above average for South Australia as a whole, a record since the area averaged state figures begin in 1910. This is the 17th consecutive year that above average temperatures has occurred.
Many locations around South Australia recorded record warmest nights in 2009 when averaged across the year as a whole.
For Adelaide, 2009 was the equal warmest year with 2007, being 1.3°C above average for mean annual temperature, while several locations mainly inland, had warmest years on record.
2009 saw a very significant late January and early February heatwave event and the first spring heatwave for Adelaide as temperatures as a whole for November exceeded previous November temperature records by very significant margins. Temperatures were also very much above average in mid-August.
Rainfall was generally near to slightly below average in 2009, with rainfall across the state as a whole 88 percent of the average for the year.
After low summer rainfall, the remainder of the year tended slightly above average each month, apart from May, August and October. Growing Season (April to October rainfall) was slightly above average for this year, and the wettest since 2000.
Temperatures for the decade from 2000 to 2009 averaged +0.9°C for the state as a whole, the warmest decade in the record, and continuing a steady increase in temperatures since the 1970’s. Rainfall across the decade, for South Australia, has been below average across the agricultural areas, particularly in the eastern districts, tending above average in the far west of the state.
For more detailed information please go direct to the complete Annual Climate statement for South Australia.
On our ABC
“Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one.
And he has warned that this year is set to be even hotter, with temperatures likely to be between 0.5 and 1 degrees above average.
“There’s no doubt about global warming, the planet’s been warming now for most of the last century,” he said.
“Occasionally it takes a breather, during La Nina events for example.
“But we’re getting these increasingly warm temperatures – not just for Australia but globally – and climate change, global warming is clearly continuing.
“We’re in the latter stages of an El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean and what that means for Australian and global temperatures is that 2010 is likely to be another very warm year – perhaps even the warmest on record.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/05/2785653.htm
gavin,
Don’t be gullible. I know you don’t really believe that records began in 1910.
Just check the incredible cherry picking that 1910 provides:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
If you accept satellite data as the most reliable “world temperature” then my earlier link shows about a quarter of a degree of warming.
That’s just thermometer error.
Next month will be zero.
Would these highest temperatutes on record be raw data? No I thought ont.
It would be after “corrections”, like the 2 C correction found necessary to make Darwin’s temp show an increase.
Like most people, I was too busy to find out about global warming, & just accepted the IPPC line, until I retired. Then, with a little study, I found out the facts.
I have never, previously, ever wanted to harm anyone, however, I can not imagine anything more satisfying, than personally kicking these rip off merchants, firmly up the back side.
cohers,
I hope the learned Bernard J. read this from Willis Eschenbach. It might stop him preaching death by AGW for our wildlife.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
Today I saw a koala feeding on a brush box tree [Lophostemon confertus]. It’s the first time I have seen one feeding on non-eucalyptus leaves.
Bound to be the result of AGW.
Pathetic gavin; Newcastle’s 2009 was not the hottest; it was equal to the annual average mean maximum in the period from 1871-1900, 22.3C; I’d like to go into it further but it looks as though the individual stations at BoM are all down for maintainence [!!?]; fortunately we have this which shows how the individual locations which are averaged to give these national warming figures show no such thing at the particular locations;
http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/smoking-guns-across-australia-wheres-the-warming/#more-5172
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Look at figure 4 which is the average of 222 locations; it produces a graph history which shows no warming at all. What a fix; and garrett supports it.
spangled drongo, Mack,
Nosing about the WoodForTrees site, I get the impression from the graphs presented (1) that there is remarkable agreement between the satellite record and HADCRUT.
Would you care to comment on that?
1. http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends
Hey blobs; smile cause I’m taking a break for a couple of days. BTW not one came back on “ambient” or “apparent temperatures AT” and methods of adjustment. Very serious stuff for energy minded engineers.
“Newcastle’s 2009 was not the hottest; it was equal to the annual average mean maximum in the period from 1871-1900, 22.3C”
cohers you haven’t a shred of evidence 1871 > 1900 that stands in engineering terms above. Since I worked with thermometers and charts for 50 odd years there is plenty of evidence to say only an experienced practical reviewer has any idea on how to handle the very old weather station data from anywhere as it is.
BTW I’m most interested by your faith in the likes of joannenova etc. What have they done?
Spangles I got to calibrate big brand name but ancient instruments from all over industry and common elsewhere but unfortunately max min types were about the crudest. As I’ve said often enough, there was little change in design until the post ww2 aero space race. Lab craft in particular was handicapped by frequently faulty gear and techniques that failed to cross reference with other handy standards. For flat earthers that could be SL, ice water, BP horizons and so on but beware.
Did any body see Chadar: The Ice Trail? H20 @-2C and flowing swiftly
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/201001/programs/ZX0208A001D2010-01-05T203000.htm
Non linear temp instruments with both zero errors and drift were a curse for all and sundry however it was the human hair hygrometers that most foiled climate control.
Schiller; keep up your nosing but try some official sites first
Blobs? Creatures that live on blogs and act like the scattered remains of a deep frozen fish after it was dropped on the concrete pavement in the midday sun. Tiny puddles of not much substance that will be completely evaporated in an hour or so. All gone except for that rotten fishy smell that lingers as the sun goes down.
Going to really miss you hey
Hey guys, being from SA I took notice of Gavin’s data on Adelaide etc however it was obvious from my frequent purveyance of BOM SA data that cherry picking is alive and well. Some months were cooler than ave but Gavin must have missed that, also my rainfall was happily 28% above ave.
Having said that, in the last few days I saw some maps (possibly one of Schiller’s links) that was showing the difference between instrumental records and satellite ones. There was a supposed warming over Nth AM and Russia but the satellite map showed the opposite. Anyway my point is that the 2nd thing I noticed was that OZ stood out as being almost completely orange (blue was cooler) such that overall the planet was either steady or cooler but we were actually warmer.
It seems we in OZ are the “victims” of regional warming while most of the northern hemisphere is suffering under snow and ice.
BTW, Gavin admits that he “don’t do calcs” but surely he understands that to get an average, tou have to have half of your data above the ave mark?
Because Australia is a large hot country it is much more easy for the govt. employed metrologists to fudge and manipulate data to suit the govt. agenda. The lying from your govt. depts. is much more overt than here in NZ . Easier to pull the wool over the eyes of a bigger population too. (no sheep jokes please)
Here in NZ where the climate is more variable and snow can’t be hidden,they’ve only managed to squeeze a +0.05 deg increase for the decade above the 1980’s? according to the propaganda in our local rag. They had to wait for Dec’s figures; that’s how small the increment. That is how much they reckon the public is up for swallowing considering the temps we’ve actually been feeling. They’ve managed to accomplish this quite easily here really by just quietly shifting plenty of previously airport sited stations to urban environments to get rid of the wind chill factor.
My home town here in Nelson is a case in point. It’s been shifted inland from the airport right next to a busy motorway.
AAaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
And you wonder why we have reason to be sceptical Gavin.
yes, gavin will be missed; “scattered remains of a deep frozen fish” indeed; charming; but the real issue is, is BoM reliable; they say 2009 was the 2nd warmest nationally [what was the warmest?] yet when you visit their site to check particular locations more than 1/2 show temperature histories inconsistent with the national average; my local station is Nobby’s where 2009 average maximum temp was 22.35C; the average over the 145 years of records is 21.8C, so 2009 was above average but it is not in the top 20 hottest years most of which occurred before 1900;
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=061055
I suggest people check their own location and see whether 2009 was the 2nd hottest year.
not around my area Cohenite – Tamworth and Moree both show cooling generally.
Happy New Year!
And here’s something to dance to:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/01/the-king-has-got-no-clothes
yeah – great! – shame they blew the audiofile and only gave us verse 1 and chorus.
Gavin,
Couldn’t you do us all a favour and make it a couple of months?
Pikey.
correction – it does play it all – good one Dennis Boothby 🙂
Happy New Year Jennifer!!
We miss you!!
I’ve checked Mildura and it’s way behind the warmest temp which was in the old records from 1889 to 1949.
Mildura was a warmer drier place in the early records, 1889 to 1949 mean max 24.6C and mean min 10.4C, rainfall 268mm.
In the period 1946 to 2009 mean max 23.7C , mean min 10.3C , rainfall 283mm.
Cohenite I checked your site and every monthly record was set before 1900. You can just choose highest from the menu and the highest months are highlighted.
If you want a graph just click on annual top right to generate. It was certainly a warmer area 100 to 140 or so years ago, probably for at least 35 years.
Yep; it just astounds me that BoM can generate a national average which shows the warming extent it does.
Cohenite, I foolishly spent a couple of hours checking dozens of sites from all over Australia, mainly ones with 50 or more years of data. While not exhaustive in the least, nevertheless I noticed a trend towards cooling in the top half of the country including much of QLD and a trend towards warming in the bottom half, although this was definitely mixed.There were some cooling exceptions in the south which suggests localized climate effects play a part. I don’t think that a warming or cooling signal is as clear cut as finding the slope of the graph as that depends on your start and end points.
another way to check is via this page at BoM
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=meanT&period=annual&state=nsw
Heres one for all the idiots who see increased CO2 as a magical fertiliser.
“However, the latest bit of news should be equally alarming to those concerned about global warming and the “What, me worry?” faction.
Research published by three scientists at Southwestern University in Texas suggests that the price of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere is sharply falling nutritional value in staple crops upon which 40 per cent of the world’s population relies for its dietary protein.
Daniel Taub, Brian Miller and Holly Allen analysed more than 220 experiments in which plants were exposed to levels of carbon dioxide that ranged from the present ambient level to about double the existing level. They discovered that as the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes up, the protein in wheat, barley, rice, potatoes and soy beans diminishes, in some cases quite sharply.”
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d06935f3-c41d-4ff0-8f3a-c287a8db5367
welcome back SJT – glad you came back with an offering of a paper Received 26 June 2007 and accepted 22 August 2007. – catch up mate!!
here’s the abstract – looks pretty sus to me – if they had higher soil nitrogen the plants could keep up with the added CO2 and there was no loss in protein. Duh!
They sound more like bad gardeners more than good scientists.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119416696/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Now that is weird; gavin takes off and little will reappears. That study, little will, is bogus because it has long been recognised that slight increases in nitrogen fertilizer overcomes the protein deficiency problem.
I’ve been having a look at your Aust BoM site and it looks just like a hotbed of AGW propaganda. No wonder you guys are sweltering. One visit to that site would break anybody out into a sweat.
You are right Mack
The day time could cover alone seems to be in decline over the last 20-30 years in many of the stations I checked.
No wonder the temperature is rising.
So I suppose its the Co2 thats causing reduced cloud cover… thats not bad hypothesis for starters.
How would I go putting in for a Grant to prove it.
Since SJT has come up with a bit of biology I thought I might reassure him that the Great Barrier Reef will be OK . There’s a girl there with tea-shirt which might suit him.
http://www.climategate.com/oceans-love-carbon-dioxide-say-sea-scientists
Malcolm,
” How would I go putting in for a grant to prove it”
Merely the keyword “Carbon Dioxide” will open the govt. coffers for you Malcolm. 😉
Gavin – On our ABC
“Climatologist David Jones says each decade since the 1940s has been warmer than the previous one”
Surely not the same famous BOM David Jones as mentioned in the Climategate emails –
Email 1182255717.txt
Wei-Chyung and Tom,
The Climate Audit web site has a new thread on the Jones et al. (1990) paper, with lots of quotes from Keenan. So they may not be going to submit something to Albany. Well may be?!?
Just agreed to review a paper by Ren et al. for JGR. This refers to a paper on urbanization effects in China, which may be in press in J. Climate. I say ‘may be’ as Ren isn’t that clear about this in the text, references and responses to earlier reviews. Have requested JGR get a copy a copy of this in order to do the review.In the meantime attaching this paper by Ren et al. on urbanization at two sites in China.Nothing much else to say except:
1. Think I’ve managed to persuade UEA to ignore all further FOIA requests if the people have anything to do with Climate Audit
.2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning) about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on paleo.
Cheers
Phil
Wonderful, an antipodean CRU toady who has taken it upon himself to have no correspondence with anyone whatsoever who has had “dealings” with an IPCC reviewer who published a peer reviewed paper pointing out some ever so minor flaws in MBH 98/99. Or maybe he hasn’t taken it upon himself, perhaps it is BOM policy. Anyway, thanks for the info DJ and I suppose anyone who wants to correspond with the BOM in the future will just have to stop accessing CA.
For the philosophers out there: enjoy!
“It is an unwelcome fact for all of these ideas about theory testing that data are typically produced in ways that make it all but impossible to predict them from the generalizations they are used to test, or to derive instances of those generalizations from data and non ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses. Indeed, it’s unusual for many members of a set of reasonably precise quantitative data to agree with one another, let alone with a quantitative prediction. That is because precise, publicly accessible data typically cannot be produced except through processes whose results reflect the influence of causal factors that are too numerous, too different in kind, and too irregular in behavior for any single theory to account for them.”
-“Theory and Observation in Science”, Bogen J., Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Jan 6, 2009,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-theory-observation/
Mack – careful with those t-shirts:
Next time you see headlines about coral bleaching on the Great Barier Reef –
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/#more-14809
DirkH (20:26:57) :
“r (20:11:43) :
About the sunscreen and coral:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2008/10966/abstract.html
NOT warming.”
Ecotourism
It is still the case that the abscence of water in the MDB is not because of an absence of rainfall,
and further ..there has been no change in the rain fall pattern over the MDB is 110 years.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=11
But still the officials invovled insst in saying the drought has been the cause .
Bollocks
About the sunscreen and coral: – great article Another Ian –
when I lived on the beachfront I had an altercation with my daughter when she was around 16 – she refused to go to the beach without sunscreen. I remarked that she had beautiful olive skin and a normal exposure wouldn’t harm her yet she insisted.
Finally I asked what would happen to the dolphins if everyone wore sunscreen that washed off into their environment – she thought for a moment then agreed to go to the beach without it 🙂
After heavy seas the beach would have a brown scum that came from the seaweed that grew on the reef around 500m offshore, when the tourists asked what it was I told them it was the sunscreen from Byron Bay further down the beach 🙂
Bollocks! Yup.
in fact if you change the running average to trend it is slightly up!
Another Ian,
Yes you’re right, I noted with some concern that the study only said it was some starfish that thrived on “acid conditions”
Nature is so delicate in some respects.
Malcolm just move the toggle to T and you get a linear trend of +3.31mm decade.
BTW all other states except Tasmania, Vic and SW tip of WA show a positve trend. Vic is line ball and tassie has just had the wettest winter in 100 years.
Tassie has much higher rainfall at something over 1400mm pa.
But even SA has a positive trend presumably because it has northern aspect that is picking up the positive trend over the last 100 years.
Check out 1,000 year drought on ABC catalyst ( couple years back) Prof De Deckker shows that southern Aust has been drying out for at least 5,000 years and we are still suffering a downward 800 year trend.
So we haven’t done too badly, btw while there check out Narabeen man, very interesting story about a speared aboriginal in Nth Sydney some 4,000 years ago, but mentions sea level at that time was 1.5 metres higher than today. Gotta go.
What I do find quite suss is that if you look at the same area using anomalies based upon 1961 -1990 as the base, the picture appears to be dire,even though thankfully the trend line is still up
http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=mdb&season=0112&ave_yr=T
When I did Maths/ Stats at University a deviation from a base, mean or other wise was called just that Deviations ..
The conveniently perjorative term anomaly was’nt needed to tell the truth about the stats.
Also, if is all Ok for David Jones to be making press announcments as to the temperature, because it suits their advocacy agenda, why dont they do same and tell the good news about the MDB rainfall.
Oh no that wouldnt do now would it ..it would show up where the real problem lies and their masters wouldnt like that.
You could also add the fact that the cloud cover over Ausrtralia has been decreasing, and the number of days with rainfall have not changed for many years, or the number of sites that have experienced cooling are significant etc
but no it has to be the temperature according to them was….. blah
No qualifier that it doesnt make the globe warmer or cooler..we alone just happen to be getting a teeny bit warmer.
Thats global warming as a hypothesis for you.
Well done David and the BOM
Schiller,
A while ago (Jan 6th 5.39am) you sent me and Spanglers off to Wood for Trees .
On the UAH graphs I would like you to compare just the period from 2000 to the present with those of Spencers.
There’s no resemblence is there. Notice that there is a sharp drop in 2004 in Spencers that is absent from Wood for Trees. That was because the winter of 2004 was long and cold because I keep a dairy myself.
Now the guy running Wood for Trees admits he’s a “life long green” but strenuosly denys any bias.!!!!
Yeah right.
Go with Spencer , What you are looking at there is the truth . This guy Paul Clark looks like some green boffin who likes to play with graphs.
Mack; do you have a link to the 2 graphs you are referring to?
Cohenite,
Hell I’m no scientist but do you think I’m talking nonsense here?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
cf
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends
Maybe there is resemblence but I’ve jumped the gun and didn’t look hard enough.
Mack, no need to worry; the graphs are showing the same thing in different ways; the WFT graph uses a 12 month mean OLS trend calculation, Roy has a 25 month running average; the extra ‘jerkiness’ of the WFT graph is caused by the Y axis only being 1/2 the extent of Roy’s so that Roy’s looks less dramatic.
Thanks Cohers
Well I’m all in favour of less dramatic graphs. They are not so ALARMING. 😉 : )
Excuse an old man if he repeats himself, but the old Greek idea of hubris and nemesis seems relevant to the current weather in the northern hemisphere. I have just had photos from my niece in England, showing a front end loader clearing snow. The temperature is close to that at the North Pole. This is God’s nemesis for the hubris of computer playboys, one-eyed journalists, and political climate mountebanks. Back to the humanities, ye sinners, and boast no more.
P.S. As a Quaker descendant, I confess I know no more about God than anyone else.
Green Davey, I’ve always (or at least in the last few years) thought that the idea of God controlling things like the weather would be a bit like Gepetto wishing Pinochio was a real boy. I tend to think that God set the universe in motion and then sat back and watched with profound interest to see what wonders might spring forth.
Or maybe he knows what is going on and what will go on so is currently thinking about something totally different. 🙂
There are 3 types of God; a timeless God, outside the cause and effect of space-time; a God ‘which’ is spacetime and a God who created space-time and who operates within it; only the 3rd type of God has a consciousness and will. I suspect the gaia and green acolytes reserve their adoration for the 2nd type, while the traditionally religious greens follow the 3rd, which incidentally is a form of deism rather than theism; the 1st is philosophically the most interesting since no consciousness can occur without time.
My God, Cohenite, that’s a bit tricky. I like Derek’s view, even if a bit anthropomorphic. Janama makes a good point too. I note that Luke and SJT have kept out of it. Perhaps Luke’s God speaks Fortran, and SJT’s is called Kevin or Julia.
Green Davey
Luke’s God speaks Fortran? Get a listing to E.M. Smith at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
to keep his hand in
while he waits to get the code for some of these gcm’s!
A common view is that God is outside of time and sees eternity all at the same time, sort of like looking at a large temporal, panoramic vista. I think that God would also come with a straight jacket. What do we really know about time anyway? And how is it that time is affected by acceleration?
Hey blobs; I’m still watching from the sidelines and I’m sure cohers has avoided explaining how joannewho? gets a life beyond blogsville. I’m also sure you all won’t get much in response to shenanigans here from DJ @BoM for very different reasons.
Just to keep you all updated, I spent a couple of hours today snapping pontoon marks on pylons at a new marina in a well protected spot inside Sydney Harbor. Guess what? There is no way SL is not going up here too. NB King tide marks or storm surges whatever are very high indeed compared to your average 1.5 M rise and fall. But don’t quote me yet as that 1>1.5 M av is just a sloppy fig from the locals in the yacht biz around the old pier.
Mack, Neville & co; my advice is get out and scout for yourselves as cohers and one or two others prefer second hand blog flotsam in general to the real thing
Malcolm; I suggest deviations derived from pure stats are of little practical use. In the AGW case we have few if any global series for either atmospheric CO2 or temperature that can be referenced to some absolute value at the time prior to about 1960. So any concept of global average before then is just not on with out laboriously working backwards with some target in mind.
Spangles; that target must include a notion of ambient temperature and its derivation taking all energy indicating factors not just max and min. SL likewise needs an agreed basis to account for a range of factors however I’m quite happy looking for unusual peaks as they truly represent worst case senarios.
For green Dave let’s ignore the bushfire experts as we doubtlessly will but they too are watching worst case for dryness, wind speed and temp now
Gavin says,
“Mack Neville e Co my advice is to get out and scout for yourselves”…….
Well yes Gavin, I do get out and scout for myself.
I did so back in the winters around 1998, (that big peak on Spencer’s graph) My house overlooks the Tasman mountain range on the other side of bay; and during those winters around 1998 the shortest day would come and go and still there would be no or insignificant snow on the ranges. Not being a skier I observed this with some perverse pleasure.
But I can tell you Gavin that two skifields went into recievership around those winters because of lack of snow. The Rainbow Skifield here at the Top of the South and one up in the Nth Island. (Rainbows chairlifts were dismantled)
These are facts Gavin . No figures or graphs were required to tell me it was warmer, I just observed the lack of snow.
Now the people pushing the AGW tripe will try and convince you that Global Warming creates more atmospheric activity and thus more snowstorms. The chief of China’s met. dept. is running around at the moment saying that global warming is responsible for the terrible amount of snow.
But just my observations prove snow equals cold Gavin.
Incidently since the 1998s I’ve not observed that lack of snow again. The skifields have since thrived (a bumper season last year). Winter of 2008 the local paper reads “Rainbow gets too much of a good thing; access road blocked with snow” “Worst snow in 40 yrs say farmers”
And if you want to see snow Gavin, try
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/
And don’t come back saying the eventual snowmelt from the northern hemisphere will raise your Sydney Harbour sealevel!
AAahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
There is no god, but three great religions have been arguing for thousands of years that their god is best – it’s the same deity.
We know there was a garden of Eden during the Holocene climate optimum, yet we have evidence to show humans have been around a lot longer than that. Mitochondrial Eve had many daughters and those who found their way out of Africa 83,000 years bp proves we are fairly bright, but not necessarily an intelligent design.
Evolution doesn’t prove natural selection, but natural selection proves evolution.
” Malcolm; I suggest deviations derived from pure stats are of little practical use. In the AGW case we have few if any global series for either atmospheric CO2 or temperature that can be referenced to some absolute value at the time prior to about 1960.”
That may be the case in the global sense,Gavin, but in the instance of the MDB rainfall records that go back 110 years it makes no sense to bastardise this by the use 1961- 1990 as the base line.
The data is only of relevance to us in Australia,and distorting the material used for decision making here is Australia just to suit some dopey IPCC ruling is nonsense….that just compounds the already difficult management issues
Gavin – “I’m also sure you all won’t get much in response to shenanigans here from DJ @BoM for very different reasons”
DJ or someone at BOM may have to make a response to DJ’s CA shenanigans irrespective of any reasons you might think they have. There are formal means available and who is to say they might not be used?
El Gordo,
“Mitochondrial Eve had many daughters and those who found their way out of Africa 83,000 years bp proves we are fairly bright, but not necessarily an intelligent design.”
Other research on based on periods of about 500 years (think dug up bodies) show Mito DNA picks up mutations over 4 times as fasshnkatt as currently thought!! Careful with that 83.000 number!! ;>)
http://www.mhrc.net/mitochondria.htm
Has links and abstracts.
“Just to keep you all updated, I spent a couple of hours today snapping pontoon marks on pylons at a new marina in a well protected spot inside Sydney Harbor. Guess what? There is no way SL is not going up here too. NB King tide marks or storm surges whatever are very high indeed compared to your average 1.5 M rise and fall. But don’t quote me yet as that 1>1.5 M av is just a sloppy fig from the locals in the yacht biz around the old pier.”
gavin,
A random visit to a new site for SLR observation is cherry-pickery in the extreme.
If you had maybe installed the infrastructure decades ago and thereby knew in detail to what MSL it had been built [because this data changes] and also had a close association with it since, you might have something to offer.
Go down to the Isle of the Dead and hang about for the length of a full tide range and then get back to us.
Spangled,
I notice there is no geological data on whether the land is rising, stable, or subsiding in the area of Gavin’s harbour. He has got to be one of the sloppiest observers on the warmer side!!!
In the San Francisco Bay, depending on where you are, the land is doing all 3!!!! Probably why new tide gauge installations will typically include laser levels and GPS sites to help keep everything adjusted!!!!
Kuhnkat,
How do they measure post-glacial rebound and other land movements accurately?
Probably against SLs. [sarc]
But it must be difficult to be certain.
The whole hot globular mass complete with faultlines must be in a constant state of flux vertically as well as horizontally so how do you arrive at a bedrock benchmark for vertical movement.
If the globe shape isn’t a regular oblate spheroid [let alone a sphere] how accurate can a GPS be?
I have had my marine GPS more than 20 seconds of arc out of whack [1/3 of a mile] but that is exceptional and probably due to faulty geodedic maps.
How much more accurate are military or scientific GPS?
Spangles; perhaps you missed something in school but most vertical anomalies are actually referenced to SL such as it was, however things are changing from various points of view
http://www.geoproject.com.au/gda.faq.html
http://www.icsm.gov.au/gda/faq.html
BTW it’s a quite while since I started looking at the horizon, SL, erosion, corrosion etc through a camera lense. Its also a while since I started looking at surfaces with long wave reflections that may enhance or hinder communications networks. So with my little eye I can sight off recent tide markings against vintage concrete corrosion on more historic sea walls.
Mack; I don’t need to know exactly which snowball you are hatching but this photo evidence thingy is also used by some well learned academics BTW we were on the Sth Isle last Feb photographing the steadily retreating glaciers Fox and Franz Joseph the same days your Tasman lost a large amount of ice from its outfall. I got a good look from above too on our way home.
“NZ glaciers continue to shrink
The National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has just released the results of its annual end-of-summer survey of the snowline on key South Island glaciers, showing continued loss of glacier mass.
The survey uses a small fixed wing aircraft to fly over 50 glaciers in the Southern Alps and Kaikoura. Scientists take photographs and then analyse the images to determine the position of the snowline after the summer melt but before the first winter snowfall. This provides an index of the mass balance or ’health’ of the glaciers of New Zealand. The survey has been going since 1977”
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news-nz/20092411-20286-2.html
Gavin;
The glaciers are a long term thing and everbody is relaxed about them because they are behaving pretty well as you would expect them to coming out of the Little Ice Age.
For some reason the Fox and Franz on the West Coast are actually increasing in length hence the last paragraph in your article.
But what you have to do is read between the lines of anything coming out of NIWA. Notice they give no figures or measurements.
In fact nothing but AGW propaganda comes out of NIWA Gavin. It is the NZ govts. mouthpiece for the IPPC.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar
( click on that stuff at the bottom )
The David Wratt fellow is the equivalent of your David Jones.
Gavin,
I’m assuming that David Jones is the head of your Aust BOM. Whoever is the head of your BOM he will be glad he is only suffering a little bit of Australian heat. Compared to the roasting being endured by the head of the UK met. office. Aahahahahahahahahahaha
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/thedailypolitics/8443687.str
Sorry ,Try….
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the daily politics/8443687.str
Sorry again I’m only learning,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8443687.stm
“Spangles; perhaps you missed something in school but most vertical anomalies are actually referenced to SL such as it was,”
Sea level such as it was, gavin???
And wot was that, then?
Mack,
I wish our ABC would grill our warm experts [ BoM, CSIRO etc] like that but they save it all for Tony Abbott.
As far as they’re concerned the country’s in the very best of hands.
There is plenty of evidence of the connivance of Phil Jones of CRU in the Climategate scandal, and plenty of evidence to implicate BoM and CSIRO but I can’t find a specific mention of David Jones of BoM; does anyone have any info on David Jones of Australia rather than the torrent of info about Phil Jones of England?
gavin,
You can use SLs to calculate vertical land movement if the land is moving at a much greater rate than SLs but if similar then it becomes another known unknown.
The earths crust is pretty plastic and if SLRs since the ice ages are weighing down and depressing coastlines while they are at the same time experiencing post-glacial rebound causing cantilevering further inland, you can possibly imagine that getting a fix from which to asses all this is, to say the least,somewhat difficult.
As all sceptics accept, the more we find out, the less we know [and the more there is to be sceptical about].
Here are some somewhat random links to different types of tidal gauges and article/papers on calibration and measurement. Wonder why that instrumentalist Gavin can’t seem to come up with any of this??
Hong Kong is interesting as it is probably one of its SINKING tidal gauges that is used as reference for the satellite instruments.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/tidegauges.html
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/calibration.html
http://gcmd.nasa.gov/records/AADC_Davis_TG_2.html
http://www.pol.ac.uk/ntslf/gibraltar/
http://academic.sun.ac.za/statistics/SASJ%20Version2004_3877.pdf
http://www.eas.slu.edu/GGP/fullpapers/sun_etal_tideloading_hongkong06.pdf
kuhnkat,
Thanks for those interesting links. A complex subject for a layman like me.
cohers,
Seems more than a coincidence that BoM and CSIRO have the same ideology. Be interesting to read their communications with HADCRUT.
Yes SD, BoM and CSIRO are as one on this and there are many Australian connections;
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/greenblog/index.php/couriermail/comments/the_insider_story_on_climategate/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_global_warming_conspiracy_the_trashy_australian_data/#commentsmore
But I can’t find anything specific about David Jones.
Cohers,
http:www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
Put David Jones in search and bon-appitite.
Spanglers,
Nothing beats the bland-faced obfuscations of an overpaid public servant. : )
Gavin,
Your AGW crowd have been…
knee-capped by climate-gate
disallusioned by Copenhagen
and are now suffering a terminal case of Northern Hemisphere frostbite.
But you are still here arguing!
Your AGW faith must be very strong Gavin.
Aaaahahahahahahahahahahhahaha.
Cohers, Damn done it again….
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php
( suggest put in your favourites)
Actually sorry everybody there’s only 1 email and A Physicist covered it further up the page.
Mack,
Very good!
cohers,
Here’s something. Is this him?
“2. Had an email from David Jones of BMRC, Melbourne. He said
they are ignoring anybody who has dealings with CA, as there are
threads on it about Australian sites.
3. CA is in dispute with IPCC (Susan Solomon and Martin Manning)
about the availability of the responses to reviewer’s at the various
stages of the AR4 drafts. They are most interested here re Ch 6 on
paleo.
Cheers
Phil”
Mack,
Guilty, likewise.
http://reg.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/vic/20070515.shtml
Dr David Jones is Head of the Clmate Analysis section..still
Phone number is as given.
Cohers private D inc;
a little caution here if you please on the subject of asking others publicly to do your dirty work as it may not go down well in other quarters, at least those tasked with protection of PS admin in general. Now get back to developing your own independent evidence for cooling, warming even the status quo whatever before damning any individuals or their job. This is more about the Aussie notion of fair play than anything else I care to go into here.
Let’s have decent limits on personal inquiries.
Kuhnkat: Yours truly is open to dissection from any point of view as I’m retired and won’t do the decisive math for you no matter how you clown about. Hey there was a guy grinning his face off today at my expense as I tried to pack up some old tools that were on display in the morning sun. It’s been about 40C for most of our daylight hours under a cloudless sky @ elev 600M however this hot and extremely dry air is no joke believe me.
As I read back up the posts in my semi darkened sweat box otherwise know as the study it seems dear old spangles is slowly catching on that a constant SL is highly desirable from various points of view. So let’s spell it out again for others; SL at some mark on the horizontal plane is the basis for real estate boundaries, at another mark on the vertical it’s used to calibrate altimeters and various other instruments that indicate atmospheric pressure (atmospheres) as such it’s been in vogue for ages.
In fact anybody who has produced an instrument will know just how important SL as a reference is when it comes to being pedantic about mainstream science. But what spangles has to concede is total mass above and below SL is pretty constant despite continental drift except for those times when global temperature changes i e more or less permanent ice in ice caps.
Mack; are you aware that much post ww2 intelligence, data etc depends on a series of high res photographs? The science of estimation has changed somewhat in recent decades too.
Getting off our level playing field for a mo, lets look briefly at trusty old max min thermometers again and ask how were they all initially calibrated, maintained and recorded ? Also ask if elevation or pressure was a factor at any stage of an instruments service history?
elevation or pressure was a factor?
In a totally enclosed measuring device?
WTF?
“enclosed”
read “sealed”
gavin, as usual I have no idea what you are talking about; “decent limits on personal enquiries” indeed.
For the rest of us not in cloud cuckoo land another search engine for the CRU scandal seems to be this;
http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/
But again David Jones does not figure.
Gavin says,
“The science of estimation has changed somewhat in recent decades too”
That’s right Gavin; change you can believe in. The science of estimation of global temps followed by the IPCC has changed from crystal balls to tarot cards.
The NIWA scientists flying around over glaciers in summer are just having scenic flights at taxpayers expense which accomplish nothing except provide “evidence” to satisfy David Wratt.
What a life.
wtf Marcus
for starters, see “Make your own thermometer”
http://www.csiro.au/helix/sciencemail/activities/thermometer.html
see “Test a thermometer” 2.115
http://www.uq.edu.au/_School_Science_Lessons/UNPh22.html#22.7.3
then we can worry about calibration of older weather stn u tube types
C’mon Mack; your are chatting with someone who has done considerable homework including a preliminary look see at the JASANZ treaty that binds us as equal trading nations. Don’t bother with a fresh lesson on progressing standards, data bases, MOU’s etc.
Besides being the most parasitic mob downunder, from numerous discussions with the local crowd on harbour sites, it’s my opinion your average kiwi with a sea going motorized tub wouldn’t know if SL was going right up the exhaust tube.
What’s important is someone is up there doing actual science on possibly warmer and drier regions west side that could further affect that deliberately treeless near desert agriculture area over east.
Thank you gavin but I decline to make my own thermometers.
I could be nasty and point out some symptoms connected to age, that are greatly affecting your thought processes but I leave it at just ignoring your future ramblings.
Have nice retirement and enjoy every moment of it, I mean it too.
Cheers
Now now Gavin try not to destroy good trans-tasman relations.
……”possibly warmer and drier regions west side that could further affect that deliberately treeless near desert agriculture area over east”
Nothing is possibly warmer Gavin; Nothing is possibly drier. You are just speculating in hope.
You must have visited the Canterbury Plains at the height of summer (when things are a bit brown) Gavin. The rest of the time they are a patchwork of green like dear old England.
The plains have always been grassy. The maori used to hunt the moa bird (to extinction)on the open plains and fires went through the place. But the agriculture is just fine with plenty of irrigation from rivers and streams.
But what’s this got to do with the price of fish and AGW? You’re starting me rambling on like you Gavin.
Perhaps it’s gavin, but this blog has been going nowhere for quite a while, which is why I only visit occasionally plus I have time constraints.
I’ve been reading Lomborg’s Cool It and although he is a AGW believer I think he does the best job of tearing down this fraudulent industry.
No matter what the issue whether floods, hurricanes, disease, sl rise, temp, rainfall etc, etc he easily shows what a waste of money kyoto was or a mark 2 version would be.
Now that the Copenhagen farce is behind us surely we should accept the fact that china, india, brazil, s africa and the rest of the developing world are not going to play ball and adjust our thinking accordingly.
Firstly even if the whole world changed tomorrow and agreed to a perfect kyoto 2 according to Lomborg’s team this would only postpone the enevitable by 5 years, thus we would reach this dubious target by 2095 not 2100.
His team includes top economists and statisticians so I presume they can easily do the calculations at least as well as other groups.
Surely within a decade or so more cars will be powered by much more reliable and cheaper battery technology that will make a normal 500 Klm trip plus allow a 5 minute recharge a normal occurence.
Perhaps in 20 years a combination of solar plus other technologies will see the average home power the entire requirements of the average family.
I’m sure technology will change our near future at a much faster rate than we can imagine and spending trillions on reducing co2 will prove to be the greatest criminal act of stupidity the world has ever seen.
BTW I’m not a AGW believer, but even if I was it would not alter these previous arguments in the slightest.
Taking a scattergun approach will not solve our problems but carefully targeting our resources now will I’m sure pay us the bigger dividend by 2100.
Gavin the Canterbury Plains are the sheep fattening grasslands. The sheep are grown in the high country then transported to the lush green plains for fattening before market.
Janama (note; I learn something new every day) like Mack “when things are a bit brown” thinks I’m silly when it comes to reckonising a dust bowl under the Nor’west arch. Hey there was no grass let alone green for much of out trip down from about Blenheim. Any water had all but dissapeared in rivers or streams and so had stock. However you are not alone in that things were considerably worst in some parts of Tasmania and elsewhere.
“Assistance to drought-affected North Canterbury and Central and East Coast North Island farmers
We are aware of the drought causing financial issues for many farmers within the North Canterbury and Central and East Coast North Island regions, and understand it is likely to affect income for both 2009 and later years”
http://www.ird.govt.nz/business-income-tax/income-equalisation/special-provisions/.
“Government widens drought assistance
Agriculture Minister David Carter announced today that the Government is extending drought relief to farmers in parts of North Canterbury, Central Plateau, Taihape and Wairarapa.
This follows a recent decision to assist drought-stricken farmers in the Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne/Wairoa regions.Farmers in all these areas are heading for a tough winter. As soil temperatures plummet, rain has come too late for many. Rain, sunshine and high soil temperatures are needed for grass to grow,” says Mr Carter.
“What is making it worse is these farmers have suffered back-to-back drought for three years.
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/government+widens+drought+assistance
“Further drought assistance package
The impacts of the persisting drought in parts of Tasmania are being tackled with an additional suite of measures to assist affected communities. The Tasmanian Drought Taskforce has provided advice to Government on extending existing support and the introduction of new assistance measures. The measures announced today focus primarily on helping with the community impact of the drought, and extend assistance through to the end of June. Business-related support and continuation of the community and social support packages will be developed”.
http://www.farmpoint.tas.gov.au/farmpoint.nsf/Drought,BushfiresEmergencies/F0E3D1B0F8558C57CA25757600185F3F
There are similar pages for NSW & Victoria
Gavin,
Sea level as some kind of benchmark for land demarcation??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The only demarcation sea level can give is between Above Water and Under Water!!!!
Would you like to tell us about Nils-Axel Morner’s work on sea level?? Would you like to tell us how much sea level has changed in the last 10000 years?? Could you estimate for us when the last time the continental shelves around the world were mostly above water???
Are you aware that there are coral reefs in the Pacific where the tops (indicating they grew at the then surface) are about 1 MILE underwater?? Kinda fast sea level change huh??
You really are a useless old SOD!!!
Listen Gavin the farmers have been moaning about droughts in this country off and on for as long as I can remember. It’s nothing new . What you saw around the Blenheim area is not unusual for that time of year. The east coasts of both islands are by nature very dry at times.
At these times it is of course unsuitable for carrying stock hence you have a “drought”. It’s like building your house next to an airport and complaining about the noise.
Of interest the biggest cause of sheep loss here is COLD.at lambing time.
I would like you to briefly tell me Gavin how if the globe is getting warmer it will get dryer.
Gavin – I went to school with the sons of these poor farmers and believe me they are some of the wealthiest people in New Zealand!
The climate of Christchurch and surrounds is similar to Melbourne in may ways. Freezing cold winters and stinking hot summers.
I was driving through Victoria about 4 years ago when you were experiencing severe drought and would look out over the scorched brown dirt which used to be pasture with quite some depression ; but then would strike bush either side of the road and cheer up because there appeared no drought (I suppose if had slowed down and looked hard enough at the bush it might have seemed drier than usual) but it was like …drought….no drought……drought…no drought.
I think drought is only a farmer thing.
Mack “I think drought is only a farmer thing”
Fortunatly the science of extreems in weather is progressing despite our various personal views. In my own contributions to several inquiries post Jan 2003 I made a lot of fuss about the grass fire hazard and arson yet the battlle for public awareness still goes on. To this end we have new alert regimes based on recent science from the Bushfire CRC and other studies.
I followed the output of several profesional scientists after wittnessing much of the devistation several days later round Hobart in 1967 I just missed a violent flare up of wild fires in the region but slowly came to the conclusion it was fine fuels at ground level that became the swiftest killer in high winds. Proof of this was a fire at Lara near Geelong in Victoria that killed a lot of motorists on the 4 lane highway from Melbourne. No bush there, just open plains. At that time I was upgrading controls around furnaces and reactors in nearby Petro chemical industries. Drought and tinder dry grasslands became my no one target thereafter.
Typical headlines in the current heat wave –
“Crews battle blazes ahead of catastrophic warning”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/10/2789132.htm
“Worst yet to come in sweltering south”
– “South Australia and Victoria have catastrophic warnings in place today and Victoria’s north and north-eastern areas face code red conditions tomorrow.
There have been minor fires in Adelaide and people in Tasmania’s Derwent Valley have been told to activate their bushfire plans as a blaze moves slowly towards three towns.
Firefighters in southern New South Wales, meanwhile, are on alert for any new fires that could be sparked by strong winds combined with the higher temperatures”.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/11/2789886.htm?section=australia
For the science I often start here with Regional SST, one of the many services provided by BoM under their NWP products
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/show_prod.cgi?IDY00004
The detail, including “Soil Dryness Index” & “Drought Factor” see “Fire Weather Forecast” by the Tasmania Fire Service
http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/mysite/Show?pageId=colWeatherfwxfct
It’s getting ridiculous Gavin – this morning’s paper announced that the area that is in flood in central NSW is in severe drought!!
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/floodwaters-fail-to-stop-droughts-creep-across-state-20100111-m2s6.html
I see that an ipcc modeller and scientist has spilt the beans on what the climate will be like over the next 30 years.
Professor Mojib Latif at Leibniz Institute at Kiel Uni in Germany is a leading member of UN ipcc.
He says that Multi decadel oscillations can account for 50% of the temp rise from 1980 to 2000 and earlier periods of the 20th century were due to these cycles.
The extreme retreats in glaciers and sea ice will halt .
Prof Anastasios Tsonis head of Uni of Wisconsin atmospheric science group says that MDOs will continue to determine global temps and their shifts explain all the temp changes in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Gee gavin this is a blow, I mean who would have thought that oceans could influence our climate , I mean afterall they only cover 71% of the planet’s surface not much really.
Surely it must still enormous ammount of co2 that we humans have pumped into the atmosphere, that one hundredth of 1% increase that caused the climate to change not some piffling change effecting only a mere 71% of the planet surely?
Gavin,
make a copy of your post and get back to us in 5 years!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Neville,
This cooling must be a blow to the projected “1/4 mile poleward” migration of all species to keep abreast of the warming.
I wonder who blows the whistle and tells us when to advance and when to retreat?
cohers,
I hope Bernard J. is paying strict attention.
http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=415747
that shoul be “1/4 mile ANNUAL poleward”
http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=415392
Will Barbara come too, to hold Penny’s hand?
SD; an ice-berg could drop on BJ’s noggin and he still wouldn’t change his mind.
Neville; Latif co-authored the [in]famous Keenlyside paper which really set the ball rolling about natural cooling overwhelming AGW for the next decade or so;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
Whether natural variation can create trends rather than oscillations which are neutral over a cycle is the hot topic in AGW right now and 2 recent Australian papers dealing with it are;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011637.shtml
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.1828v1.pdf
Is there a resident expert on the Indian Ocean Dipole? It seems to me that the current hot weather in south-eastern Australia may be caused by cooling in the Timor Sea, sending relatively cool dry air across the red heart of Australia. By the time it reaches Victoria, it is, of course, dry and very hot. I can’t find any information on the current state of the IOD – positive or negative? According to Wiki, fossil corals show the IOD has been operating for thousands of years, but its cycle may be speeding up. The papers by Saji et al (1999) and Ummenhofer et al. (2009) seem to be much neglected by the news media, and the climate politicians.
P.S. BoM seem to soft pedal it too.
Green Davey the latest from BOM shows the IOD to be at +44, so I presume that is a proper positive phase (dry for us south of the Broome to Wollongong line ) or perhaps verging on a neutral phase.
Of course we haven’t seen a negative phase IOD for 17 years which was the last flood year of the Murray river.
Thanks Neville,
Is that +44, or +4.4? Can you give me the URL? I could not find it, but I am a little impatient with web-sites.
I was going to suggest Neville was up to speed with the IOD; I remember Neville’s exchanges with Luke on the IOD:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/06/agw-is-just-a-theory/?cp=all
The BoM site for IOD is
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/IOD/positive/
That number is 0.44 not 44, just search for Enso monitoring graphs then bring shutter down to IOD index time series.
After another day of heatwave over SE Oz, it’s still too hot! Can’t sleep etc
Neville; “I mean who would have thought that oceans could influence our climate , I mean afterall they only cover 71% of the planet’s surface not much really”
Mate; as I wrote back up the thread we start here – easy stuff hey
Global
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=global&lc=global&c=ssta
Australia
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_sst.jsp?lt=wzcountry&lc=aus&c=ssta
Seems Cohenite has been reading Sunday supplements.
Kuhnkat; I simply went over to NOAA for the latest on climate and weather predictions so lets say you guys have nothing of value in regards to eminent cooling anywhere soon
gavin’s comment about the Sunday supplements reminds me of an episode of Rippng Yarns about Eric Olthwaite, the World’s Most Boring Man; I reckon gavin would give him a run for his money.
Neville, our IOD situation was well covered by BoM etc back in Dec. IMO the most significant global influence currently is that big blob of warmer SST out in the Pacific Put in proper perspective it’s very large
From the Dec BoM ENSO Wrap-Up
“Summary: Pacific Ocean warming near its peak
Central Pacific Ocean temperatures remain well above El Niño thresholds. Trade wind strength returned to near normal over the past fortnight, slightly reducing the excessive warmth of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. However, significant areas remain more than 2°C above average at the surface, and over 4°C warmer than normal at depth”
“The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) has a reduced impact upon Australia over the summer months.
See IOD forecasts, DMI values”
“In the latest survey of eight international computer models, all are predicting warm conditions to persist throughout the southern hemisphere summer. A majority of computer models are predicting that Pacific Ocean SSTs will start to cool by March next year, which is the typical timing for the decay of El Niño events. Recent forecasts from the POAMA model, run daily at the Bureau of Meteorology, show a continuation of warming with SSTs remaining above El Niño thresholds through the summer months”
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Vic Gov “Our Water our Future”
“Seasonal Climate Outlook – December to February 2010
The Bureau of Meteorology released its rainfall outlook for December to February on 24 November. The outlook reports that across the majority of the State, the odds of the coming season being wetter than normal are the same as the chance of it being drier.
The Bureau issued its latest ENSO Wrap-Up on 25 November. The Bureau reports a ‘maturing’ El Niño event, which is likely to extend into 2010. Temperatures in the central Pacific remain at the highest levels since at least the El Niño event in 2002, and the warm ocean conditions are expected to last into the first quarter of 2010. Satellite observations show increasing cloudiness near the date-line and a shift of the South Pacific’s major rainfall zones toward the northeast of the region. Although slightly higher, Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) remains at levels typical of an El Niño event. Negative SOI values are associated with El Niño events. El Niño events are usually (but not always) associated with below normal rainfall in the second half of the year across large parts of southern and inland eastern Australia.
Despite these conditions, the value of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), as measured by the Dipole Mode Index (DMI) is neutral and is expected to remain neutral over the coming months. A positive IOD is typically associated with decreased rainfall across parts of central and southern Australia”
http://www.ourwater.vic.gov.au/monitoring/monthly/seasonal_climate_outlook.
Oceans circulate heat away from the Earth’s molten core, but we’ve decided to ignore that factor, so let’s just ignore oceans completely and get on with the business of establishing a world government. That’s the whole point of this sordid exercise.
Let the nominations begin for Benign Despot of the Earth Autarchy. A more-or-less immortal Despot would be ideal, which would simplify things. How about the Dalai Lama?
If we have to go for mortals, Ms. Marohasy would be a good pick.
Cohers does the Black Knight enjoining us to revisit the now discredited and dismembered Carter effort “Whether natural variation can create trends”. It is true that trends are hard to find if you first remove them.
I was interested to see Gavin’s statement that ‘A majority of computer models are predicting that Pacific Ocean SSTs will start to cool by March next year.’ If the science is settled, and the models are accurate, then surely they should all predict exactly the same thing? Are there ‘denialist models’? How disgraceful.
Did the consensus models predict the current minor ‘cold snap’ in the northern hemisphere? Did the denialist models predict a warmer than usual winter? Or was it the other way around? Reality bites – as in frostbite.
Very droll bazza; fortunately the mechanism by which asymmetry in natural variation can cause trend is becoming pretty well known;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/325/5944/1114?ijkey=765987568ebc55b719dbe2b4e1f51ae836e44acc
So when David Karoly is quoted as saying “”It’s very very difficult with a 20 or 30-year time scale to separate a climate change signal from natural variation” should this be the sceptics’ bitch-slap response to Garrett’s inane musings on every spell of hot weather ?
“Professor David Karoly, a world-leading climatologist at the University of Melbourne, said the research did not change this expectation.
‘”It’s very very difficult with a 20 or 30-year time scale to separate a climate change signal from natural variation. You would not expect to see a signal until about 2030.”
“Last week Opposition Leader Tony Abbott criticised the Government’s proposed emissions trading scheme, saying it should ‘”not politicise events such as floods or cyclones to try to justify a new tax.”‘
Mick in the Hills,
We’ve also had a dozen jellyfish scares this summer and the deadly stingers are about to take over the world because of AGW.
It’s too much to expect the MSM to ask a logical question like: Is the ocean actually warming? or: How common have jellyfish plagues been in the past? etc.
How many sandwich boards can these alarmist “scientists” and MSM wear at once?
I was about to suggest our honietec had been into those Sunday issues again however something caught my attention so in a creative streak I found these connections by following one of cet’s authors above.
The Climate Change Research Section (CCR) is part of the Climate and Global Dynamics (CGD) Division at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/index.html
“Assessing trends in observed and modelled climate extremes over Australia in relation to future projections”
Abstract
Multiple simulations from nine globally coupled climate models were assessed for their ability to reproduce observed trends in a set of indices representing temperature and precipitation extremes over Australia. Observed trends over the period 1957-1999 were compared with individual and multi-modelled trends calculated over the same period. When averaged across Australia, the magnitude of trends and interannual variability of temperature extremes were well simulated by most models, particularly for the index for warm nights. The majority of models also reproduced the correct sign of trend for precipitation extremes although there was much more variation between the individual model runs. A bootstrapping technique was used to calculate uncertainty estimates and also to verify that most model runs produce plausible trends when averaged over Australia. Although very few showed significant skill at reproducing the observed spatial pattern of trends, a pattern correlation measure showed that spatial noise could not be ruled out as dominating these patterns. Two of the models with output from different forcings showed that the observed trends over Australia for one of the temperature indices was consistent with an anthropogenic response, but was inconsistent with natural-only forcings. Future projected changes in extremes using three emissions scenarios were also analysed. Australia shows a shift towards warming of temperature extremes, particularly a significant increase in the number of warm nights and heat waves with much longer dry spells interspersed with periods of increased extreme precipitation, irrespective of the scenario used. Copyright © 2008 Royal Meteorological Society
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120835621/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
“A Coupled Air–Sea Response Mechanism to Solar Forcing in the Pacific Region”
ABSTRACT
The 11-yr solar cycle [decadal solar oscillation (DSO)] at its peaks strengthens the climatological precipitation maxima in the tropical Pacific during northern winter. Results from two global coupled climate model ensemble simulations of twentieth-century climate that include anthropogenic (greenhouse gases, ozone, and sulfate aerosols, as well as black carbon aerosols in one of the models) and natural (volcano and solar) forcings agree with observations in the Pacific region, though the amplitude of the response in the models is about half the magnitude of the observations. These models have poorly resolved stratospheres and no 11-yr ozone variations, so the mechanism depends almost entirely on the increased solar forcing at peaks in the DSO acting on the ocean surface in clear sky areas of the equatorial and subtropical Pacific. Mainly due to geometrical considerations and cloud feedbacks, this solar forcing can be nearly an order of magnitude greater in those regions than the globally averaged solar forcing. The mechanism involves the increased solar forcing at the surface being manifested by increased latent heat flux and evaporation. The resulting moisture is carried to the convergence zones by the trade winds, thereby strengthening the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) and the South Pacific convergence zone (SPCZ). Once these precipitation regimes begin to intensify, an amplifying set of coupled feedbacks similar to that in cold events (or La Niña events) occurs. There is a strengthening of the trades and greater upwelling of colder water that extends the equatorial cold tongue farther west and reduces precipitation across the equatorial Pacific, while increasing precipitation even more in the ITCZ and SPCZ. Experiments with the atmosphere component from one of the coupled models are performed in which heating anomalies similar to those observed during DSO peaks are specified in the tropical Pacific. The result is an anomalous Rossby wave response in the atmosphere and consequent positive sea level pressure (SLP) anomalies in the North Pacific extending to western North America. These patterns match features that occur during DSO peak years in observations and the coupled models.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI1776.1
How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5716/1769
“These results give the clearest indication yet that anthropogenic forcing played a role in the drying of SWA. Note, however, that ambiguities remain. For example, although the observed decline fits within the range of downscaled model simulation, the ensemble mean rainfall decline is only about half of the observed estimate, the timing differs from the observations, drying did not occur in the downscaling of one of the four full-forced ensemble members, and not all potential forcing mechanisms are included in full forcing (e.g., land surface changes). Furthermore, while the observed rainfall decline was a sharp reduction in the 1960s, followed by a near-constant rainfall regime, the full-forcing ensemble suggests a more gradual rainfall decline over 40 yr from 1960”.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3817.1
“A simple econometrician’s guide to global warming”
http://home.alphalink.com.au/~jperkins/gwstats.htm
Noticed this ad in the Byron Echo – thought someone here might chuckle: 🙂
Spangled Drongo
Come for a drive to iconic Nimbin during the
holidays and eat at the Spangled Drongo,
the town’s grooviest restaurant.
Look for the Spangled Drongo on the orange wall on the north
side. Chef Tommy Price serves up tasty and fresh Thai and
Aussie dishes in an open kitchen for dine in or out or takeaway.
And don’t forget the organic wines and Thai beer!
Open six days for lunch and dinner from 5.30pm-9pm. Closed
Tuesdays. Open for lunch Monday to Saturday from 11am-
2.30pm.
Bookings please, call 6689 0033.
Very good article over at WUWT by Roy Spencer, seems like his theory on low clouds being the culprit of warming/ cooling and not co2 has been strengthened by more REAL measurements.
Of course hansen insists that there is still more warming hidden in the system .( wonder where)
Spencer finishes by stating that ” the ipcc’s lack of diagnostic skill on the subect verges on scientific malpractice, very true.
“How Much More Global Warming and Sea Level Rise?”
gavin,
About the same as last century. [with or without GCMs]
janama,
Thanks for the info. I’ll have to check out those “organic” wines.
Neville,
Thanks for that. Do check it out, gavin.
A pity this study of Kirby’s has been delayed 10 years:
“http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684”
sorry, that was Kirkby and hopefully this is the post.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684
Oh well, I’ll just have to make do with this:
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073
Cohers, you should be more careful – the Black Knight of Newcastle now has no leg to stand on. The link you supplied was Meehls paper – the last line cautions “This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years “. Who is the court jester now?
The Penn State U investigation of Michael Mann by three of their own staff is hardly a nail-biting affair.
With big govt funding at stake it seems like a whitewash must happen.
Particularly as this seems to be their new agenda:
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?doctype_code=Article&doc_id=1126
At the Conference of the Parties in Bali, some might remember, that we saw the extraordinary pre-release of the Australian National University’s Green Carbon report on Australian forestry at a Wilderness Society event. We also saw the announcement that Australia was involved in a road map for REDD, (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) in developing countries.
At the time it was reported that 18-20% of the world’s greenhouse gas was from deforestation, a figure used by environmental NGO’s, the UN’s FAO, the IPCC, the ANU paper and the Garnaut report.
Prior to the Copenhagen COP, the Wilderness society had formed an Ecosystems Climate Alliance with other international environmental NGO’s such as the Humane Society, Rainforest Action Network and Global Witness. This group at the Copenhagen conference demanded billion of euros to reduce REDD initially by 25% and then to 50%. http://www.ecosystemsclimate.org/NewsEvents/Pressreleases/tabid/1617/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2016/Default.aspx
Copenhagen delivered with an Agreement on funding for deforestation. Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States collectively agreed in an ambitious and comprehensive outcome to dedicate USD3.5bn as initial public finance towards slowing, halting and eventually reversing deforestation in developing countries.
What is amazing, now that the snow has settled on Copenhagen, is that a new study by a group of Dutch and American climate scientists in the November 2009 issue of Nature Geoscience asserts that the UN’s estimate of atmospheric CO2 caused by deforestation is substantially overstated – by as much as 40 percent. Recalculating the 2005 figure with updated satellite-based estimates on carbon emissions, the researchers calculated the relative contribution of deforestation and forest degradation to be only about 12 percent.
See http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/whatonearth
Looks like job done! Perhaps the USD 3.5 billion can be spent on sustainable forestry in these coutries to alleviate poverty!
News Flash!
John Coleman, KUSI meteorologist and founder of The Weather Channel, will shortly reveal in a special report that NASA has ‘cooked the books’ on climate change — making the US agency part of the Climategate scandal.
The report will be broadcast on TV on January 14th, at 9pm, Pacific Time, from KUSI in San Diego, Calif., USA. A related report will be available on the internet at 6pm on that date.
The full press release is available at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25175763/KUSI-Release
KUSI TV home page:
http://www.kusi.com/
As they say, ‘The timing is curious, therefore it is a conspiracy.’
Judicial Watch Uncovers NASA Documents Related to Global Warming Controversy
Judicial Watch
January 7, 2010
http://www.judicialwatch.org/node/9643/talk
NASA docs:
(215 pp., .pdf)
http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf
[excerpt]
09 Aug 2007
Reto Ruedy to James Hansen
“Steve [McIntyre] will keep asking me for our “software” and I’m tempted to ignore those requests, since our description of what we do with the data completely describes our procedures.”
Luke, SJT, and gavin are obviously running hard — running away, actually — from the deluge of reality that is about to completely swamp their years of evangelizing for AGW!
In the perspective of Civilization, is there anything to compare to the sight of shills, acolytes, hedge-priests, money-grubbers, rent-seekers, and seething, snarling, foul-mouthed neo-Hippies running like a pack of feral cats when the facts come home to roost?
Civilization, which always seeks complacency, needs a regular wake-up call to force people to notice that subverting civilization has a big payoff.
Civilization needs next to see Gore and Pachauri and Hansen in irons.
Such a foul misguidance of humanity, and divergence of largesse that could have been used to help the least of us, deserves no less.
Schiller thanks for that Kusi tv info, there are four very good videos at Kusi by Lindzen, Soon ,D’Aleo and Coleman explaining why they don’t buy the AGW nonsense.
A very good informative package that I’m sure the majority of the non religious types at this blog will enjoy.
Just like to inform people here that the magic 500klm barrier has been broken by an electric car on a single charge.
On 27/ 10/ 09 a Tesla roadster completed a 500 klm journey near Coober Pedy SA on a single charge to set a new world record for an electric car.
This lithium Ion battery pack didn’t have a scrap of Nano displacing the Graphite etc, but if it did the much safer pack could be charged in 10 minutes not the usual 3 hours.
Just shows you in our era if you take your eye of the ball for even a few months new technology jumps out and bites you on the bum.
Let’s say in ten years time we are gradually changing to electric vehicles for a comparitive price, how many trillions of dollars in fuel savings worlwide could we expect say by 2030?
BTW the Tesla can out drag a Ferrari, porsche Audi etc because of instant torgue over all revs.
In USA the cost to travel 100 klms is very cheap also.
Neville, good news. I’m actually looking forward to electric vehicles for a number of reasons, not just the pollution (non CO2) aspect. Someone needs to invent infrared photovoltaics so that they can be mounted on the underside of cars and absorb energy from the hot bitumen roads.
Schiller,
Data manipulation is not just rife in the NH. Our own BoM in Australia have tossed out all the data prior to 1910 so you can guess what was happening prior to 1910.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
The only difference is you NHers are doing something about it.
Somehow I missed this, it explains my feelings about science and scientists today far more eloquently than I ever could.
Most of you probably read it already.
http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html
Deforestation is a seperate issue to AGW but the attachment of deforestation to worsening AGW through release of CO2 from removing trees and the removal of the tree sink is just plain garbage; if indigenous forest is removed for the planting of crops those crops will remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than the original plants even taking into account the emission amounts from cropping.
Breaking news: GISS and NCDC found fudging the 2005 temps, to hide the decline. Icecap has something on it.
cohers,
Miskolczi and Zagoni must be an on-going thorn.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate#comments
I’m trying to post but it won’t accept my post
maybe I can confuse it
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81557272.html,http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81558532.html,http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81558842.html,http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559212.htm,http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81559582.html
worked – deciper it yourself 🙂
janama,
that link wouldn’t work. Do you mean this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/14/john-colemans-hourlong-news-special-global-warming-the-other-side-now-online-all-five-parts-here/#more-15267
SD, that’s bad news about Zagoni being unemployed; the last I heard from him he was negotiating with K&T about the size of the window;
http://www.atmos.uiuc.edu/colloquia/080430.htm
If miskolczi is right the window should be 60wm2 and that would tie up the complaints about M’s theory.
Jennifer,
It would be very nice if you would consider coming out of retirement.
Gavin,
SL has never been static. Why do you imply it has been?
This is becoming really, really bad.
The people who relied on “climate change data” who thought they were standing on solid ground in forecasting what-the-heck-ever are now looking stupid at best, or even liars.
This crap is going to hurt everyone, even the sellers of carbon credits.
Will Al Gore’s bankruptcy follow soon? Nope, his buddies don’t want to go bankrupt either.
What an escapade.
Hansen has just released a statement denying that they manipulate the data to which someone posted this 🙂
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm
It’s interesting that Letterman didn’t allow Hansen to get onto his favourite hobby horse, nuclear power.
You don’t want to feed a Letterman audience with too much reality.
Hansen was talking about the increase in the difference in temps between upper and lower atmosphere and how it will increase wild storms and hurricanes yet that’s total BS!! Hurricanes are less! It appears he’ll do and say anything to sell his damn book!
bazza; do try to use some imagination; so “the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measureable trend over the past 30 years”, eh? Some other solar cycles have though;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/solar_ap_index_10062008.png
Anyway I’m not so sure Meehl is right;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/mean:12/normalise/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:12/normalise/from:1978
But the point I was making, bazza, was that the role of clouds in responding to and adding to variation in insolation does not require much variation in the 11-year cycle especially since other internal factors such as PDO asymmetry can cause cloud variation.
Warmists are dangerous to every one. There are so many things that are not getting the attention they deserve, because “it is because of global warming” is used as an answer. This is often by people who have accepted the the “science”, at face value.
The other day I was listening to an interview of a research marine biologist, talking about his research into stingers.
Their season, & range are increasing. When asked why, he blamed global warming. From the interview it was obvious that he honestly believed this was the reason. Believing this, he was not undertaking any work to find other reasons for this increase. This lack of research is endangering lives.
Unfortunately, the research comunity becomes very incestuous, & does not take advantage of wide knowledge in the general community. In this instance, if they did, they would know that in their own town, Townsville, in the late 40s, just after the war, there were 3 shark enclosures on the strand beach, & thousands of people swam there all year round. Stingers were unheard of, & no one suffered stings in these enclosures, which only kept large sharks out.
If you could swim in the open sea, around Townsville in the late 40s, without a stinger threat, where have they come from?
Our researcher may be a bit slack in gathering the history of his subject, but perhape he would have done better, if he was not convinced he had the answer supplied by our warmists.
janama,
That’s an awesome link.
Amazing that the ‘raw’ data from 1920 could vary up to 1 C depending on whether it was downloaded in ’09 or ’10!
That ain’t acting like ‘raw’ data at all!
Folks,
I have a question, and it involves whether we ought to extend some sympathy to the Hadley Crew.
The Hadley Crew were dealing with, in great part, temperature data supplied by the USA. We now know that those data were ‘cooked’ by selectively excluding the records of various stations, to generate a ‘warming’ signal when otherwise, ‘a decline’ would have been evident.
Hadley claims to have done ‘research’ ‘independent’ of NASA, NOAA, etc., but — working with USA ‘cooked’ data, would they have not been driven to extremes to reconcile their results with USA data?
Meanwhile, there *are* indications that at least some on the Hadley Crew knew that the Penn State’s (Mann’s) ‘hockey stick’ was a fabrication, but the information might not have been widely shared amongst the Crew.
So, maddened by their inability to replicate the hockey stick, might they not have been driven to extreme measures to preserve their credibility with the AGW crowd by employing the frightful deviance from scientific discipline that is now apparent to all?
I am not suggesting in the least that any of this involves a moral justification. What I am suggesting is that the USA, by providing corrupted data, and announcing that it’s authoritative, may have prompted any number of ‘bad computing’ efforts around the world to perform bizarre computations to become ‘in synch’ with what the USA data purportedly were saying.
Current investigations are ongoing, new investigations are being demanded, and who knows what the fallout will be. We know in advance that politicians will direct the investigations, and that everything ‘follows the money’.
For now, the money is still on AGW, because the money is actually on who gets to control the use of energy.
But that’s beside my main point. The USA corrupted its data, everyone got on the bandwagon to come up with new explanations for corrupt data, and it’s the USA’s fault.
I apologize, and I’m sure that apology makes no difference.
Actually Schiller no apology will be necessary because the whitewash has began;
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-wholesale-climate-fraud-not-here/story-e6frg6zo-1225819884224
The AP article on 1000 + emails reads as ‘no fraud intended’ despite cohenite’s insinuation of a “whitewash” by the press. Cohenite; a hard case indeed, is also not moved by the fact out of all papers it was the “Australian” that raised the findings here.
Since my earlier post hit the blog reject switch – the following is somewhat a test at this point
Schiller, case you failed to notice, Luke & SJT are not on deck so that leaves me watching blobs bobbing in the wash & clowns frothing round their gills. BTW your last posts must be last gasp too, nothing new nothing on science and empty of original thought. By that I’m insinuating you too are nothing more than a parrot in the rhetoric so common on pseudo climate science blogs.
Spangles, I saved this lot for you after fishing round from your link. Cosmic rays are real enough however I won’t buy the argument they control atmospheric temperature to any extent compared to solar radiation. Note I can cherry pick blogs after Sunday mags too.
January 2009 – Cosmic rays detected deep underground reveal secrets of the upper atmosphere
http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=249
Cosmic weather gauges
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000688
“How noisy naysayers led Fielding on to false path”
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/how-noisy-naysayers-led-fielding-on-to-false-path-20090616-cghf.html
More
Evidence for solar radiation impacts at ground level is easy enough to find as is SL variation due to green house effects on the radiation balance in all regions where terrestrial life exists.
“A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL024826.shtml
“Myth: Sea levels are not rising”
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=361:myth-four-sea-evels-are-not-rising&catid=115:cm2
“Waves in the bathtub”
http://climate.nasa.gov/blogs/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowBlog&NewsID=239
More
“Answers to Key Questions Raised by M. Crichton in State of Fear”
http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm
Rounding up; Tree rings were never more than a guide to CO2, temp etc, early thermometers probably had gross errors including false zeros and latter max min series apart from drifting fluid level were often read high due to poor quality manufacturing, improper routines for sticky floats etc, or inadequate shielding. I contend this lot is the basis for researchers bogging down today in hopeless data sets saved way back by naieve regimes tasked with the record keeping
Note too I have little faith in paleo stuff trotted out as hard scientific evidence of anything in particular then.
“Unfortunately, the research comunity becomes very incestuous, & does not take advantage of wide knowledge in the general community”
Same could be said about blogs but hey from personal experience with various institutions I have developed great faith in the ability of the general community to impact on most places as they commonly seek interaction both ways. For instance the researchers I meet as individuals still have mums, kids, cars, washing machines, tv’s regardless of their origins
“Note too I have little faith in paleo stuff trotted out as hard scientific evidence of anything in particular then.”
gavin,
How do you go on this sort of paleo stuff? This is more accurate than satellites.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
And so is this.
http://www.john-daly.com/
And that CSIRO SL measurement is not too credible when compared with later measurements. As I said earlier, the more so-called SL measurement you get, the more you realise how dubious it really is.
gavin,
Over 2000 years ago the Frisians started building the dykes and polders of Holland and these days 60% of the population live below sea level.
Does that tell you anything about SLR?
Spangled Drongo
Dont forget that the land in southern england has been rising and has been doing so for a long time and evee since the ice load retreated.
It doesnt need one roman example to show this. The coast along southern UK is littered with examples of what was once shore line, is now deep inland. Castles and old fishing villages all miles inland when once they were on the coast
Incestuous, eh; there is no doubt the ‘ideas’ of AGW are inbred so the resident pontificator’s concern with climate science is well-founded; but gavin I find it amusing [actually I find it blood-curdling tedious] that you and many alarmists find that there is nothing corrupt in AGW; I especially find it amusing that you dismiss the “paleo” evidence; AGW would be nothing without the paleo evidence; hasn’t gavin heard of the hockeystick? As a point of interest gavin do you even know what the main technical complaint about Briffa’s hockeystick was; this complaint which has been verified clearly establishes gross incompetence; do you understand it?
Cohenite I see nothing but blog waffle and speculation re Briffa and climate change
Not one cited Dendrochronology expert !
Hey we have this gem from the creation side – “when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault. It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’….”
http://creation.com/tree-ring-dating-dendrochronology
and this from downunder – “Coral growth rings point to bad weather ahead”
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2348/coral-growth-rings-point-bad-weather-ahead
or we could consult the local Fenner school since they have been at it for a while with kauri etc
http://fennerschool-associated.anu.edu.au/environhist/links/publications/anzfh/anzfh2boswijk.pdf
The Indian glacier story just shows what a hick, numbskull group of idiots inhabit the ipcc.
This started out as a yarn from some obscure hayseed talking to another hayseed who passed it on to a stupid science (?) mag and eventually won the endorsment of pauchari the corrupt boss of the ipcc.
One of the hayseeds now says he knows very little about glaciers anyhow.
If it wasn’t such serious corruption we could all get a giggle to lighten our day, instead of steeling ourselves to hand over exhorbitant ammounts of money to pay for this stupid new ets tax that krudd wants to fund his corrupt climate science.
What a bloody farce.
Malcolm,
There seem to be stories that tell it both ways but I always understood that England was rising in the north and west and sinking in the south and east. The fact that there is confusion helps to make my point re SLs.
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=555
Fair dinkum gavin, that’s weak even for you; dedro experts; that’s rich; Briffa’s supposed to be an expert but what did he do? In dendro interpretation thin varves = warm temperatures and thick varves = cool temperatures; Briffa reversed this so that thick became warm and thin cool; this is like saying on a thermometer that 1000C is cold and 0C is warm; not only that but the data itself was reversed or turned upside down so that recent became old and vice versa; it was a schmozzle.
Just what is your point Gavin? We’ve got Gretel rabbiting on about kauri signifying nothing. I looked hard but there was no purpose to your posting. Then there is Octavia and Nerilie the greenies from Cosmos who start their article with..
” Australia may be in for more severe and frequent droughts”……
Pigs may or may not fly.too Gavin ; I hardly read any further because I’m reading alarmist b/s . With articles like this I just count the number of …coulds ,may, expected to, projected to, likely to, should, possibly, probably , might, etc. A link with any of those words is an insult to everybody’s intelligence.
cohennite is on fire over at deltoid.watch em try to keep up.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/roy_spencer_hides_the_increase.php
Thanks for the reference Spangled Drongo.
Absolutely fascinating stuff. The standard line peddled by the natives in the southern england area when questioned as to why such and such is so far from the sea, is that the land has risen, and the cause is the release from the ice over burden.
The old fishing village of Littlehampton is one case in point, plus there is a couple of castles deep inland where the records show that it was a coastal area defensive fort. Hever Castle springs to mind.?
I obviously need to do some more home work.
Al Gore is incommunicado — even on the internet.
He has a blog at http://blog.algore.com/ and hasn’t written a thing in ‘Al’s Journal’ since Jan. 12.
Search in vain for a cogent discussion of the Hadley computer code, the recent release of the NASA emails, or the revelation that NOAA et. al. have been ‘cooking the books’ by ignoring data from sites that don’t indicate warming.
Re Trenberth, the data that don’t indicate warming must be wrong data.
Will Al Gore fall off his horse on the road to Damascus (or wherever he is) and discover a virtue somewhere?
With his Carbon Control Empire in peril, I doubt it…
Good to see this getting local coverage. If only to expose the credibility of “authority” in the debate.[ we all realise of course that in spite of these minor oversights and transgressions that the AGW science is rock solid]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/united-nations-blunder-on-glaciers-exposed/story-e6frg6n6-1225820614171
More on the pachauri fraudster over at WUWT, surely even by the ipcc’s low standards they must get rid of this corrupt numbskull before he inflicts even more damage.
A tasty drop or two for Spangles –
“Jury still out on climate change: CSIRO”
“Australia’s peak science agency, the CSIRO, has backed away from attributing a decade of drought in Tasmania to climate change, claiming ”the jury is still out” on the science”
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/jury-still-out-on-climate-change-csiro/1728307.aspx
“Water resources secure despite climate change”
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/tas/content/2010/01/s2796000.htm
Poor old Gavin, having to rely on the Canberra Times to gain information about Tassie. The CSIRO report mentioned is all about sustainable water supply, as Gavin should know Tasmania has an annual runnoff of 47,000 GL or about 12% of the nation’s fresh water.
The report made a number of comparisons of rain fall including the recent 10 year period ending 31 Dec 2007, the ‘driest decade’.
It is lucky they did not attribute this to climate change, as the Greens Senator, did as the BOM reports:
“After three “dry” years, 2009 was wetter than usual across almost all of Tasmania. Not since 1996 has there been such widespread wet conditions across the state. Several sites in the southeast had their wettest year on record or their wettest year since the 1970s, and some had one and a half times their usual rainfall. Hobart received 862 mm, making it the sixth wettest year since records began in 1882 and the wettest year since 1958. Hobart was also over 100 mm wetter than any other year since 1975, and over 500 mm wetter than 2006 (the driest year on record).”
THe CSIRO modelled sustainable yield under four scenarios, Historic 1924 to 2007, Recent 1997 to 2007, Future (3 alternatives of 2030 using models and IPCC storylines of global warming) and a future devlopment scenario adding to the future climate more irrigation development as well as incleasing forest plantations.
All scenarios excluded the west, the wettest part of Tasmania with over 54% of the rainfall, but basically found as quoted by the ABC, Tasmania’s water resources were secure. Water will remain one of Tasmania’s competitive advantages.
G’day cinders. “It is lucky they (CSIRO) did not attribute this to climate change”
Lucky???? Who said they should? Anyway this was to be a light exchange with SD who I reckon is a bit jealous of all things sweet on the apple isle.
What’s the bet cinders is just selling more chips hey. BTW yours truly still has a big toe hold in the bush well back from the coast just in case climate change is real everywhere else. Also Gunns are keeping me upto date on their developments and I’m very appreciative of the big change in the company rhetoric on many issues.
“Tasmania has an annual runoff of 47,000 GL or about 12% of the nation’s fresh water” and it’s a great place for dams, leeches, spuds, cherries, seagulls, windfarms … windy lookouts …however her grand kids live on the conservative side of Sydney
Southern Aust has been drying out for over 5,000 years, (see Catalyst abc 1,000 year drought) but the sw of WA plus Tassie and Vic are still very wet areas compared to most states.
In fact over the last 100 years SW WA at 644mm is much wetter than WA at 352mm , Vic at 654mm ( line ball) SE Aust 625mm ( slight increase ) SA (increase) haven’t done too badly in this 800 year drought . ( again catalyst De Deckker.)
In fact Tassie and SW WA are the only places to recieve less rainfall in the last 100 years.
“Anyway this was to be a light exchange with SD who I reckon is a bit jealous of all things sweet on the apple isle.”
gavin,
I’ll have you know that I have a definite fondness for that odd and insular little part of the country.
My ancestors arrived there soon after the Napoleonic Wars and I am endeavouring to grow English oaks from the acorns of a tree in front of their Launceston pub.
Qlders have a soft spot for Taswegians in spite of them often coming up here in winter with just a clean shirt and a 10 dollar bill and not changing either.
“They” say the best thing to come out of Tassie is the big ferry but I disagree. Huon pine is one of the wonders of the world.
How many times have skeptics here been castigated for suggesting exactly this?
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/jury-still-out-on-climate-change-csiro/1728307.aspx
is it not time to wind down the hysteria, and to reign in the fear mongers?
hunter,
But that’s not what the warmers were saying just recently.
“http://www.theage.com.au/national/its-not-drought-its-climate-change-say-scientists-20090829-f3cd.html”
” One of the report’s co-authors, hydrologist David Post, told The Canberra Times there was ”no evidence” linking drought to climate change in eastern Australia, including the Murray-Darling Basin.” Quote from the Canberra Times.
That is an accurate statement. You only have to look at the BOM time series rain fall records of the MDB going back over 100 years to see that the absence of water in the MDB, is not caused by the absence of rain.
Indeed the long term trend over that time is that the rain has increased.
Re: Hunter’s of the 29th:-
Drought a result of natural causes, says researcher
December 28, 2006 – 8:00AM
Source: ABC
Drought a result of natural variation in climate: research
Drought a result of natural variation in climate: research
Photo: ABC TV
New research from the CSIRO suggests the current drought is due to natural variation in
climate, not the greenhouse effect.
Barrie Hunt, an honorary research fellow at the CSIRO’s atmospheric research centre in
Melbourne, has studied 10,000 years of climate variability in Australia.
His research shows about 30 periods of drought which occur at random times and he says
the length of each drought does not follow a predictable pattern.
Mr Hunt says this drought is not caused by the greenhouse effect.
“I think it’s probably a bit too early yet to say we’re having a greenhouse effect on rainfall,
rainfall’s a very difficult climatic term to get to grips with,” he said.
“There’s definitely a greenhouse effect on temperature; I’m not sure we’re having one on
rainfall yet.
“This drought will break and it’s important for people to say, ‘Well, I understand that when
the drought breaks, it’s not the greenhouse effect. It’s a load of rubbish, of course – it’s
rained again’.
“Everyone says this thing’s due to the greenhouse effect and therefore they expect it to go
on forever in a way, the naive people do.”
abc logo
Source: Bigpond News 28/12/2006
This was suppressed/ignored in the same way as was the internal Productivity Commission report of 2007 concluding that climate change as not a big economic problem was.
I see the denialist scum that inhabit the blog haven’t gotten any better. What pretentious twaddle – an out of date and semi-retracted comment by a CSIRO retiree – an off the cuff comment by a CSIRO hydrologist somehow is more important than the serious published science on the issue. I see Hill’s up to his usual skunk stats of using the whole MDB area when this is not what the science is saying. Good to see the scientifically illiterate denialist rabble is keeping it up. You’re a credit to your creed creeps. zzzzzzzzzzzz
(I wonder how the Jan MSU anomaly is going …. dum de dum de dum)
Oh good, luke, for a while I thought you had died and been reincarnated as gavin; pity about the CSIRO chap, I suppose he’ll end up like the last poor fellow who bucked the company line:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/clive-spash-resigns-from-csiro-after-climate-report-censorship/story-e6frf7jx-1225806539742
So the university teat suckers are slowly returning from the 5 week holiday – just making a campus appearance are you Luke – no real work starts till late february so I assume you’ll go home and return later when the action starts.
No turd – I’ve been here all along – by who would you distract you guys from your mutual circle jerk and scummy little try-ons and misquotes.
So just for dear Wogers’ edification here’s what Barrie Hunt said in the Age – (Never trust a denialist !)
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/rain-wont-end-our-problems-climate-expert/2006/12/28/1166895421393.html
Luke,
……”somehow more important than the serious published science on the issue”
serious published science?!!! Aaahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Like hockey sticks , Briffa tree ring data, etc you mean? All that fudged ,manipulated ,corrupted stuff you call AGW science Luke?
Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Real serious Aahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
No comparison to the puerile fabricated twaddle that denialist scum peddle. Never trust a denialist.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/
hohohohohohoho !
endless denialist nonsense.
No comparison to the purile fabricated twaddle that alarmist scum peddle.
Never trust an alarmist.
So are you subjecting us to another year of endless alarmist nonsense Luke?
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/19/quote-of-the-week-26/
This week’s quote is prescient and entertaining at the same time. I predict it will be repeated on the blogosphere hundreds if not thousands of times.
Comment left on Lucia’s Blackboard by Kusigrosz:
“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather kills people”.
Seen on Dr Clam’s accidental blog.
Shortened, it flows better:
“Climate doesn’t kill people. Weather does.”
And then in comments
Alexander Feht (19:38:27) :
People didn’t kill climate change. Weather did
My god the vexatious bloggerant is back. Probably out on day release from his psychiatric hospital.
As for the MDB, it is very strange science indeed that cannot accomodate the real life data and what it is has clearly been saying over the last 110 years..but then given the events of late, nothing surprises me.
I suppose now you are going to quote Hennesey et al back at me ….Dont bother
BTW Walker dont forget to put in your application to the Australian Regulatory Authority on Climate Change. The dopes that dreamt that up are going to need all the village idiots they can muster.
From
http://climateresearchnews.com/
“Obama’s Climate Socialism Voted Down in Massachusetts
Republican Scott Brown has won a shock victory in the race for the US Senate seat in Massachusetts left vacant by Democrat Edward Kennedy’s death.
The Republican win has robbed the Democrats of their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate.
The BBC’s Paul Adams, in Boston, says Ms Coakley’s defeat is a humiliating blow for the Democrats and their agenda, and a deeply unwelcome anniversary present for President Obama a year after his inauguration.
CRN comment: It’s appropriate that this Republican victory should take place in the former senate seat of deceased climate alarmist Ted Kennedy. Hopefully, the loss of Obama’s filibuster-proof 60-seat senate majority will hamper crazy ‘climate’ policies such as ‘cap and trade.’
January 20th, 2010 | Tags: Climate Policy | Category: News, Opinion | Leave a comment ”
Interesting times ahead here!!!
Lindzen and Choi’s paper showing a drastically reduced climate sensitivity with ocean and atmosphere heating being balanced by increased OLR and negative SWR feedback is, if validated, a death-blow to AGW. It is not surprising that there is a disconcerted effort to attack its findings; luke’s RC link quotes with favour “agwobserver” where this is said:
“First part is correct, the nonfeedback change is the direct response I described above. But it is the second part here that is wrong. ΔSWR/ΔT is basically the change in the albedo of the Earth, it is the amount of change in the reflected sunlight. ΔOLR/ΔT is the change in OLR. Now, when the SST changes, it directly affects the amount of OLR, but L&C are suggesting here that it has a direct opposite effect of equal size to the reflected sunlight. Why would Earth’s reflectance change directly in accordance to changes in SST? There is a known feedback effect that affects the reflectance; the amount of high level clouds changes and causes a negative feedback, but remember that here we are not dealing with feedbacks yet, we are dealing with direct response. What direct response a warming event in SST could cause Earth to reflect more sunlight? That is what L&C are claiming here. Perhaps the reflecting properties of sea surface changes when it warms? Perhaps the reflecting properties of clouds change when the warmer thermal radiation from sea surface hits them? There might be some minor effects like that but L&C claim that they are of equal size to the change in OLR”
There are 2 things wrong with this; firstly high level cloud is a positive feedback because high level cloud passes SW but blocks outgoing LW; 2ndly, the direct response to warming over the tropical oceans is an increase in evaporation and low-level cloud formation which increases albedo; cloud data shows this happening.
A related part of the L&C critique is the Clements et al paper which is being touted as proof that low level cloud is a +ve feedback;
http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/observational-and-model-evidence-for-positive-low-level-cloud-feedback.pdf
From the abstract:
“The only model that passed this test simulated a reduction in cloud cover over
much of the Pacific when greenhouse gases were increased, providing modeling evidence for a
positive low-level cloud feedback.”
That’s right the only evidence of low-level cloud being a +ve feedback is less low-level cloud. Lindzen is going to reply to the peer reviewed O’Dell et al critique; I wouldn’t crow yet luke.
Hill – you don’t even know the right researcher – you goose !
Mack – what alarmist nonsense have I peddled to you exactly?
The scandal over ‘cooking the books’ at the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) is growing. Selective deletion of temperature records from over 70 percent of stations globally has resulted in a ‘warming signal’ that warmists have been touting for decades.
Fortunately, the US has laws which make it a crime to delete/destroy/falsify official records. It’s only a matter of time before some AGW ‘scientist’ is hustled to a holding cell pending a prosecution involving the hoodwinking of non-skeptics and the waste of billions of dollars.
But inquiring minds really want to know: is Luke performing an auto-tonsillectomy, picking his teeth, biting his nails, massaging his gums, trying a ‘Vulcan mind-meld’ on himself, struggling with a split personality (one of which is bent on suicide), pulling out his dentures, replacing his dentures, removing an obstruction from his esophagus, attempting to induce emesis, being assaulted by an intimate partner, or what?
Luke, gavin etc can rave on forever, all day and every day screaming their fantasist claptrap but it won’t alter the facts.
Even if you believe the alarmist drivel that co2 is dangerously warming the planet there is nothing we can do to turn the dial to cool.
In an article in the Aust on 27/ 7/09 Keith Orchison claims govts around the world have been repeatedly warned by the IEA that” even if the entire OECD countries collectively reduce their GHG emissions to ZERO ( YES ZERO) by 2030 they cannot put the world on track to achieve stabilisation of co2 levels in the atmosphere at 450 ppm.”
He calls this a gobsmacking message, but the non OECD countries are heading towards a collective volume of emissions of more than 25 billion tonnes a year by 2030, compared to 15 billion tonnes for the OECD countries.
As I’ve said here before, if you believe in this nonsense you must give a real PRACTICAL alternative and demonstrate how you can even begin to turn the dial back to cool.
To me we are left with only one blindingly obvious choice, NEW TECHNOLOGY.
If an overdone Tesla electric roadster can travel 500 klms on one charge surely govts around the world can throw a fraction of those soon to be wasted trillions on sequestration etc and fast track new nano battery technology.
Surely we must look more closely at latest generation nuclear, geothermal and check out algae harvesting to see whether it could ever be part of the answer.
Anyhow Luke give us your thoughts, what is the answer and PLEASEEEZ concede that reducing our emissions by 10% or 20% or 30% will only delay the increase by days or months.
Neville,
Your notion of new, more efficient technologies is very appealing.
Actually, it’s been an appealing notion since just prior to the Stone Age. Fairly apparent.
What I don’t get is your notion of “turn the dial back to cool.” That’s the persistently missing element in this whole wretched debate.
Is cooler really better? Do we really *not* want things warmer? According to the historical record, past ice ages were really not very nice for plants or animals.
So — assuming we actually have a hand on the Global Thermostat, what would we rather do? Warmer or colder?
For sake of argument, I assert that the Medieval Optimum was pretty good, and since it was warmer than now, we should work towards achieving that climate once again. *That’s* what climatologists ought to be working on, if anything.
Neville, what say you?
P.S. Now that I look more closely at Luke’s picture, it appears he is doing that famous hallucinogenic thing with a cane toad. You can see its nose peeking out.
Schiller you’re addressing Neville the devil’s advocate, I’m not saying cool is better or that we can literally change the weather/ climate, in fact I probably agree with your take on things.
But I don’t believe in static technology either, I’m sure we will change our energy mix overtime.
BTW the result in Ted’s old seat overnight just shows what happens when a leader or govt gets too far ahead of public opinion on an issue, like health or perhaps in the future very steep increases in the cost of energy.
I would like to see the look on Ted’s nephew robert’s face after this result, he must be the most stupid fool I have ever seen interviewed on AGW.
It would not matter who you quoted back at me Walker the simple fact is that the real world measures of rain falling across this collection bowl called the MDB which dominates the southern part of Australia is not contestable. That was the point being made.
Unless of course the BOM has also been fiddling the books
Neville,
You’re right, I was being a bit of a devil’s advocate there for a while. I’m sure you don’t advocate a colder climate.
Fact is, I have not heard even the most ardent warmist advocate making things colder. That simple fact is the most salient in ‘the debate’. The warmists don’t actually want a colder planet, they just want everything else. A subsidy for this, a study for that, votes for so-and-so, and the list goes on.
But, amidst all the shrill proclamations, where is the advocacy for the best temperature and how to get us there?
That’s where ‘the debate’ should be, where it should have been all along, and after these decades of debate, we haven’t come close to even addressing the most obvious issue.
It’s time to consider that there should be some AGW advocates out there.
By that, I mean, people who are in favor of a warmer planet. Funny thing — those people haven’t shown up at ‘the debate’, either.
Bottom line — if nobody wants a colder planet, or a warmer planet, what the heck are we all arguing about?
Schiller will be back going on about his beloved “darkies” soon. How we know you matey. Pure politics boyo – no substance. On true denialist turds would try to spin that the world has not warmed.
Hill – SEACI has well unravelled the severe rainfall decline in the southern part of the MDB – a thing called “the Murray”. We await your critique of that research – which being a ranter – you haven’t read. Similarly good work on the SW WA rainfall decline has done the same. Nothing like seeing a true blue ideologue like yourself in full denial.
I couldn’t help but notice a 30 year milestone – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/mean:12
Hmm – has the world cooled? Duh – gee dat’s a hard question. Hmmmm I wonder what Jan 2010 will look like …..
Luke as you well know southern Aust has been drying out for 5,000 plus years, so what has this got to do with the AGW fantasy?
What if Jan comes in higher, so what does that prove. only that the SH has been warmer for a month, then what if Feb comes in cooler?
I’m still waiting for your diagnosis about the climate and what would an all powerful dictator luke do to fix the problem if he had complete control for say the next ten years?
What an utterly stupid non-analysis Neville. If it’s drying why is Malcolm telling you there is no trend eh?
So you’re now deciding detailed mechanistic studies on recent changes in STR and SAM are beaten by a TV show on long time scale phenomena (unpublished). Good lord.
And de Dekker himself says in the last line of the interview … “and then the unknown is, what is the greenhouse effect?”
January temps can’t be high Neville – you lot have told me we’re in a cooling trend – hahahahahahaha
Dear Luke,
Welcome back. Just to bring you up to speed, I can now reveal all.
Due to political stability, oil sales, and rising incomes, there has been an increase in refrigerators, air-conditioners, and flush toilets in east Timor. This has resulted in cool water flowing into the Timor Sea, and the cooler SST has led to lower humidity in the flume from north-west to south-east Australia. This low humidity gives greater heating as the flume pases over the Red Heart. Hence drought and heat waves in south-eastern Australia, and the occasional burst of heat in south-western Australia, when a trough forms on the coast, and the wind turns north-easterly. Don’t even mention the bushfires.
Prince William told me this on his recent visit, and he got it from his dad, who takes a great interest in such things. I will pass the economic details on to Professor Garnaud (Garnaut? Garbo? Garbage?) – can’t remember the dratted feller’s name.
All the best for 2010,
Your Uncle Davey
P.S. How did things go in Copenhagen?
Luke you are beyond stupid, 99% of the population look only at the last 150 years and that certainly shows a slight trend of increasing rainfall in the MDB, SE Aust, SA but not in Tas or SW WA.
Who knows perhaps Tassie’s wettest winter in 100 years (2009) may lead to a trend to higher rainfall.
You do understand what mean or average stands for don’t you, there are 12 months in a year, so what if some trend down and others up, what rule is broken?
Also you still haven’t told us how you would react to CC if you had the authority to do so, come on show us how to move the dial back to the pre industrial ( 1750 to 1800) climate nirvana.
Davey,
The name is Guano. And Luke believes that southern Aus has only been drying since cockies and squatters have been asking for susso.
Luke,
Here’s your big chance, take up Neville’s challenge and tell us what your solution is to that big, 1/4 degree global problem.
[if I ruled the world…….every day would be the dum, dum, de dum….]
Spangles,
Thanks for correcting me on Guano. Is that the batty or booby variety?
In my search for hard data, I am keeping a graph of the number of times key words are mentioned on the ABC news. ‘Haiti’ is, of course’ well ahead at present, and ‘climate’ has almost disappeared – no cooling towers, cracked mud, polar bears, or melting icebergs for days. The word ‘republic’ has popped up briefly, with a quick denial by Julia. However, I suspect ‘republic’ will soon replace ‘climate’ as a favorite ABC topic, once ‘Haiti’ dies down. I have not yet seen any claim that the Haiti earthquake was a result of climate change, but we can always blame the monarchy. Poor old ‘Osama’ has dropped off the radar altogether. I’ll bet it’s cold up in those mountains, what with the northern hemisphere ‘cold snap’. Perhaps he has drowned in a melting glacier. Everything’s connected to everything, y’know.
Green Davey, I believe Danny Glover blamed the Haitian earthquake on AGW;
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pact_with_gaia/
Good grief…
Davey,
Last night the ABC 7.30 report gave us the story of Obama’s 1st anniversary with all the glit and glam. After that ended they brought us the story of the MA senate election. In the US the two stories are being combined in order to get things in proper perspective.
Obamania is still alive and well at the ABC.
Well Neville – the reason you’re a dumb denialist hick is that you never read any serious literature. Believe what you like doofus.
” Luke believes that southern Aus has only been drying since cockies and squatters have been asking for susso” – no that’s just more horseshit nonsense from a moronic denialist too thick to even discuss the issues properly.
“Here’s your big chance, take up Neville’s challenge and tell us what your solution is to that big, 1/4 degree global problem.” – never said it was an easy problem as Copenhagen failure well illustrates. So I suppose in the denialist mind if the problem is difficult then the science must be wrong. That’s intelligent – not !
Neville, sorry but you’re wasting your time with Luke. I tried to get him to commit to an optimum temp last year but he just squirmed and whined and couldn’t come up with an answer. I totally agree with your previous comments and may I remind you that even Luke is a fan of new generation nuclear.
BTW, does anyone know why the “powers that be” use 1960-1990 as the benchmark for temp anomolies?
“no that’s just more horseshit nonsense from a moronic denialist too thick to even discuss the issues properly.”
You mean like you do?
If you were denied the word denialist you couldn’t hold a conversation.
Derek; the use of adjusted data referenced to a base period to generate anomalies has in my opinion been one of the most controversial and contentious aspects of AGW; personally I do not see why data has to be anomalised at all; the main excuse for doing it is that it allows a global mean standard temperature to be generated; the concept of a GMST has been critiqued in this paper:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globa…
And one of the best analyses of the deficiencies of a GMST is to be found here;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/spatial-va…
What lucia did was look at the regional effect of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and how regional effects defeat the supposed worth of changes in GMST as an indicator of AGW. To me there is no reason why particular location temperature histories based on raw data cannot tell their story unaffected by manipulation; if comparisons between locations and even regions are to be done that can simply be done on an averaged basis without resorting to the fable of a GMST.
The best refuatation of anomalies is here:
http://justdata.wordpress.com/2009/12/28/step-by-step-debunking-climate-change/
Sorry, that first link did not come out; here it is again;
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/GlobTemp.JNET.pdf
I thought so , all those endless years of luke’s arguments are of course a total fraud, when he’s asked the simple question he can’t event attempt an answer.
He stoutly believes in AGW but can’t tell us why or what you could achieve by following his rhetoric, little wonder these fanatics collapse and throw in the towell at the first hurdle.
” squirmed and whined and couldn’t come up with an answer” – well what a stupid question in the first place?
Why do the powers “that be” use 1960 etc as a benchmark. Agreed old WMO standard. If you used a new one every year you would have no basis for comparison. But use any period in a single analysis – matters little. and the old GMST debate – snore – how boring – it’s merely and index. For heavens sake. One day you lot argue about something serious. Until then zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Spanglers despite much serious discussion you guys are just like dogs returning to your vomit. You never listen, never read anything, repeat the same old disproven rebutted crap over and over. Why bother explaining it all again – it’s in the archives – it’s more satisfying reminding you that you’re a dickhead.
The difference between the raw data and the anomalies is that with the raw data there is no warming trend; with the anomalies there is only a minor warming trend inconsistent with AGW theory; it is really quite irritating that all this upheavel and garbage is being based on some statistical manipulation.
I absolutely agree Cohenite
It doesnt get any more sillier than with the use of the MDB figures.
Anomalies based upon 61-90 base is about as useful as tits on a bull, when you can use a base of 110 years.Why compromise your analysis by using base that is 1/5th of the available data.
Who gives a stuff about an international comparisons and so called standards when the data is used only for national management and policy.
Thats why the BOM time series graphs based upon the actual absolute data is so revealing.
There should be more.
There..that will stir the vexatious one into a frenzy.
Cohenite,
There is another difference ‘between the raw data and … statistical manipulation’ to which you refer.
It’s the same as the difference between the Bulk Media and the internet.
Netizens are accustomed to finding raw data where available, and processing it on their own terms. Bulk Media consumers, on the other hand, prefer their information predigested, like Pablum.
To find the data are ‘cooked’ is instantly, almost reflexively, offensive to netizens (with some exceptions). Bulk Media, on the other hand, are in the business of cooking data. After all, they’re selling advertising.
Then there are the odd hybrids out there, such as Luke, a netizen who prefers his data cooked — nearly burnt to the bone, as it were.
Luke will likely protest that the ‘cooked’ data he relies upon have been ‘peer-reviewed’, but the Climategate emails reveal that ‘peer review’ in that sector means: ‘reviewed by your good buddies and pals.’
On second thought, Luke will likely protest with foul language and misdirection.
But that’s quite valuable to the rest of us: AGWers are a foul-mouthed, hysterical breed, and we need to get used to it.
I’ve just sent an email to Senator Judith Troeth who crossed the floor to vote with the govt on the ets last time and seems to want to do so again.
She is retiring at the next election and seems happy to inflict this economic madness on the Aussie battlers, all pain and zero gain.
I’ve given her the same challenge as luke asking her how our ets will change the climate or in krudd’s/ wong’s words save the Murray, Kakadu, Great barrier reef and bring an end to the drought.
I see luke is as timid as ever, he can spend years sprouting foul abuse trying to mask his lack of argument and principle’ but when asked to give his answer to AGW ( I mean luke it must be a REAL PROBLEM SURELY ) he can’t even produce one timid solution.
He must give a clear and concise answer or he really is the most contemptible and foul fraudster in blog history.
It appears that Gavin has stopped posting since Luke has returned.
Something for those of the “settled science” to chew on:
“It is at this “stitching together” layer of science—one could call it a “meta-discipline”— that the principles of the scientific method have broken down. Reading through the Climate-gate emails, one can see members of that community usually those with slightly different experience and wisdom than the power-brokers questioning (as they should) this “stitching together” process, particularly with regard to the extremely subtle mathematical methods that need to be used to try to extract answers. Now, these mathematical and statistical methods are completely within my own domain of expertise; and I can testify that the criticisms are sensible, carefully thought-out, and completely valid; these are good scientists, asking the right questions.
So what reception do they get? Instead of embracing this diversity of knowledge— thanking them for their experience (no one knows everything about everything) and using that knowledge to improve their own calculations—these power-brokers of climate science instead ignore, fob off, ridicule, threaten, and ultimately black-ball those who dare to question the methods that they—the power-brokers, the leaders—have used. And do not be confused: I am here talking about those scientists within their own camps, not the “skeptics” which they dismiss out of hand.
This is not “climate science”, it is climate ideology; it is the Church of Climatology.
It is this betrayal of the principles of science—in what is arguably the most important public application of science in our lifetime—that most distresses scientists.”
I note that Christine Milne has made a plea on the ABC’s Drum website
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2798589.htm
read the comments :):):)
I believe Alan Jones is responsible for the huge public turnaround on the CC issue. Next Monday morning he will be interviewing Lord Monckton again! He has been lambasting the AGW movement every morning over the past week.
Just booked a table at the Monckton debate luncheon at the Hilton Brisbane nect friday.
Anyone else going??
welcome back Luke
Janama; yours truly has just had a lump of rusty steel removed from the good eye with an electric drill by a mob of fumbling docs in casualty. Apparently it’s been there for a few days hence the counter engineering. This should go to prove there are other activities in retirement besides endlessly attacking denialist blogs.
I noticed between other chores though Cohenite persists in his blog based homework and Spangles follows on in his own way despite my attempts to enlighten all with some history on the measurement scene.
Schiller; it occurred to me while reading your post that I expect my late breakfast to be in part made up from selected processed whole grains rather than the rough as found in the wild
cheers
ah gavin, so that’s why you’ve failed to observe the obvious, that AGW is dead 🙂
Gavin,
“Spangles follows on in his own way despite my attempts to enlighten all with some history on the measurement scene.”
When are you going to start enlightening us Gavin???
Cohenite,
have you seen the recent Chinese paper on pan evap?? Lukefartard is oging to squeal!!!
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/01/20/hydrocycle-looking-better-than-ever/
OK Gavin. Here’s a little nudge. Explain this measurement issue!!
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/do-%e2%80%9cadjustments%e2%80%9d-lead-to-a-warming-bias/
Hi kuhnkat; thanks for that; Stewart Franks has a possible explanation;
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/news/2009/11/flawsrevealedinclimatechangeresearch.html
And other Australian researchers, Roderick and Farquhar, have noted the same thing;
http://www.rsbs.anu.edu.au/Profiles/Graham_Farquhar/documents/271RodericketalPanreviewIGeogCompass2009_000.pdf
This means that Paltridge and the view that overall SH is declining must be right; and therein Miskolczi.
This guy is worth supporting;
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/serving_it_hot_to_the_warmists/
Over at Bolt’s blog he relates that krudd donated $1 million to the pachauri fraudster and fell for the Himilayan glacier story along with garnaut.
Will these fools now apologise to the Aust people for peddling lies and misinformation?
Did anyone go round topping up pan levels routinely with an eyedropper? No we use a kitchen jug to refresh the bone dry beaker every time a reading is made
As one who says the death rate amongst large mature tree specimens growing in isolated patches out on the farms is a good indicator of climate change, you can all do pan evaporation science as you like till the cows come home. This is a very sloppy instrument indeed for referencing sunshine, temperature, relative humidity, soil moisture or even major disturbances on the main runway at Canberra airport. The thing can’t be calibrated or maintained at present in some universal standard with like kind anywhere in the world.
Cohenite; Many variables have to be isolated and researched independently before we can arrive at meaningful trends with this one.
Several old timers have correctly guessed that in the general field of scientific measurement I can stretch a yarn with the best but here is the difference and it’s about the respect that one has for the practical skill that makes any work place event a proper one. It’s faith built on experience not religion that is important in our acceptance of all manual skills.
Today when I submitted the good eye to a smart young medico with a battery operated Dremel with spinning router bit, we had been through the formalities of mutual recognition. Needless to say we had an audience and that’s about training within the peer group on the day. Hand to eye hey!
My initial training in wet web evaporation techniques also leaves me in some doubt about the usefulness of old pan data even as a guide to climate on the whole. Wind speed and RH must be tied to volume loss at the temperatures of the fluid as the heat source changes. Any error in levels will definitely muck the calcs.
BTW did anybody notice the ANU team were firm on warming?
Thanks cohenite
Nev; Bolt’s blog? Oh!
“BTW did anybody notice the ANU team were firm on warming?”
You are a goose gavin; the significance of the Roderick paper and reduced evaporation generally is discussed here;
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/pan-evaporation-trends-and-its-relation-to-the-diagnosis-of-global-warming-comments-on-a-new-article-by-roderick-et-al-2009/
Kooky Kat – yawn – we knew about the evap story before you were hatched.
Now I wonder why wind run is down …. do de doo de dooo
However I have done plenty of process analysis based on either max or min turning points as they outline the limits of particular variables in analogue form. It’s also necessary to say step functions what ever their cause defy analysis in ordinary terms
Cohenite; please don’t put up endless links to articles you don’t quite understand.
By not associating pan loss trends with RH and a few other factors like dew point, you get nothing on the effective temp or climate change. Do some of the work yourself or shut up hey
What amuses me most is the audacity of these commentators in not considering the obvious like the current 40C heatwave affecting Sydney and the fact I’m sitting typing in only a loin cloth after another long day in the high 30’s. Lets count the human impact another way. How many extra heat waves do we need this summer? How about a review of SST in the Tasman?
Another fact, there are no mothers of babes on blogs carrying the candle for your lot because they are too busy keeping up with homemade ice
I’m also watching tennis on 7 for the duration
Well it proves there are two of them Janama and Cohers….. the old codger with a screw loose and the puerile youngster with a foul mouth. Same mentality; different age.
Oh, that’s great, being lectured by a buffoon in a loin cloth; the only dew point around here gavin is between your ears.
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/u-n-abandons-copenhagen-deadline-countries-not-signing-on/#more-15465
Leon Brozyna (22:22:49) :
“Those that can, do…
Those that can’t, become bureaucrats and tell people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and if it is permitted to do it…
And in the surreal world the UN inhabits, its little hamster critters will keep on furiously racing in their little wheel, going nowhere and with nothing to show for all their frantic motions, except for promises to have another meeting.
After the Mexico meeting, hold the next meeting in Moscow … in January 2011.”
A description of a regular poster here – and it isn’t me
Correction to above
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/u-n-abandons-copenhagen-deadline-countries-not-signing-on/#more-15465
Leon Brozyna (22:22:49) :
“Those that can, do…
Those that can’t, become bureaucrats and tell people what to do, when to do it, how to do it, and if it is permitted to do it…
And in the surreal world the UN inhabits, its little hamster critters will keep on furiously racing in their little wheel, going nowhere and with nothing to show for all their frantic motions, except for promises to have another meeting.
After the Mexico meeting, hold the next meeting in Moscow … in January 2011.”
A description of a regular poster here ??? – and it isn’t me
Sorry Gavin and Luke,
I’m finally reduced to ad-hom attacks on you.
I need to take a break….
WUWT has hansen’s latest “hottest decade on record” BS and reposted Bob Tisdale’s earlier post giving his version of this nonsense.
OT but it’s interesting reading Dick Condon’s ” Out Of The West” ( 2002) and his mention of the Horror Years 1900 to 1945 in the western division of NSW, when the worst droughts on record ( only about seven years average rainfall or slightly above) battered this area covering 41% of NSW.
He also claims studies show that winds were more of a problem then than now. ( much windier he says)
Of course he mentions the period up to publication (2002) as being a much easier existence than that of the earlier years, less severe wind problems and higher rainfall.
This shows up in the Qld govt publication ” Pasture Degradation and Recovery In Australian Rangelands” ( 2004) and there certainly has been a good recovery in nearly all of the rangelands studied. Most have better rainfall now ( on average) than the earlier record.
This latest piece of news is difficult to interpret.
“Past decade warmest ever, NASA data shows”, New York Times, Jan. 22,
http://news.cnet.com/Past-decade-warmest-ever,-NASA-data-shows/2100-11395_3-6250415.html
Here’s NOAA’s press release on the topic:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100121_globalstats.html
Since this warming signal doesn’t seem to be generated from raw satellite or ocean data, it must be that NOAA/GISS are using the cherry-picked land-based thermometer data to generate ‘adjustments’ to the other data.
Or?
If these people don’t continue generating the same ‘hot’ numbers, that would be like pleading guilty to blackmail. So they continue.
breaking news…
The UK Commons Science and Technology Committee has just announced an inquiry into the CRU at East Anglia, demanding to know:
— What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
— Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
— How independent are the other two international data sets?
Now, friends and others, the independence of the international data sets is quite a good question, because US Congressman Joe Barton (R-Texas) “is pressing Energy Secretary Steven Chu for information about department ties to the U.K. climate institute at the center of the controversy over the infamous hacked climate science emails”.
Interestingly, he’s following the money trail to the CRU from the US Dept. of Energy. Which, as we all know, means that the scent of fraud — and, maybe, racketeering — is in the air.
Everything after this will be determined by whether public prosecutors have the political cojones to put the fraudsters in chains. But things are looking good!
Links:
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology.cfm
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/77519-barton-presses-energy-department-on-climate-science-emails
You know what you’re going to find Schiller – nothing. You’ve been puffing up the volume for years and have achieved nothing.
It’s pretty obvious that grubs like you will do anything to stop all environmental science. History will judge conspiratorial creeps like yourself harshly.
Reality is that sceptics have done climate science a massive disservice. History will reveal it take years to repair the damage done by vile and evil sceptic creeps.
Just ponder what you’re saying – in this one area of science – there is a massive international conspiracy that links multiple institutions. Just say it – go on …
Beggars belief.
Neville – you’re not very bright are you.
(1) is anyone saying that there are not natural causes of climate variation and drought
(2) would the existence of AGW suddenly makes these causes stop
(3) might AGW and natural causes interact
(4) would one look for mechanistic physical climate reasons that some recent drought patterns have been influenced or attributed to AGW. Note I did not say “all”
(5)Wouldn’t take you too much to see that there is a “reasonable” case for AGW to have changed SAM, STR, and the Walker circulation.
Of course that requires a modicum of intelligence and inquiry vis a vis reading prosaic anecdotes and sensationalist blog drivel.
Of course we’d be hoping far too much for that.
Frankly the complexity of what you’re dealing with is above your intellectual ability. And your rapidity to dismiss the science with no personal research simply shows you’re just another denialist.
Well, between Gavin’s dementia and Luke’s foul mouth say-nothing comments this blog is no longer worth the visit.
Pity! It was, for me, quite eye opening and educational, thanks JM.
See you all.
Luke,
You’ve read before what I’ve said about conspiracy; just because a bunch of dogs go after the same bone doesn’t mean the dogs have a plot.
As for your attempt to score ‘scientific’ ‘points’ against Neville, everyone knows that ‘might’ and ‘would one look’ and so forth have nothing to do with causality.
In the physical sciences, such as climatology, one deals with causes and effects. Speculation is fine, but in the end, one must offer proof in such a manner that others may replicate it as described.
Pictures of floating bears and accusations of ‘drivel’ and ‘creep’ are equally worthless contributions to climatology.
What constantly astounds me is that AGWers and those of a similar stripe continually appear to take themselves seriously, and to suffer no embarrassment whatsoever, when contradicted, or when found to be grossly uncivil in their discourse.
It occurs to me that those who have convinced themselves that they ‘speak on behalf of’ the planet, etc., can excuse themselves of any moral trespass whatsoever.
Moronic drivel Schiller. Simply moronic. But you are a denialist aren’t you. Will be a red letter day if we EVER get something touching on a science comment from you. Time for your DDT milkshake isn’t it. How’s your concern for “darkies” going these days?
It is clear that Luke is after the last foul word on this retiring thread. I won’t stand for that, in the name of Jen I will defeat you.
University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu, recently had a paper published in the prestigious Physics Reports and it offers a new perspective on the debate.
Lu claims the warming from the middle of last century to 2001 was caused by CFCs not CO2. This is fine, but then he goes on to say that the elimination of CFCs will make the world cooler over the next 50 years.
This fellow is starting up his own gravy train.
cohenite,
“This means that Paltridge and the view that overall SH is declining must be right; and therein Miskolczi.”
Yup. I’ve started irritating people by asking them to explain the observations since they don’t understand his math!!
Gavin,
“Did anyone go round topping up pan levels routinely with an eyedropper? No we use a kitchen jug to refresh the bone dry beaker every time a reading is made”
Thanks for demonstrating that you are IGNORANT when it comes to measurement!!!
The important measurement of the pan is the DELTA in the level. Unless the pan is almost empty how much is refilled is meaningless!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I guess it is too late to tell you mommy not to let you sniff the broken mercury thermometers!!
Lukefartard,
“Kooky Kat – yawn – we knew about the evap story before you were hatched.
Now I wonder why wind run is down …. do de doo de dooo”
Careful, I think your ware doo dooing in you pants!!
The wind is run down?? Why just a while ago you were screaming at us that AGW, then Climate Change, meant all kinds of violent WIND EVENTS!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
When you come up with some kind of consistent theory you WILL let us know won’t you??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
But lukey a major part ( krudd and wong) of the fantasist’s argument is that droughts are longer and somehow AGW must be the cause.
I mean don’t you read , listen to or watch the msm or do you just have this amazing selective attention span or are you just plain dumb?
All these things have come to pass before the invention of AGW, I’ve just tried to explain how one expert on a large chunk of NSW (Condon) can call a near half century the horror years and you carry on like a first class twit.
Trouble is these horror years occurred at the wrong time to suit your silly arguments.
My argument is consistant you numbskull, I believe in natural CC while you hystericly cling to your AGW dummy.
As I’ve said before subtract the planet’s recovery from the LIA and your argument is left floundering, especially when we have such dubious climate keeping records.
The shrill insults increase as the warmers spiral backwards down the plughole. Meanwhile Marc Sheppard sums it up well:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
From WUWT
kuhnkat; luke is a fan of ‘stilling’; purported decreases in wind globally;
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL035627.shtml
This allegedly is caused by AGW and explains the decrease in pan evap; sort of puts the kibitz on wind power though, not to mention gore’ s assertions of increased storm activity.
And we all know that the warmers’ agenda is not about the science but more about getting square with and getting rid of their fellow man.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
cohers,
This stilling has been apparent and factual since the late 1970s and luckily, by being aware of this I was able to optimise a racing yacht design and win several international offshore series in the Pacific during the eighties.
The penalty for the extra sail area was not enough to off-set the extra speed it provided.
Nowadays every boat has a big rig but back in the “wild days” you could rarely use it and had to always suffer the penalty.
Well, SD, anyway you look at it there are homeostatic mechanisms in place; if AGW is right then ‘stillness’ occurs which reduces evap, less water at crucial atmospheric levels and therefore cooling; all hail Miskolczi; if I had a lazy $50k I’d sponsor Miskolczi to oversee a replication of his experiments and confirm his theory.
Kooky Kat – Gee we never thought of that one. Wow ! That about finishes us off. Major changes in world circulation patterns – probably nothing. zzzzzzzzzz
And what I did agree with was less major storms but of higher energy dissipation.
Neville – mind numbingly stupid – you didn’t absorb ANYTHING !! You are thick as a post. But most denialists are.
“is that droughts are longer and somehow AGW must be the cause.” WRONG ! Of course 1940s was perhaps the first AGW influenced drought.
“Recovery” from LIA – what fanciful crap.
Cohers – why do you bother with these goobers? You’re the only one with any nous.
“You’re the only one with any nous”; not at all luke; good old Bernard J thinks this:
“Cohenite is either even more confused than I had previously thought, or he is a greater master of mendacious misrepresentation of scientific fact than even one as cynical as I had given him credit for.”
I think I’ll frame that, or put it on my business card; in his usual turgid fashion Bernard J even allows for the possibility for both:
“Whichever of the alternatives (and they are not mutually exclusive) is the case,”
I’m stoked; I really enjoy the odd [sic] foray into Deltoid.
Luke – stop trying the old divide and conquer trick. Cohenite won’t be won over with flattery.
How do you argue with a nong who just makes things up as he goes along.
We’re told now that the 1940’s drought could be the result of AGW, GEEEZZZ even the ipcc idiots only credit the AGW effect to be post 1950, what a dumb bum.
I’m using historical facts, but this fool throws in any wild looney nonsense from left field the moment he gets painted into yet another corner.
The consensus says the little ice age ended around 1850 and unless we’ve all missed something the planet gradually started to warm.
That’s unless we morphed into a Medium ice age, but I don’t think even this dumb bum would try to sell us that one.
Anyhow dummy even by the ipcc idiots estimate droughts, floods, temp were entirely natural for the next 100 years and certainly wouldn’t have caused the 1940’s drought.
This is the same creative nong who will fight in the gutter for his beloved AGW fantasy, but hasn’t the guts to explain how we could practically fix this most important problem facing the planet. WHAT A MORONIC WHACKO.
““Recovery” from LIA – what fanciful crap.”
Well waddaya know! The LIA just didn’t happen!
Imagine if that were the case, the warmers wouldn’t have any upward variation to scream about.
Following Schiller’s comments re “Past decade warmest ever” it seems the Science Daily is more up to date than most on the wider AGW issue
“Worldwide Nitrogen Deficit Constrains Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Plants”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121164209.htm
Same page
“Ice Is ‘Rotten’ in the Beaufort Sea”
Avoiding wiki for our perspective btw I insist your MWP & LIA did not exist
“The Past 100 Years: Putting the 20th Century in Perspective”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/cliihis100a.html
The ice core record
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
One down (Marcus) not many left hey. Sorry Luke but I put cohenite in the same basket as jo nova. Not an original fact between them.
back to tennis
“The Past 100 Years: Putting the 20th Century in Perspective”
you’ve got no idea Gavin – you post a page that quotes Mann et al (2002)
Well Neville – you certainly are a prize goober.
You didn’t read carefully what I said about the 1940s. Did you dopey bum ! Of course not.
Now you have introduced floods spuriously.
And you still believe in “recovery” from the LIA. How wonderfully quaint.
And did I see the word “consensus” in your waffle.
And in terms of the problem – sorry I don’t have to pose a solution. Maybe there isn’t an easy one.
Gavin,
Your note about “Worldwide Nitrogen Deficit Constrains Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Plants” from Science Daily demands a reference to another Science Daily article: “Excessive Reactive Nitrogen in Environment Alarms Environmental Scientists”, May 18, 2008,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515145419.htm
Pull quotes:
“”A unique and troublesome aspect of nitrogen is that a single atom released to the environment can cause a cascading sequence of events, resulting ultimately in harm to the natural balance of our ecosystems and to our very health,” Galloway said.”
and
“We are accumulating reactive nitrogen in the environment at alarming rates, and this may prove to be as serious as putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
So… we have excess nitrogen, and also a nitrogen deficit.
Fun!
Luke when you digest the real facts instead of nonsense from some left weekly magazine you’ll understand that the problem (?) won’t be fixed easily or at all.
You did consider that the 1940’s drought could be perhaps be the first influenced by AGW, so don’t try and lie your way out of that as well.
Just to check the stupidity factor of your argument, by say 1930 ( allowing 10 years for AGW to build influence) the co2 levels had only increased by 10% ( too generous because only 313ppm by 1960) over pre industrial times ( 1750), so a level of 310ppm was PERHAPS the cause of the 1940’s drought?
What a total embarrassment for a loud mouth who’ll spend years castigating anyone questioning AGW, but can only excuse his cowardice at not offering a solution by limply saying “perhaps there isn’t an easy one.”
Well perhaps you’re starting to wake up because ouside of new technology coming out of leftfield there definitely won’t be any solution.
The IEA has recently warned that by 2030 all of the OECD countries will be producing less than 15 billion tonnes pa of GHG emissions while the non OECD countries (Chins, India, Brazil,S. Africa etc) will be producing more than 25 Billion tonnes pa.
Bit of a pain in the backside isn’t it dumb bum, all those rants and all that abuse just a total waste of time and space because at this juncture there is sweet fanny adams any country can do about it whether from the first or developing worlds.
THE ONLY ANSWER IS NEW TECHNOLOGY to perhaps produce hydrogen cheaply ( can only be by solar or algae etc) or invent better battery cells, or produce biofuels from say algae that don’t produce much GHGs, that’s my two bobs worth anyway.
Schiller; Re Science Daily “Worldwide Nitrogen Deficit Constrains Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Plants”
On the issue of man made growth I suggest you start here,
“The Nitrogen Cycle Of Microbes and Men”
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=98
Note, “Figure 3: Recent increases in anthropogenic N fixation in relation to “natural” N fixation. Modified from Vitousek, P. M. and P. A. Matson (1993). Agriculture, the global nitrogen cycle, and trace gas flux. The Biogeochemistry of Global Change: Radiative Trace Gases. R. S. Oremland. New York, Chapman and Hall: 193-208”
Quote: “Reactive nitrogen (like NO3- and NH4+) present in surface waters and soils, can also enter the atmosphere as the smog-component nitric oxide (NO) and the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O). Eventually, this atmospheric nitrogen can be blown into nitrogen-sensitive terrestrial environments, causing long-term changes. For example, nitrogen oxides comprise a significant portion of the acidity in acid rain which has been blamed for forest death and decline in parts of Europe and the Northeast United States. Increases in atmospheric nitrogen deposition have also been blamed for more subtle shifts in dominant species and ecosystem function in some forest and grassland ecosystems. For example, on nitrogen-poor serpentine soils of northern Californian grasslands, plant assemblages have historically been limited to native species that can survive without a lot of nitrogen. There is now some evidence that elevated levels of atmospheric N input from nearby industrial and agricultural development have paved the way for invasion by non-native plants. As noted earlier, NO is also a major factor in the formation of smog, which is known to cause respiratory illnesses like asthma in both children and adults”.
Neville Neville Neville
“Luke when you digest the real facts instead of nonsense from some left weekly magazine you’ll understand that the problem (?) won’t be fixed easily or at all.”
– yep agree.
BUT – not my fault – and doesn’t have anything to do with the climate science being right or wrong. Simply that it’s a hard problem.
Your game is to tell me AGW is a hard problem to solve with limiting CO2 production or new technology which has downsides, and therefore ergo – coz that’s unpalatable – so AGW mustn’t be a problem. HOW ILLOGICAL !
And yes as I have posted before, research has produced evidence that, AGW induced changes in circulation patterns have been most influential in recent southern Australian droughts. Not I did not say “all of Australia”. Note I did not say “it will never rain again”.
And I did say a key researcher suggests that AGW was partially influential in the 1940s drought from trend movement in the STR intensity.
Note I did not say that natural variation does not cause droughts. e.g. El Nino, IOD.
But a good body of investigation has now shown that AGW may indeed influence the Walker circulation, the IOD, SAM and importantly for southern Australia – the STR. Indeed all of this may be linked as one yet to be unravelled mechanism. I find it fanciful that researchers would go to an extraordinary amount of travel to unravel all of this. And knowledge is incomplete for sure – which they acknowledge.
But at some point enough evidence piles up to suggest that for Australia AGW is a potential risk in terms of hydrology in some locations (which coincidentally are most agriculturally valuable).
I have tabled all this many times before. You have chosen not to read it and ignore it.
To ignore that research, to blackball the researchers involved, is frankly appalling. Even Cohenite would find it at least interesting. Interesting enough to get Stewy peddling hard to rebut it. Problem is that case keeps getting stronger.
Gavin,
That’s a very good piece you brought up.
So: we now have proof that human-induced increases in CO2 and nitrogen are good for plant life.
Since plant life is good for humans, it’s all good, all over.
Luke will shriek about ‘invasive species’, as all his ilk is prone to do, but everyone knows that every species everywhere ‘invaded’ some place to be where it is.
Wait, no.
Luke will use foul language instead. Alzheimer’s is such a cruel disease.
A review of recent climate variability and climate change in southeastern Australia
Bradley F. Murphy *, Bertrand Timbal
Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Australia
International Journal of Climatology
Volume 28 Issue 7, Pages 859 – 879
Published Online: 15 Oct 2007
Funded by:
Southeastern Australia Climate Initiative
Southeastern Australia (SEA) has suffered from 10 years of low rainfall from 1997 to 2006. A protracted dry spell of this severity has been recorded once before during the 20th century, but current drought conditions are exacerbated by increasing temperatures. Impacts of this dry decade are wide-ranging, so a major research effort is being directed to better understand the region’s recent climate, its variability and climate change. This review summarizes the conditions of these 10 years and the main mechanisms that affect the climate.
Most of the rainfall decline (61%) has occurred in autumn (March-May). Daily maximum temperatures are rising, as are minimum temperatures, except for cooler nights in autumn in the southwest of SEA closely related to lower rainfall. A similar rainfall decline occurred in the southwest of western Australia around 1970 that has many common features with the SEA decline. SEA rainfall is produced by mid-latitude storms and fronts, interactions with the tropics through continental-scale cloudbands and cut-off lows.
El Niño-Southern Oscillation impacts on SEA rainfall, as does the Indian Ocean, but neither has a direct influence in autumn. Trends have been found in both hemispheric (the southern annular mode) and local (sub-tropical ridge) circulation features that may have played a role in reducing the number and impact of mid-latitude systems around SEA, and thus reducing rainfall. The role of many of these mechanisms needs to be clarified, but there is likely to be an influence of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations on SEA climate, at least on temperature.
“THE ONLY ANSWER IS NEW TECHNOLOGY”
Neville; after years of roaming through Australian industry and trying to control the emissions like the smog causing nitrogen oxides above while reducing unburnt fuel etc you realise technical solutions to human growth problems create as many if not more long term headakes.
From dealing with the worst of dirty manufacturing plants we get another perspective, free enterprise operations can be entirely responsible for a vastly degraded environment over wide areas beyond cities.
From Figure 3 above :”Recent increases in anthropogenic N fixation in relation to “natural” N fixation” we can see the general case, another hockey stick relationship with nitrogen fixation v fossil fuel combustion, much less than ammonium fertilizer production sure but nether the less worrying considering the knock on effect.
We don’t see enough discussion on the nitrogen cycle
Gavin, you do realise that ““Figure 3: Recent increases in anthropogenic N fixation in relation to “natural” N fixation. Modified from Vitousek, P. M. and P. A. Matson (1993). Agriculture, the global nitrogen cycle, and trace gas flux. The Biogeochemistry of Global Change: Radiative Trace Gases. R. S. Oremland. New York, Chapman and Hall: 193-208””
completely contradicts your previous “Science daily ” link ” “Worldwide Nitrogen Deficit Constrains Carbon Dioxide Uptake by Plants” ”
I got caught up reading several of the articles at Science daily from your link and found that a lot of them contradict others on the same topic. Interestingly, when you get to the topic of hurricanes, it seems that it’s Trenberth versus everyone else.
Now tell me, and I expect you should be able to answer this one without googling it for a change, how can a 1.2F/century increase in global air temp. produce a 1.7F increase in SST in ONE year as Trenberth alludes?
The Walker is not doing anything unusual;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/articletxt.pdf
Cohers – Unpublished sceptic science I’m afraid
Cohenite, interesting article, one thing (of many) I don’t get though. “A declining WC was regarded as a confirmation of anthropogenic climate change by Vecchi et al. (2006) and Power and Smith (2007).”
Anthropogenic means a link to increased CO2 levels but I couldn’t see the connection in the article. Why couldn’t a declining WC be due to natural climate variations?
I particularly liked this bit; “One should be extremely
cautious of studies using climate simulations to justify their claims, as natural
variance may be greater than contemporary observations encompass,
and projections of climate models often cannot be fully substantiated by
their performance.”
BTW, didn’t I see recently that those stepwise increases in the first graph of fig. 3 were caused by “adjustments” by our friendly neighbourhood climategate crew?
Cheers.
“Cohers – Unpublished sceptic science I’m afraid”
What, like the Himalayan glacier BS that found it’s way into the IPCC’s report?
Keep up that supply of personal lubricant buddy.
“Unpublished sceptic science I’m afraid”
I’m afraid for most of us the terms “published” and “peer review” have a somewhat tarnished sheen to them these days!
Accuracy, truth and fact count far more, than being “peer” reviewed by a friend or colleague.
The reemergence of Luke made me remember this article found at Climate depot,
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=121884
Particularly the following, “”We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups”
and, “Sunstein said government agents “might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”
Seeing as how Luke’s preferred style has nothing to do with constructive debate or honest contribution, but rather constant ridicule sprinkled with smatterings of redundant articles by Realclimate at al., well…does the above quote fit our little Lukey or what?
I’m just pointing it out is all.
Derek, the background to the paper and a detailed analysis of the Scott and Power paper is here;
http://landshape.org/enm/walker-circulation-and-enso/
David also looks at Vecchi here;
http://landshape.org/enm/weakening-of-the-walker-circulation/#disqus_thread
Vechhi has developed the idea that AGW can ‘mimic’ natural events like El Nino but produce an aggravated version [why is everything AGW does much worse than delta conditions?].
Luke I think we’ll have to agree to disagree, but I’ll try once more to put my point of view.
Lomborg agrees that AGW is real, but he believes the Ipcc, Kyoto remedy is a complete waste of time and money and will only achieve a tiny delay of perhaps five years, say 2095 instead of 2100.
He has assembled a team of experts in all the scientific fields plus Nobel prize winning economists to arrive at the best conclusions for dollars spent and when you look at his info plus his swag of graphs it makes sense.
I am a layman so my understanding of the science must be limited, but then I can look at the past in Aust and around the world and read the conclusions of numerous scientists telling me the problem is minor or isn’t a problem at all. Also some of the conclusions are suspect like the LIA recovery not taken into account, UHI effect not properly accounted for , particulsrly since the closure of thousands of weather stns around 1990 in rural areas.
D’Aleo’s famous graph shows a vertical plunge from 1990 to 2000 of about 2/3rds of the ( mostly rural) sites and the much higher temp readings over the same period. See Ross McKitricks site to download the full explanation.
The sun’s increased output over the last century also bothers a lot of people plus the lack of real info about clouds etc, also the lack of a properly recorded hot spot proves to a lot of scientists that AGW is not proven.
I could go on but there is no need to because even if I held your exact knowledge and conclusions I would say that the Kyoto remedy is a provable disaster because in the end it will not work and will waste trillions $ worldwide.
So simply forget about reducing carbon and spend a tiny fraction of that money on new technology because with proper rewards it will happen much faster than ghg reductions.
Just a note to finish on, when some of the first experiments to fertilize the Pacific ( Trefil 1996) with iron to form algae to bloom soaking up co2 ( then die and sink to the bottom) seemed to at first fail a journalist at the Smithsonian noted a sigh of relief from environmental scientists as if a discovery that might work would be just too much for them to bear.
Then when Electrochemists ( Pons & Fleischmann) shocked the world in 1989 announcing they had achieved fusion at room temp, the reaction from some scientists was bizzare.
Rivkin thought it was the worst thing that could happen to our planet, inexhaustible power would just give man the ability to inexhaust the planet’s resources.
Same nonsense from Holdren and Ehrlich ( the perennial idiot) said that fusion although clean and cheap would be like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.
So to the extremists it’s really about political science and totalitarian control over ordinary people, not the reduction of ghg’s. Needless to say after a month or so fusion was shown to be a failure, but at least it showed what a mob of idiots some of the scientists really are.
When the main data bases are shown to be a complete fabrication, put together and managed by academic fools and frauds, then the sooner the whole show has its throat cut the better.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_cru_was_but_the_ti.html
If AGW/IPCC has any merit at all left, then it has to be set up quite differently.
Pachauri should be told to bugger off, and the IPCC main office moved to another country, and staffed with new blood..would be good way to start.
All panel and board appointees, including the Chair should be required to make declarations of pecuniary interests as is standard practice.
The very idea that Pachauri was not required to do so because he wasnt being paid by the UN/IPCC just beggars belief,and indicates that the con job was well planned from the start.
All aided an abetted by the incompetence of NOAA and Nasa/Gissas indicated in the above.
Mug tax payers are on the receiving end of all of this.
Methinks Cohenite is way off beat using his term “delta” for conditions.
Derek; with all this Science Daily stuff you have to remain firm in that they are only offering papers about indicators and their academic interpretations, not definitive measurements. A little work in the calorimetry bath on the bench should clear that up.
With two fluids, one heat source, various radiative surfaces and non linear mixing we could be chasing equilibrium for ages but since its not up to me to do the math I chose these from au google – turbulence timescales Trenbeth
“An estimate of Lagrangian eddy statistics and diffusion in the
mixed layer of the Southern Ocean”
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~sal119/SiteWeb_files/paper/EddyStat_SO_accepted.pdf
Submission by Dr Robert Carter
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/economics_ctte/cprs_09/submissions/sub126.pdf
not much science hey
A quote from a 2000 thesis “Dynamics of laboratory models of the
wind-driven ocean circulation”
“From the point of view of fuid dynamics, understanding the behavior of the global
ocean is an immensely complex problem. There are processes operating on spatial scales ranging from millimeters to tens of thousands of kilometers, and timescales from seconds to millennia. The fluid is rotating, stratified, turbulent, contained within a domain with a highly irregular boundary and subject to forcing which is generally unpredictable in
both space and time. The complex physics leads to a plethora of different wave modes
and instabilities, and highly nonlinear motions are common. In addition the motions and
properties of the ocean and atmosphere are intimately linked, leading to coupled modes
of variability such as El Ni~no and the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave”
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/47497/2/02Front-Chapters1-2.pdf.
Then I got sidetracked by the mob responses here, hopeless lot to the ABC program Nov 09 “Planetary Boundaries”
http://abc.gov.au/unleashed/stories/s2728850.htm
However the search provides rich pickings for true AGW believers like me
Neville; in the general scheme of things UHI is a furphy like the LIA & WMP.
Point 6 or 7 C is a lot in the scale 0 -15 C and becomes more significant in the scale – 50 > + 50 C when considered over 100 years. The last point relates to the recent rate of change.
Why bother with the scale 0-15? Food keeps well within the range and 18 – 21 C is easy for us to live in over long exposure periods. Bump up either targets and big things start to fall apart for humans in particular. 6-9 billion becomes unsustainable any how you look at it if we loose the plot on climate
WMP would be wimp I presume; so along with Delta T due to AGW which is 0 we also have Delta W as the alarmists go to water as the scam unravels and their wimp quotient increases; Delta S for stupidity as the nonsense becomes manifest will also increase along with DP which is the increase pain as gavin persists with his ramblings.
Alright Gavin show us your wisdom , what temp should the planet be and how do we get there and tell us the cost.
Apparently we’re a bit warm at 14C + or – a fraction of 1.0c so what temp should we be and how do you hold the temp at that level, remember we’ve only increased the temp by 0.7c in the last 150 years, if you believe the science as you do.
Explain the technology you would invent because it can’t be done now or in the future or do you know more than the IEA.
Neville, I told you already I’ve asked almost exactly that same question and persisted for a number of days. In the end all Gavin could come up with was something about being “happy with the status quo” and Luke just admitted he didn’t know.
They both know that if they gave a definitive answer they would have to justify it and then the wolves (us) would move in and rip ’em to shreds.
Luke kept whining that it was a stupid question but in fact it is a highly logical and profound question. Most alarmists believe it’s too hot already, otherwise there wouldn’t be all of this dismay about “the hottest decade on record” and the arctic melting etc. So we have an upper limit that says around 14.7C is too hot. That only leaves one way to go, cooler. But how much cooler? And what factors do you use to make a determination?
Unfortunately I think that both Gavin and Luke are smart enough to know a Chinese finger puzzle when they see it.
BTW Gavin, what possible excuse do you have for denying that the LIA never happened? Did you check out the book I directed you too? Or do you simply believe the gospel according to Realclimate like a good little alcolyte? You know you can’t trust Wikipedia on these matters any more.
BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/breaking-news-scientist-admits-ipcc-used-fake-data-to-pressure-policy-makers/
And the back pedalling is on –
“The Science is Scuttled” – NASA climate page, suckered by IPCC, deletes their own ‘moved up’ glacier melting date reference
And the purge begins.”
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/nasa-climate-page-suckered-by-ipcc-deletes-a-moved-up-glacier-melting-date-reference/
Watch for roll-backs here!
Derek; I don’t need RC or Wiki.
After a google search for Crowley I select these items and say they are not mutually exclusive because one good thermometer would destroy the pair of them on the issue of LIA or MWP. As one reconstruction is potentially as good as the other and neither present a solid variation from the near steady state for past global temperature I see no reason not to wait for some one’s sea level account for either case assuming significant temp change did occur.
“Global surface temperatures over the past two millennia”
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/articles/mannjones03.pdf
“Highly variable Northern Hemisphere
temperatures reconstructed from
low- and high-resolution proxy data”
http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/moberg.nature.0502.pdf
Mann and Jones; how grotesque.
Derek – perhaps you could indulge yourself and dream about conspiracy theories or maybe we’re just pugilistic types who just don’t like slime balls? You decide.
There is a more than good chance that unmitigated increase in CO2 will cause significant changes in the climate system, already manifest in fact. The systematic pseudo war by faux sceptics on the broad science findings is despicable. We spit on your morally bankrupt philosophical position.
Gavin, Mann and Jones? Is this a joke? You take your evidence from the very ratbags that deliberately set out to get rid of the MWP and the LIA. I’m afraid you’re in even greater denial than I thought.
Out of interest, it so happens that this time Wiki actually has a quite reasonable account of the LIA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
If you read the whole thing you will see that there IS evidence that it was both global And much colder than the 20th C.
There’s more than a good chance that your precious IPCC will be so badly discredited that it will cease to exist, Mann and Jones will never work in science again and AlBore will have to give back his nobel prize. There is a much smaller chance that you will ever be able to prove that CO2 is the cause of climate change in the last 50 years and virtually no chance that you will ever admit that you’ve been conned.
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/sanity-check-2008-2009-were-the-coolest-years-since-1998-in-the-usa/#more-15539
E.M.Smith (04:13:07) :
Since real climate is a function of things like altitude, latitude, and distance from the ocean (yes, check the definitions of things like ‘desert climate’ and ‘mediterranean climate’ and ‘temperate zone climate’…) that means that the “30 year average of weather” used by the AGW guys is no more climate than a “10 year average of weather”.
So I’m quite happy to say that there is a definite strong cooling trend underway. Heck, if they can ignore 60 year cycles like the PDO and 80 year and even 176 year cycles of solar output, and, for that matter, the 1500 year Bond Event Cycles, then so can I.
Filter with 30 years, you can not see a cycle longer than that. (Heck, even a 20 year cycle can look a lot like noise or a mistaken trend). So once you’ve decided to blow off all the really interesting long cycles of weather, what’s one more? In fact, the faster response is more useful for things like crop planning and ski trips…
So we’re headed down, and harder than we had been headed up. Give it another 20 years and this cooling 1/2 cycle ought to be taking a break (if it is PDO related… I don’t want to think about a Maunder event… and a Bond Event, well, we ARE just about due for one, but we don’t want to go there… that cycle leads to WW III from starvation… The last one was The Dark Ages and started about 530 – 540 AD. Add the nominal 1470 years of a Bond event and you get 2000 – 2010 AD. Gee, just about the time temperatures started falling… and the Sun went very very quiet… but the error band on that 1470 can add a decade or three… )
This posting:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
has a couple of my comments but mostly just collected together some details from Wiki as the Wiki Langoliers started to erase the MWP, LIA, and everything else interesting… so I grabbed what I could still find and stuck it there. Needs cleanup, but does give you an idea about things like “The Iron Age Cold Period” and other “pessimums”…
I’m still holding out hope that all that ocean heat (currently driving our global Lava Lamp at extreme speeds moving all that ocean heat to the poles to dump at high rates) will keep the place warm for the rest of my lifetime. Toss in a short solar cycle recovery and we might just have a “normal” if cold winter for a decade or three.
Well, I can always hope…
FWIW, I think you can use a “loopy jet stream” vs a flat one as an indicator of how much heat differential there is between the tropical oceans and the cold poles. So we’re getting darned cold poles, and heat is being dumped big time, now you have a larger thermal gradient between equator and poles to drive interesting air flows for a while. Thus the frozen Canadian Express and Siberian Express dumping cold all over, yet more warmth running up the oceans to the poles to get frozen and return.
I’d give it a decade of that before we cool the oceans enough to start getting Real Cold… So just hope the last sunspots are a sign of things to come…
(And yes, I think the sun is the driver of our climate on a long term macro scale, with short term waffles caused by ‘ringing’ of misc fluid systems…)
Oh, and take a nice look at that chart. Notice that the GIStemp baseline is set at the bottom of that blue dip… 1950-1980
Folks,
This Climategate thing is getting better all the time! (Or worse, depending on your perspective.)
It turns out that the IPCC claim of molten Himalayan glaciers by 2035 was known to be a fraud at the time it was published — and the purpose of publishing it was to “put political pressure on world leaders.”
Attribution of the now-discredited claim of molten glaciers was traced to Syed Hasnain.
Even so, the plan to pressure world leaders worked very, very well.
You see, the head of the IPCC is paid by TERI instead. As a result of the molten glacier claim, TERI got 3.5 million Euros from governments (taxpayers) to study the glaciers.
And Syed Hasnain? Well, he has a nice job with TERI, too. It’s the Al Gore trick — lie like a rug and take the money on the other end.
Gotta wonder if Michael Mann is going to be working for TERI soon.
Gosh, what a den of thieves and liars. But at least they are ‘Green’ thieves and liars, which, some would argue, makes it all a quite noble undertaking.
Sort of like Luke’s huffing and puffing and cussing. Sure, it’s a big carbon footprint, but it’s a ‘Green’ carbon footprint. One which is likely powered by — shall I say — the rather obvious ‘biofuel’.
Links:
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/01/24/glaciergate-scientist-admits-fraud.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7062667/Pachauri-the-real-story-behind-the-Glaciergate-scandal.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/highnoon-for-pachauri/
This is getting even better.
With ‘Glaciergate’, NASA is withdrawing claims of molten glaciers.
But not really. The IPCC originally forecast molten Himalayan glaciers by 2035. NASA, relying on that report, said the glaciers would be gone by 2030. (Probably an ‘adjustment’.)
With the glacier hoax exposed as a hoax — and a rather remunerative hoax — NASA has just removed the ‘2030 claim’.
At the same time, NASA has expanded the number of ‘endangered’ glaciers!
Interesting move, but much more interesting is the fact that NASA is still resting authority for its claims on ‘IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, pp. 5, 7’.
Turns out, NASA still treats that as authoritative, though its authors have abandoned and repudiated it — and NASA claims it’s good authority for both versions of its webpage.
What a beautiful meltdown!
Links:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/23/nasa-climate-page-suckered-by-ipcc-deletes-a-moved-up-glacier-melting-date-reference/
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:0osmsixKS-sJ:climate.nasa.gov/evidence/+site:http://climate.nasa.gov/
The IPCC has decided to have another look at its report linking extreme weather to climate change. This will be the cruncher.
Google; “glacier melt 2010” my setection from the press release –
“Understanding Glacier Melt : UNEP and WGMS report highlights global trends on glaciers and ice caps”
“Nairobi, 21 January 2010 – The last assessment on glacier melt by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) shows that the average annual melting rate of glaciers doubled after the turn of the millennium.
The report, ‘Global Glacier Changes: Facts and Figures’, was published by UNEP and WGMS in September 2008. It highlights global trends in glacier retreat and shows that record losses were posted in 2006 for a key network of reference sites.
The previous record loss in the year 1998 was already exceeded three times in the years 2003, 2004 and 2006, with the losses in 2004 and 2006 being almost twice as high as the previous 1998 record loss.
The global average annual mass loss of more than half a metre during the decade of 1996 to 2005 represents twice the ice loss of the previous decade (1986–95), and over four times the rate of the decade from 1976 to 1985. Early measurements indicate strong ice losses as early as the 1940s and 1950s, followed by a moderate ice loss between 1966 and 1985, and accelerating ice losses until present.
Overall, the 2008 report provided mounting evidence that climate change is triggering a shrinking and thinning of many glaciers worldwide, which may eventually put at risk water supplies for hundreds of millions of people”
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=608&ArticleID=6449&l=en
“World’s glaciers melting at accelerated pace, leading scientists say”
“From the Alps to the Andes, the world’s glaciers are retreating at an accelerated pace – despite the recent controversy over claims by the United Nations’ body of experts, leading climate scientists said today.
Lonnie Thompson, a glaciologist at Ohio State University, said there is strong evidence from a variety of sources of significant melting of glaciers – from the area around Kilimanjaro in Africa to the Alps, the Andes, and the icefields of Antarctica because of a warming climate. Ice is also disappearing at a faster rate in recent decades, he said”
“It is not any single glacier,” he said. “It is very clear that these glaciers are behaving in a similar fashion.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/climate-change-glaciers-melting
“Major Antarctic glacier is ‘past its tipping point”
a selected passage from the Jan 2010 article-
“According to Katz’s model, the grounding line probably passed over the crest in 1996 and is now poised to enter a period of accelerated shrinking.
The model suggests that within 100 years, PIG’s grounding line could have retreated over 200 kilometres. “Before the retreating grounding line comes to a rest at some unknown point on the inner slope, PIG will have lost 50 per cent of its ice, contributing 24 centimetres to global sea levels,” says Richard Hindmarsh of the British Antarctic Survey, who did not participate in the study.
This assumes that the grounding line does eventually stabilise, after much of PIG is gone. In reality, PIG could disappear entirely, says Hindmarsh. “If Thwaite’s glacier, which sits alongside PIG, also retreats, PIG’s grounding line could retreat even further back to a second crest, causing sea levels to rise by 52 centimetres.” The model suggests Thwaite’s glacier has also passed its tipping point”.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18383-major-antarctic-glacier-is-past-its-tipping-point.html
According to WUWT the eraser has been vigorously used on the stern report as well, to readjust to the new adjusted ipcc report.
They shifted the decimal place wayyyy to the left, what a complete bloody farce, almost up to the high standards of flannery, gore, krudd, pachauri, stern and all the rest of the spin doctors, carpetbaggers, snake oil salesmen and shysters.
But what about the Aussie taxpayer’s 1 million $ given away by krudd to pachauri’s teri company, headed by that renowned glacier expert, let’s hope they’ve put it to good use.
Geesh, Gavin.
If those glaciers stop melting, the rivers dry up.
But if the glaciers are melting to the point of impending disappearance, we’d have flooding like crazy — which we don’t.
This is all such a glorious debacle. This hoax is on such a grand scale that we may perhaps shortly see the first global generation of humans who have been vaccinated against liars who pretend to be scientists, and against the media shills who abet them.
My concern is that this will only be good for one generation.
It may be good for far longer; without the internet, the IPCC could easily have imposed global governance, with few knowing any better.
Schiller you’re wrong , there are some who can read but still cannot seperate the truth from BS and even when it all falls apart ( like now) they still clutch to that last drop of BS to try and sooth their souls.
It is the true religion for secularists and just like true faith in any religion they react the same way when inconvenient facts and the truth belt them around the ears.
Like an old mate of mine used to say ” you wouldn’t be dead for quids,” which roughly means I’m happy to be alive for this moment.
Our idiot krudd was telling us 12 months ago that AGW was the number one issue, but now he won’t say boo about the subject, flying from one state to the next talking up every issue known to man but alas no AGW BS anymore.
But before we crow too loudly wong is quietly talking to the greens and weak minded others trying to contrive a tempory deal to get them off the hook.
Of course the IEA is unaware of this but krudd and wong reckon that if we Aussies cut our own throats on the AGW alter we’ll save Kakadu, the Murray, fix the droughts and save the great barrier reef, amazing what we can do reducing just a few percent of our GHG’s..
Neville,
I may very well be wrong — as some famous pundit said, I wish I could remember his name: ‘You won’t ever go wrong if you bet on human ignorance.’ Or something like that. A corollary to P.T. Barnum’s ‘sucker born every minute.’
Meanwhile, and you may take this as heartening, I have a strong impression from those in the blogosophere that the world is looking to Australia to establish a political precedent on AGW.
Australia has had a powerful ‘debate’ (paltry and poorly-descriptive term) on AGW, and the forces of ignorance (read: short-termed political and financial interests) seem to be on the run.
Australia could set a precedent for the world on how charlatans are dealt with, and I believe the world is looking forward to it.
The US (where I’m resident) is a total train-wreck on ‘climate policy’, and any details I could offer would be either boring, or redundant of other train wrecks elsewhere.
The world’s eye is now on Australia, and I wish the best for you, and for all of us, everywhere.
Cohenite,
“kuhnkat; luke is a fan of ’stilling’; purported decreases in wind globally”
You, you don’t mean, Lukefartard is a GCM DENIER!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey Lukefartard, as I mentioned before, when you come up with a consistent theory you will let us know won’t you?!?!?!?!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Great interview with Monckton on Alan Jones this morning, Jones will MC the meeting in Sydney on wednesday.
Monckton expands the pachauri till tickling in the interview saying that he claimed only 10,000 pounds was paid to him when a check revealed he had recieved millions.
For Schiller and others just go to Alan Jones 2 gb for the interview.
Monkton on ABC radio this morning:
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2010/01/lord-christopher-monckton.html?program=702_mornings
here is the link to the Alan Jones interview:
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5507
Alan Jones as source – hahahahahahahahahahaaaaa … oh it hurts …..
Just think guys – all this is having no impact at all. Churn churn churn ….
He’s not really sharing a stage with Plimer is he? Oh dear.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html
It would seem that the use of WFF as references points in the AR4 is a more common practice than just the glacier stuff up
….and that twat Prof Andy Pitman claims that the sceptics dont use science to win their arguments ….what hoot that is
…the AGW sciencetsits apparantly dont use science either.
The robust IPCC story regarding the seriousness of AGW has to rely upon multiple references to WWF material put together for glossy magazines.
That just cracks me up.
So guys – how does it feel to be akin to smoking causes cancer denialism ?
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/twt/201001/20100125-andy-pitman-extra.mp3
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/more_monckton_2.php LOL !!
And you have to read through to the end. LOL !
http://www.chron.com/commons/readerblogs/atmosphere.html?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621&plckPostId=Blog:54e0b21f-aaba-475d-87ab-1df5075ce621Post:a2b394cc-5b5f-47ad-8bb5-c1aec91409ad&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Good old Syed – our lil’ mate.
World today transcript of Pitman. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2800538.htm
compare his claim:
We need to be clear on that error. It doesn’t say that the Himalayan glaciers are not vulnerable to climate change or are not melting or are not melting at an accelerating rate. It is the date of 2035 or 2040 that is in error. There is no suggestion that the Himalayan glaciers aren’t melting, aren’t melting at an accelerating rate and are not threatening the fresh water supply to Indian and Chinese communities, it is.
to that in the UK Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
The claim that Himalayan glaciers are set to disappear by 2035 rests on two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which were then recycled without any further investigation in a 2005 report by the environmental campaign group WWF.
It was this report that Dr Lal and his team cited as their source. The WWF article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.
and
Professor Graham Cogley, a glacier expert at Trent University in Canada, who began to raise doubts in scientific circles last year, said the claim multiplies the rate at which glaciers have been seen to melt by a factor of about 25.
What a pity the ABC journo did not read the UK Mail or the WWF ‘correction’. Just like the ABC the WWF doe not beilieve in apologies, but perhaps they might give back the millions of dollars donated to them to fight climate change since they published the error.
cinders,
More on that here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
CINDERS – ABC NEWS on the 21st under CLIMATE – ran this AFP item
“UN admits Himalaya glacier data dodgy”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/21/2797485.htm
There is a very simple answer to that Walker
Cancer research is well founded on sound ethical and moral principals.
GW science on the other hand is beholden the antics of the venal and thoroughly poliltical organisation called the IPCC.
Cancer research doesnt have the equivalent of an Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri whose ability to manipulate matters to their own ends knows no bounds.
Even the scientist who is responsible for the glacier stuff up works for TERI, (Pachauri’s company) and because of that convenient stuff up TERI made big bucks.
Anytime a GW warming scientist invokes the big tobacco or cancer analogy you know they have lost the argument in the same way invokers of the Hitler era lose.
Whilst they are raging against sceptics,with piss weak arguments, they tolerate someone like Pachauri whose conflicts of interest are absolutely shameful.
They also are guilty of tolerating the shameful manipulations of Mann , Hansen and Jones et al
The best thing that could happen is that the IPCC is rubbed out and a fresh start made ..because one thing is sure you cant trust what is emerging as being sound and truthful.
Pathetic Hill – When you lot start to take some stock of the utterly disgraceful tactics of your fellow travellers we may give you the time of day. Typical denialist scum tactics – invent bullshit – continue to restate even if rebutted.
We need a new corollary to Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies.
That law states: ‘As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.’
The suggested corollary: ‘People tired of using Nazi analogies inevitably use oil or tobacco for the same purpose.’ Luke is a perfect example of this.
Link: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.10/godwin.if.html
**Global cooling threatens endangered sea turtles**
Folks, this is Florida!
Recent Cold Wave Prompts Major Sea Turtle Rescue at Canaveral National Seashore
National Parks Traveler
January 25th, 2010
http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2010/01/recent-cold-wave-prompts-major-sea-turtle-rescue-canaveral-national-seashore5257
‘Thousands of sea turtles were rescued from the unusually cold water, many of them at Canaveral National Seashore.’
‘Similar situations have occurred in the past, but never at the magnitude of this year’s incident. The largest number of turtles collected in the park in previous years was 256; this year’s count: Over 2,100 sea turtles’.
So which piece has been rebutted Walker ? .
…The follow on post referring to Godwins law was right in the mark.
Who has rebuttued what exactly Walker?
…I thought them mire just got deeper or hadnt you noticed from the reference provided at 5.15, or dont you read ..still.
And who are the ” we” you deferring to ?
…Had your contract renewed have we ?
Just when you thought it couldnt get any murkier
( Thanks to D Patterson)
” Here’s a list of reviewers for WGIII: Mitigation
B. Hare, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
K. Jardine, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
K. Mallon, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
T. Gulowwsen, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
N Mabey, World Wide Fund for Nature (UK)
F. MacGuire, Friends of the Earth (UK)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/453.htm
and more reviewers for AR4 WGIII: Mitigation
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf
G. Von Goerne, Greenpeace (Germany)
S. Sawyer, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
S. Teske, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
D. Pols, Friends of the Earth (Netherlands)
C. Pearce, Friends of the Earth (UK)
G. Volpl, WWF International (Brazil)
”
What sort of science is it that needs Greenpeace et al as part of the formal review mechanisms as paid reviewers
No wonder all the extreme stuff with errors galore got through and the scientific fraternity remained silent ..as usual.
Is this what counts as Peer Review?
Pachauri doesnt have to provide a Statement of Pecuniary Interests and his company goes on to make a squillion out of grants based on b/s
And they wander why people are so cynical and distrusting.
Malcolm,
Your reference to ‘Luke’ Walker perhaps having his/her ‘contract renewed’ could perhaps have a great deal of substance.
In mid-December ’09, the National Post (Canada) carried an article titled, ‘Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor’. The article [1] revealed that Solomon, a member of ‘the Hockey Team’, erased more than 500 articles of various descriptions and barred over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of his mission.
In the course of those labors, Solomon rewrote 5,428 climate articles. [2]
No person, Luke or otherwise, would be willing to expose themselves to public embarrassment by saying what Luke says, unless (1) he’s in on the Hockey Team like Solomon, or (2) that he’s paid by someone somewhere to make the Greens look foul-mouthed and stupid.
If (1) is true, Luke is likely paid very little. If (2) is true, Luke is likely paid only a little bit more — that’s because Greens are foul-mouthed and stupid all on their own and don’t need much help looking that way.
————-
1. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/18/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx
2. http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=wwf+ar4&as_sitesearch=www.ipcc.ch
This is self explanatory
167 Google hits on AR4 + WWF
I wonder what Professor Pitman et al will have to say about this.
The hits seem to be right across the whole document.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=greenpeace+ar4+site:www.ipcc.ch&start=60&sa=N
..and 71 for Greenpeace
Interesting info Malcolm, but scrolling down the whole list doesn’t inspire much confidence in the majority of the reviewers either. I would guess that less than 10% were researchers at universities and most of the others would appear at face value to have a built in bias.
Schiller, minor correction, it was William Connolley that did the “adjustments”, Solomon wrote the article.
Cheers.
Sorry Hill – was that “paid reviewers” ? hohohohohohohoho pull the over one matey !
Never trust lying politically motivated denialists ! Do you guys get paid and by whom is the question – coz it seems your tactics are straight out the tobacco denialists handbook !
And we all know that denialist filth wouldn’t know peer review if they fell across it – take their preferred journals of “publication” for starters. That they never correct each other’s mistakes. Any old waffle will do. . 1000 contradicting theories is fine.
Let’s face it – denialist scum don’t publish – coz they can’t. They don’t have anything except moral bankruptcy.
This is all water off a ducks back Luke and you really are getting quite boring with your shrill and mindless rantings.
O.K., I am finally going to say it.
Luke, you are an idiot!
Interesting article by Tom Quirk in the latest Quadrant online magazine, adding up all known fossil fuel reserves and the possible recovery and use of these fuels.
Tom claims that the present 380ppm level of co2 could’nt be doubled by our future use even if we tried.
He claims that the present 380ppm equals some 800 giga tonnes of contained carbon, but if we were to exhaust the available 647GT divided by 2 we would only have half that or 324 gigatonnes in the atmosphere.
But that extra 324GT would only add an extra 154ppm to the present 380ppm ( 534ppm ), nothing approaching the 760ppm doubling we are bombarded with in the media.
What I’d like to know, is Tom correct in his tally of oil , coal and gas reserves or not, I can think of shale, but what say you ?
I just heard ‘tobacco’ again. What is it with this guy? Probably got the wrong blog by accident.
You are quite right Derek he is an idiot and thats being polite.
He has been playing this game for some years now and everyone is used to it.
Notice yet again that he doesnt answer questions nor explain his previous bouts of dribbling.
Moral bankruptcy is little disingenuous though coming from a paid performer..but then hypocrisy is rife the GW scene.
Australia Day and once again the great flag and monarchy debate and how do we accommodate all cultures on one flag.
One thing that is always overlooked is that we are all arrivals. The only country that humans evolved in is Africa.
Seeing as the union jack tribe were the first to “unite and civilise” the country and bring it up to speed law wise, they were the first to introduce a flag and monarch so, as that situation is still in existence after a couple of centuries of some pretty testing times, there is nothing else with more overall meaning and credibility.
To change this now would, IMHO, only increase disunity without adding any cement.
There’s no was I could put with the process the US goes through to elect a head of state!
SD,
well said, I see no reason for changing the flag at all.
If you want to represent your history by your flag, you have to include some reference to the founders of the nation.
Conversely, if one wants to constantly display the changing nature of the country, then we have to change the flag and all the trappings of state every 25 to fifty years, and have no history at all.
Some of this haste to change, comes from a portion of the population hostile to the English, for historical reasons.
I’m afraid, that was never a good reason to change.
Even a US flag still bears the Union Jack.
http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/flags/hi_flag.htm
PS. It must be Australia Day, we have just had a Wedgetail Eagle circling outside the kitchen window.
Happy Australia Day.
And I’ve posted a nice collection of links via Marc Morano here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/01/pachauri-must-resign-un-ipcc-is-sub-prime-science-why-is-gore-silent-banks-withdraw-from-carbon-trading-withdraw-un-ipcc-nobel-marc-morano/
Should make some of you smile.
Sorry Luke.
😉
Malcolm Hill
Just research who fund Greenpeace – and you need to be quick because the principal funders are starting to use anonymous trusts etc, but David Rockefeller is one plus a couple of uber-rich US families on the east coast US.
Rockefeller is quite open about his agenda as well.
Incidentally if one idiot has reappeared, then the other cannot be too far behind. Both work for the QLD climate department, longpaddock section.
“Both work for the QLD climate department, longpaddock section.”
Louis, happy New Year!
Is that long paddock where they they tell all potential future Coal-Fireds that they have to build CCS-ready power stations even though they don’t know if, when or how CCS will ever work?
That sounds about right.
Spangled Drongo
Happy New Year to you as well!
Don’t know about the CCS thing though but your conclusion seems plausible.
Well, just back from holiday and the whole bloody world is a different place–Massachusetts replaced the Dead Kennedys with a Republican??? – Obama is now a no hoper, one-termer like Carter. A lame duck after only a year in office. The horizon is darkening for the Rudd government as well. The zeitgeist has turn.
Who would have thought it 90 days ago? Copenhagen is the laughing stock of the free world, ETS is dead and buried in the US, China and India and soon to be in OZ as well. Climategate proves AGW is a con and on cue the IPCC AR4 turns out to so laced with fraud and corruption that even the ABC has to run (albeit propaganda by omission) stories about it. Not to mention NASA and GISS are facing charges of corrupting data in pursuit of a very special political agenda as well. The AGW hypothesis is road kill politically, although it will take a few more years to properly bury it scientifically.
Oh, and it’s bloody cold on planet Earth outside of Oz. Coolest year since 1998. As the warmists do, let’s extrapolate global cooling since 1998 forward linearly a hundred years…we get a new Little Ice Age. So much for all those lovely IPCC computer models showing massive upward trends in temperature for 1998-2010. Oh well, you are what you eat. Garbage in, garbage out.
And yet, remarkably here at jennifermarohasy.com – a blog with out a single update in months – Nothing has changed…the debate continues unabated… Bravo! This is a testament to how significant this blog once was…and could be again. Alas.
Cheers to the Green and Gold on Australia Day…
This reminded me of Luke, our resident mental midget…
Section 4.4.3 of the Garnaut review predicted the high consequences of climate out comes: melting of the Himalayan Glaciers, along with the failure of the Indian monsoon, and destruction of coral reefs.
His reference was the flawed WWF report.
Will the Garnaut review also be ‘corrected’ along with any policy that was based on this ‘error’.
In another chapter Garnaut also quoted the “The Implications of Climate Change for
Australia’s Great Barrier Reef”, published by WWF–Australia and Queensland Tourism Industry Council.
Good to see Sinkers and Wessy Woo back. Nothing like pure bred denialists.
Had to enjoy this – illustrating the simplicity of the denialist brain.
“If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming.”
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/14/science-dr-mojib-latif-global-warming-cooling/
Now this shows how much checking your average pure bred denialist does.
“Climategate proves AGW is a con and on cue the IPCC AR4 turns out to so laced with fraud and corruption that even the ABC has to run (albeit propaganda by omission) stories about it.”
“proves” I kacked myself …..
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA – fraud and corruption – say the new tobacco denailists.
and wait for it …
“Not to mention NASA and GISS are facing charges of corrupting data in pursuit of a very special political agenda as well”
facing charges – ROTFL !!!!
and and and “it’s a very special political agenda” – woo hoo ! very special….. giggle
Wes do you actually eat your own shit too? Lordy me …
The Luke has answered the question, “Has Luke no sense of shame?”, in the negative.
Luke, you are the Baghdad Bob of AGW.
You will be strutting around, impressing yourselves greatly, even as the entire rationale of AGW apocalyptic claptrap continues to fall apart around you.
Please keep up the farce.
Cheers,
Folks,
Think ‘Glaciergate’ is a big deal or a one-off problem? No way. The WWF has written lots of ‘research’ reports relied on by the IPCC as ‘authority’. As a result, we now have ‘Amazongate’, with many more ‘-gates’ to come. More than a dozen.
See: “More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report”, The Heartland Institute, Jan. 23,
2010, http://www.heartland.org/full/26856/More_Dodgy_Citations_in_the_NobelWinning_IPCC_Report.html
Thanks to Malcom’s lists of IPCC ‘Expert Reviewers’ representing Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth, et. al., we now have a much more complete picture of the IPCC’s notion of ‘peer review’.
It’s basically Luke’s friends patting each other on the back.
I doubt any would be friends with Luke considering his attitude.
Janama,
Even Pachauri himself uses phrases like “voodoo science” to describe disagreement with the IPCC. He and Luke should get along well.
Hmmm… what if Luke is Pachauri? Gasp! Have we been arguing with a railroad engineer? They cuss like sailors! Like Luke!
Being a skeptic, though, prevents me from reaching the tempting conclusion. Drat!
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/ipcc-workshop-2005-06.pdf
Here is one picked at random from the hits identified above.
See page 2
This is a workshop on ” Emissions Scenarios” with His Emminence Rajendra Pachauri present along with an Australian Govt official , and guess what… a person from the WWF.
Despite what Prof Pitman et al might say, the probability of their NOT being another stuff up in the remaining 1599 pages of the AR4 is zip zero niz.
What an absolute farce..all designed to con/deceive from the start.
Plus if you want any further evidence just go to WUWT and read the Mosher guest post.
If the Australian Auditer General and the ONA had any balls and brains they would be asking what the hell is going on here… like wise the Office of the Chief Scientist might do something useful.
Are they looking after our best interests…pigs.
Friends,
Now for a more serious note. When analyzing the news and such things, it’s crucially important to ask the question: ‘What’s missing’?
There’s something very missing from Climategate. What’s missing is commentary from the Greens who are outraged over being lied to, hoodwinked, deceived, and betrayed.
To be sure, the Climate Profiteers will never admit to any such failure, whilst slowly winding down their involvement in climate investments. (European banks are closing their carbon trading desks, by the way.)
But what about the True Believers in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? Surely there are a vast number of The Faithful who would react in a manner similar to the discovery that there is no Santa Claus.
They should be wailing and howling and condemning, and they’re not.
As it turns out, there’s a reason for this. As grownups, they’re incorrigible and stay ‘on task’ regardless of contrary evidence.
Check this out:
“Beliefs [in] Realistic and Unrealistic Control: Assessment and Implications.” Zuckerman, et. al., Journal of Personality, Vol. 64 No. 2, Pages 435 – 464, DOI 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00517.x. Published Online: 28 Apr 2006. Available at: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119204865/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Abstract:
Scales were constructed to measure perceived control over controllable events (realistic control) and perceived control over uncontrollable events (unrealistic control). Internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and discriminant validity of both scales were adequate. Study 1 measured perceived personal control over hassles that judges rated on general controllability. For hassles very high in controllability, perceived personal control was related to belief in realistic control but not to belief in unrealistic control; for hassles very low in controllability, perceived personal control was related to belief in unrealistic control but not to belief in realistic control. Study 2 showed that participants high in unrealistic control belief (but not those high in realistic control belief) persevered more on a task that was in part uncontrollable. Study 3 showed that the combination of low realistic control belief and high unrealistic control belief predicted poorer future health, particularly for participants who have reported the experience of many negative events and/or hassles. The conditions under which unrealistic control results in maladaptive outcomes are discussed.
Very cool, very explanatory.
Schiller, that is amusing but your link doesn’t work; could you repost it?
Cohenite,
The link works for me, but here’s a repost–perhaps there’s something broken.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119204865/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
If that reposted link doesn’t work, try these:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119204865/abstract
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8656324
Surely there must be an explanation for these people’s clearly irrational behavior.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
–Keynes JM. as quoted in “Lost Prophets: An Insider’s History of the Modern Economists”, (1994). Alfred L. Malabre, p. 220. Cited in “John Maynard Keynes”, Wikiquote, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes, accessed January 5, 2010
Why is WUWT the greatest waster of time ever?
What denialists will never tell you or correct !
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html
So much for Lindzen & Choi – dusts hands….
More sceptic nonsense for the shredder
http://climateaudit.org/2010/01/18/curry-reviews-lindzen-and-choi/#comments
Strangely sceptics quite quiet on this one !
So much for CO2 being good for plants. CO2 wrecks rangelands.
http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/general/woody-weeds-love-co2/1729857.aspx?src=enews
Sceptics never tell you this stuff. Never trust a faux sceptic !
Luke,
As usual you crap on. Judith says:
“The basic assumptions behind this type of sensitivity analysis based on top of atmosphere fluxes used by LC need to be tested by climate models.”
And Lubos replies:
I don’t understand the logic here. One can’t say that the LC theoretical model – which is just about the framework of quantities to be tested and their conjectured relationships – is falsified just by showing that the existing climate models don’t reproduce its assumptions, can he? Quite on the contrary, the logic here is that the disagreement between LC and the climate models shows that that climate models are wrong – as long as one compares the models results with the empirical data. The objects that LC are calculating are really phenomenological ones – they can be defined operationally from the empirical data, in a simple way. Whatever the theories and models are, they must be able to calculate the corresponding quantities because they’re measurable.
The only thing done and dusted here is you.
Luke’s link states the following.
“HIGHER levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be contributing to the woody weed invasion that has taken over much of Australia’s rangelands, and other grasslands across the world.”
may be – so they naturally assume that CO2 is to blame – that’s the damn problem with this climate change bull dust – if you can’t explain it, blamed AGW or CO2.
Perhaps the fact that we have been taking protein in the form of cattle off these rangelands for years without ever putting anything back might explain why weeds thrive as weeds are natures soil repairers. All the grasslands around my area suffer from overgrazing and neglect.
Lukefartard,
the first paragraph in your link:
“HIGHER levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide may be contributing to the woody weed invasion that has taken over much of Australia’s rangelands, and other grasslands across the world.”
Lemme see, that means that deserts will be shrinking and the ‘tard is worried about weeds growing better along with everything else!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Leave it to the ‘tard to find the rotten apple in every orchard!!
What’s really interesting about Judith Curry review of Lindzen & Choi is that it appears on Climateaudit. Imagine Realclimate allowing a sceptical researcher to post a review of some AGW orthodoxy on their site. I know, you can’t. Couldn’t happen.
That’s the difference between the sceptic camp and the true believers. The majority of sceptics simply want to see good transparently reproducible science presented and tested without bias. If the empirical evidence comes down in support of the AGW hypothesis then rational, thinking observers who are sceptical will change their position. It all about a sense of wonder… about being curious to see how things really work and honest enough to admit we don’t know.
One wonders if Luke has ever been curious?
That Menne paper just beggars belief .. and as he says himself the corrections are counter -intuitive.
Since when can the method of measuring, change the corrections to be made to data read when an instrument of any sort is alongside a building. Surely that would show up as a step function in the record as well
That has a definite smell about it, which I bet has more to do with being embarrassed by being exposed as incompetent manages of the network in the first place.
Its a snow job
Mally boy – that smell is the ever present stench of sceptic b/s. Powerful and lingering. Probably with a whiff of tobacco too !! And a hint of total dishonesty as after taste.
Spanglers attempts a rebuttal from a fairies at the bottom of the garden string physicist and arch-denialist !! Woo hoo. Pullease matey. Try at least something serious next time.
BoofheadKat reveals he’s a total ecological ignoramus as well as sceptic toejam – matey multibillion beef industries tend not to eat woodies. “Oh gee is that right” “Yes moron it is”.
Woodland invasion is common place from overgrazing & lack of fire in Aussie, southern USA and southern Africa – CO2 fertilisation is helping it along.
luke; your comment about the Lindzen and Choi paper is inane; Dr Curry states:
2. The time scale of the feedbacks considered here are short term processes (over the tropical oceans) associated with clouds, water vapor and lapse rate, which are assumed to have equilibrium responses on time scales from a few months to less than 2 years. Even if this assumption re the timescale of equilibrium response is correct
Read page 6 of this by your good mate Trenberth:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/2000JD000298.pdf
She then says:
3. Given that LC focus their analysis on the tropical oceans, the results from their analysis of ERBE data seems very implausible: a strong negative feedback in the shortwave (SWR), with a small positive feedback in the infrared (IR). The negative SWR feedback is basically an increase in the planetary albedo with increasing temperature, without a correspondingly large decrease in outgoing IR. How could this possibly be?
Curry offers as her final solution an increase in LL cloud and a decrease in HL cloud which she assumes isn’t happening; in fact tropical LL cloud cover has been increasing since 1998 and global temperatures have been dropping since 1998;
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateAndClouds.htm#Tropical cloud cover and global air temperature
Well Walker you would know all about dishonesty.You have a track record that goes back what..5years now.
What was the pseudonym before this one…. Phil Done wasnt it.?
At least I have the honesty to use my real name over the same period… you gut less creep.
and it still doesnt alter the fact that the Menne paper reads like a snow job.. and probably with good reason.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
Havnt the time to read it fully but whats the bet there is a connection in timing and substance between the Menne paper and this.
Hill don’t lecture me about dishonesty given your commentary. It’s just too rich. Try putting your brain in gear instead of your mouth.
And fancy having the temerity to put some bit of fluff from a think tank up against something to be published in Geophysical Research. Pullease !
I tell you what is rich, a creep like you raising the matter of honesty whilst hiding behind a pseudonym, and at the same time posting material he hasnt read– yet again.
You where the one who raised the issue of honesty and like the true hypocrite you are react when things are pointed out that you dont like.
Have glass jaw do we.?
I like the Menne paper; among other delights it shows that there has been no movement in maximum temperature since 1980 and that minimum temperatures have even declined. Sterling work.
I think our Luke is just agitated ’cause his precious IPCC has been caught out trying to pass rumour and Chinese whispers off as “peer reviewed science”. He probably thinks the WWF and Friends of the Earth are more qualified than any skeptic wannabe scientists.
Come on Coho – this is why you’re a lawyer – but you’re not gonna get your clients off with that sort of sophistry. Incidentally why do you bother with these drongos?
Sophistry? What about the last graph?
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
Regressions are all +ve. Surely you’re not a last value freak. If so let’s look forward to Jan temps !
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/be-truthful-on-climate-british-science-boss-john-beddington/story-e6frg6nf-1225824148004
“THE impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the British government’s chief scientific adviser.
John Beddington said climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.
Australia’s chief scientist, Penny Sackett, told The Australian last night she shared Professor Beddington’s concerns.”
…..
And check out the poll on the same page. The Australian asks online visitors “How much do you trust scientific projection concerning global warming?”
Out of 5623 votes as of early this morning, 64% checked “not at all.” The true believers, all 8.4% of ’em checked “completely.”
The ETS has become in just 90 days a political albatross and it’s only going to get worse.
Spot on Wes and an amazing turn around from penny in 24 hours, yesterday she was preaching the same old BS, but after the pommy head started to talk like a scientist she had to quickly drop some of her BS and return to partial sanity.
I’d still like to know what some of the more sane people here think of Tom Quirk’s estimate of the total recoverable fossil fuel reserves ( last page 50).
He estimates there is only 154ppm or 374 GT left in the system, I must say I find it hard to believe that we could only ever get to 534ppm?
Anyhow got to go, busy next couple days.
BTW overflow at Monckton’s Sydney meeting yesterday, people lined up down the streets trying to get in to hear the facts and the truth about CC.
Sackett and the krudd and wong idiots were telling us we only had 5 years to save the planet ( BS) now krudd will only go to 5% unless the world signs up, gosh the poor planet.
Sackett now wants to hear from the sceptics ( waaddya say luke) amazing seeing she was deaf, dumb and blind only 24 hours ago.
We are lead by Embeciles, thank our luck for Abbott and the people of reason, logic and sanity.
Folks,
The long-awaited SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION? by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts, Science and Public Policy Institute Original Paper, January 26, 2010 is finally available for downloading.
It’s available (.pdf, >100 pp.) at either of these two links:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-records/
While proof that the IPCC is comprehensively corrupt continues to grow, with a new ‘-gate’ scandal nearly every day, this report places NOAA at the epicenter of the cruel and expensive global hoax.
Surface station records around the world have been so comprehensively tinkered with by US ‘scientists’ that it’s now actually impossible to validate anyone’s climate model.
With the IPCC, we have:
Climategate — the ‘liberation’ of the emails and code.
Glaciergate — molten Himalayan glaciers by 2035, with bonuses paid to various parties for the bogus ‘finding’
Amazongate — unsubstantiated prediction of doom for the Amazon rain forest
Destructiongate — forecast of destructive weather based on an unpublished article that, when published, did not reach that conclusion.
Quotegate (forthcoming) — reliance on WWF ‘research’ in at least sixteen instances
Reviewergate (forthcoming) — accepting reviewers from lobbyist groups like Greenpeace, Fiends of the Earth, etc.
But, with NASA/NOAA etc., we have a concerted effort to corrupt data on a world-wide basis. That corruption has, in turn, corrupted everything, literally, which has been built on the supposed reliability of the data from surface stations.
Read the SPPI report by D’Aleo and Watts, and be astounded at the lengths to which the US agency has gone to drive public policy with cooked-up data.
My gorge rises. I had long known that AGW was a con in many ways, but to be vindicated to such an extent is not an embarrassment of riches, but rather, a deep and abiding embarrassment for my country. And for, gosh, the list goes on.
Schiller.
P.S. Since it hasn’t yet been settled how the ‘Climategate’ emails etc. were assembled for ‘liberation’, it’s premature to think that the collection — as large as it is — is complete. It’s entirely possible that the ‘liberated’ data, damning as they are, constitute merely the tip of an iceberg. The iceberg will be collusion between Hadley CRU and NOAA etc. Hold me to that forecast.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/#more-15729
I didnt think it would be long before the true story started to be revealed.
There is an odoure about the Menne paper, and there is more to come.
..cue to His Wackerness.
Climategate is an example of the emerging paradigm of social singularity, where the only currency is credibility and transparency.
“This is not about their personal ideology or religion, although it is about that, too. It is about the realization of their newfound and individual power to influence and change the outcomes of current and future events and long and short term trends. It is about their ability to exchange facts, information, ideas, plans and concepts with others around the world. It is about their power and ability to coordinate ad hoc political and social movements in real time. It is organic, fluid, leaderless and very, very adaptable to changes in its environment. The People are beginning to work together towards one goal and one goal alone. The betterment of humanity, as they, themselves, have defined that goal.”
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2579/81/
‘The future will not be about ideology, ambition or agenda. It will be credibility. This is called a social singularity’.
Nice words and very utopian. Do you think it has anything to do with Ray Kurzweil’s ‘the singularity is near’?
Wes,
Hopefully, if we can prevent it from becomming manipulated, it will be a permanently efficient B/S filter and political scanning machine for the great multitude.
I can feel it working already.
Lukefartard,
“Regressions are all +ve. Surely you’re not a last value freak. If so let’s look forward to Jan temps !”
Unfortunately for you, there is no UN-adjusted temperature data that isn’t retrieved from the station. Everything else has been adjusted up due to homogenisation and other poorly stated tricks. Even the data from the CIDC site here in the US that is considered un-adjusted has been adjusted!!
The other issue is that The Surfacestation Project was biased to Urban easily accessible sites. The most remote rural sites have mostly been done in the last year or so. all the sites checked in the NCDC paper were primarily Urban/Airport. Most of the sites in their DB listed as rural no longer are.
This paper used what, about 500 hot stations out of a possible 1200??
Jan temps?? You mean the latest temps adjusted artificially upwards compared to the older temps which have been systematically adjusted downward??
You just can’t win with your superficial spouting of the party line ‘tard!!!
By the way, you ever bother to look where all the warming comes from?? Ever think it might have something to do with infilling of areas like Bolivia, Central Africa, the Poles…??? NAAAAH. Didn’t think so!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Schiller are you in the fencing business – so many gates. “While proof that the IPCC is comprehensively corrupt continues to grow” – I had to laugh – Well Darkies Schillsbo – you need some Viagra mate – you gonna need something to get it up and keep it up. Bullshit won’t work. Who writes your shit for you anyway?
And what a limp wristed rebuttal by Whats Crap with Me on Meene – boofer-boy even admits “he may be wrong”. Woo hoo.
And dear KochHead Kat – might be MSU my son.
But you have to hand it to the denialist scum mafiaso – reports that the “glaciergate” journalist verballed the whole story – BUT ARE WE SURPRISED – NOPE – denialist scum stop at nothing in their journey of wrecking ….
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_scandal_grows.php
(Oh yea – one point Penny is so piss weak and poorly briefed – about as useless as those Greenpeace idiots getting reamed out by Moncky)
Hmmm what else might denialists have failed to tell us
Heatwaves on the rise as record lows decline
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/28/2803928.htm
Been busy with the Monckton talk at Newcastle; idiot press said only 400 turned up; I had 655 sold tickets paid at the door. Anyway luke says the regressions are all +ve; the paper concludes:
“Moreover, the bias in unadjusted maximum temperature data from poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites is, on average, negative”
That is, the paper concludes that the UHI affect cools maximum temperature; that’s odd but if you look at fig 2e you see the comparison between the 2 methods only has the cooling bias in the MMTS system after 1985; why is the CRS system cooler prior to 1985 and the cooling ‘bias’ of the MMTS system after 1985; the impact on the regression trend of that is to produce the upward trend; that is, if the pre-1985 cooling ‘bias’ of CRS is combined with the post-1985 cooling’ bias’ of MMTS the regression is -ve; the homogenisation is, however, the other way round; pre-1985 MMTS is adjusted down to CRS while post-1985 MMTS is adjusted up to CRS; the homogenisation creates the trend.
Seems I’m on firm ground every day measuring temp and watching BoM updates (often enough to know) while thinking blog suckers get off too easy on their UHI issues.
Yesterday was so still outside that I emptied two spray cans of paint onto some old metal tool boxes with out using mist guards and with out runs while doing continuous over coating. Good result considering the forecast for probable thunderstorms. Unfortunately the odor hung around for hours.
The breeze here can be either up slope (normal) or down slope after sunset, but my outside thermometer hangs close to the house in a corner and protected somewhat by the semi enclosed back yard formed by the deeply cut landscape Therefore my daily max can be several degrees C higher than the 3 official Canberra Sites. Not so today though; although the forecast was 29, while the city reached 30, the airport and my place either side reached 33.
From these readings one could assume all the city buildings had their A/C running in reverse cycle. Hardly! When it’s this hot our house stays up around 25C overnight but with the elevated humidity it’s too uncomfortable to sleep with out fans on everywhere.
Conclusion; mountain air is no substitute for AC in the Capital during these ever increasing summer heat waves. Also any built up area has the right to be represented in full on the global warming map.
SST Australia
http://www.marine.csiro.au/~lband/web_point/
SST Anomaly
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/remotesensing/oceancurrents/sst_anom/latest.html
Sea glider?? off Sydney
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/remotesensing/oceancurrents/SNSW/2010010915.html
“Unfortunately the odor hung around for hours.”
Yes we know gavin, that’s why we prefer, you restrict your visits to this blog, to maybe once a week, deal?
“during these ever increasing summer heat waves.”
You maybe old but either you have a poor memory or were less then observant in your younger days!
Ever increasing summer heat waves indeed?
“The figures also come after Australia experienced its hottest decade since records began in 1910.”
Luke,
You really believe that records first began in 1910?
I just randomly clicked onto an old site that is coastal and not too influenced by UHI and the hottest period was 1884 as were many of the true max temp records [1880s].
Even you are probably well aware that 1910 was a particularly cool period and this is just a permanently installed BoM swindle.
Come on spanglers – you full well know the pre-1910 issues. But in any case – explain the trend – that’s TREND of records – THAT IS TREND in case you are DEAF !!! try doing some basic stats – I know it’s a big problem for denialists. Cherry picking is not a stats technique.
Actually try doing some English comprehension lessons too.
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s2803674.htm
Another take for disabled readers like Spangly chook
Global warming is man made at GISS, CRU, Met and BOM.
Comment from: el gordo January 28th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
“Global warming is man made at GISS, CRU, Met and BOM”
By convention isn’t this becoming MANN-made global warming?
Folks,
I think you’ll get a kick out of this.
I went back and revisited “More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning IPCC Report” (1) to see if one of the ‘dodgy’ citations to WWF twaddle would catch my eye.
Right off, I spotted one that seemed like it would interest the folks Down Under:
WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. (2)
Connecting deforestation with coral reefs absolutely must be an amazing scientific feat, you would think.
Well — check out the link. This eminently citable scientific work begins:
‘It is mid-day, humid, and stiflingly hot. The cicadas’ high-pitched song creates a sound curtain blocking out all other noise. Hundreds of spiky roots point up through the grey mud like a bed of nails.’
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is this what the IPCC calls ‘grey literature’? More like purple prose.
Come on, Lukey, defend this one on behalf of your beloved IPCC!
————
1. http://www.heartland.org/full/26856/More_Dodgy_Citations_in_the_NobelWinning_IPCC_Report.html
2. http://central-america.panda.org/about/countries/belize/?uNewsID=16870
Isn’t it a fascinating study of denialism the way that Luke and Gavin just keep on citing the same discredited authorities as if they are deaf and blind to the central meme of 2010?…. the emerging critique of the way climatological research has been corrupted since Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick graph of circa 1998?
Instead of seeking to answer to questions of credibility the true believers pretend everything is OK and the AGW propaganda machine with the faux peer review varnish of authority can just keep on rolling out biased research and we’re all going to mindlessly forget and submit.
This is the new denialism of our day. The AGW faithful don’t grasp that because of their own betrayal of honest science they have lost control of the climate diegesis, despite controlling most of the media and the academic research institutions.
The true believers in AGW have shown a deep disrespect for the processes of the scientific method by manipulating data, hiding and destroying negative results and generally obstructing any attempt to reproduce their work. Not to mention fiddling with the peer review process and violating the IPCC’s own rules of documentation and procedure. The Team have use propaganda and fear to promote what should have been a purely scientific hypothesis. They became millenarian and messianic and as such have committed scientific apostasy.
Yet warmists pretend to respect the scientific method. In truth, they represent collectivist authoritarianism. (“The Science is Settled”…”We Have a Consensus”…”The Debate is Over”…Skeptics are slandered as “Denialists” a term coined originally to describe Nazis who denied the Holocaust occurred.) The warmists secretly hate transparency, open source, reasoned debate and independent reproducibility of results because in the end such Enlightenment processes will always white ant orthodoxy.
It’s hilarious to watch Luke and Gavin appropriate the “style” of science-y sounding banter as they promote what is essentially a socio-political dogma never tested by rational scrutiny. They seek a veneer of “truthiness” as opposed to objective empirical knowledge. This is because adherence to objective empiricism could lead anywhere, but Luke and Gavin already “know” the truth, so the process must work backwards arranging the evidence to fit the dogma.
Lest we forget: The idea of government legislating fine weather from the comfort of parliament was a scheme designed to tax and control every aspect of personal existence. As such it was the greatest single attack on our civil liberties by a sitting government in Australian history.
The true believers are on the wrong side of history.
Sorry, plum out of appeal-to-corrupted-authority links.
Anyone see Obama’s state of the nation address?
<> I know some of you may be questioning the science behind global warming – pregnant pause followed by mass chuckles throughout the Congress – either way it’s good policy to continue to move to clean energy – I announce that the US will start on a project to build a series of Nuclear Power stations and expand offshore oil exploration <>
say’s it all really.
Off to the Monckton Luncheon today 🙂
Wes,
Good points all — several of which prompted me to notice an interesting irony that pervades many discussions of Climategate amongst the AGW True Believers.
The AGWTBs are claiming that the ‘denialists’ are making the public distrustful of science and scientists generally. And thereby damaging science.
Remarkable. What they’re actually saying is, the skeptics are making the public skeptical, and that a gullible approach is preferable.
Gosh, how loathsome. But at least they’re honest about their creed on this one point.
Janama, Let us know how the lunch goes…
And Phil Jones is found guilty, but … http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece
Well “Darkies” Thurkettle – you’re telling the story here. But your typical denialist filth you only ever get half the story. Context with which this was cited was ???????? Sound of crickets….
And as for “Connecting deforestation with coral reefs absolutely must be an amazing scientific feat, you would think.” – well gee I’m sure you’d be well aware of excellent forensic work showing Great Barrier Reef sediment loads increasing 5-10x pre-European through land clearing for grazing and agriculture.
I’m sure you’d be well aware of the useful attributes for mangroves and have reviewed the literature too (not!).
In fact I’m sure you’d have kept up with a recent comprehensive review of land use impacts:
Ecological Applications
Water quality as a regional driver of coral biodiversity and macroalgae on the Great Barrier Reef
GLENN DE’ATH AND KATHARINA FABRICIUS
Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB 3, Townsville, Queensland 4810 Australia
Degradation of inshore coral reefs due to poor water quality is a major issue,
yet it has proven difficult to demonstrate this linkage at other than local scales. This study
modeled the relationships between large-scale data on water clarity and chlorophyll and four
measures of reef status along the whole Great Barrier Reef, Australia (GBR; 12–248 S). Four
biotic groups with different trophic requirements, namely the cover of macroalgae and the
taxonomic richness of hard corals and phototrophic and heterotrophic octocorals, were
predicted from water quality and spatial location. Water clarity and chlorophyll showed
strong spatial patterns, with water clarity increasing more than threefold from inshore to
offshore waters and chlorophyll increasing approximately twofold from inshore to offshore
and approximately twofold from south to north. Richness of hard corals and phototrophic
octocorals declined with increasing turbidity and chlorophyll, whereas macroalgae and the
richness of heterotrophic octocorals increased. Macroalgal cover experienced the largest water
quality effects, increasing fivefold with decreasing water clarity and 1.4-fold with increasing
chlorophyll. For each of the four biota, ;45% of variation was predictable, with water quality
effects accounting for 18–46% of that variation and spatial effects accounting for the
remainder. Effects were consistent with the trophic requirements of the biota, suggesting that
both macroalgal cover and coral biodiversity are partially controlled by energy supply
limitation. Throughout the GBR, mean annual values of .10 m Secchi disk depth (a measure
of water clarity) and ,0.45 g/L chlorophyll were associated with low macroalgal cover and
high coral richness, indicating these values to be potentially useful water quality guidelines.
The models predict that on the 22.8% of GBR reefs where guideline values are currently
exceeded, water quality improvement, e.g., by minimizing agricultural runoff, should reduce
macroalgal cover on average by 39% and increase the richness of hard corals and phototrophic
octocorals on average by 16% and 33%, respectively (all else being equal). Such guidelines may
help focus efforts to implement effective pollution reduction and integrated coastal
management policies for the GBR and other Indo-Pacific coral reefs.
Or would you be a pure political content-free agitator who likes licking the slimey exudate from right wing front groups?
Come on Wes – you’re soooo tedious. Big on long winded prosaic rants that just go nowhere. No science. No evidence. I normally fall asleep before finishing them. What was your point again ….
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz – huh what – yea someone put the cat out … zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Anyway Phil Jones – martyred for the cause of science. What a hero ! And after all this what do we find – the science still stands …. it’s just sceptic harassment – a witch hunt in fact…. that just wants to silence the science effort by intimidation. History will judge the sceptics very harshly. Add to tobacco denialism bookshelf.
Just remember to do the wanker test too Wes.
Just say the following for me:
“I Wessy Woo do believe that there is a global multi-institutional conspiracy to invent bogus climate science – linking hundreds of scientists across the world. I seriously believe that”.
“I further believe that a Dad’s army of retired geologists, economists and prickle farmers know more”.
“I believe that the UN can run chook raffles and could implement world government”
“I am not mental”
Excuse me Wes while I adjust my alfoil hat !
Lovely excerpt on the reefs, Luke.
Did you read it?
The part where it says, ‘yet it has proven difficult to demonstrate this linkage at other than local scales.’
Now show me the part where it says AGW causes the reef damage.
Not there.
Of course, you can wave your hands and repeat mantras like ‘linked with’ and ‘very likely’, but masquerading such stuff as ‘science’ is — in spite of the IPCC — primarily the domain of those who sell herbal remedies, crystals with astral auras, etc.
For instance, I could say that ‘belief in AGW is linked with coprolalia, making its victims highly likely to express themselves using foul and/or offensive language.’
Would you treat that claim as authoritative, Luke? And if so, what would you consider to be a ‘responsible countermeasure’?
I fear this may provoke a bout of coprolalia instead of a reasoned response, but we will see…
Luke,
The main pre 1910 issues are that it was as warm then as it is today. Something like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/compress:12/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.52/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.97/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/detrend:0.706/offset:0.07
If they were colder do you really think that they would have discarded those data?
When early settlers lived or died by the weather, their recordings were arguably much more diligent than what you get today. If their thermometers were half a degree out so what!?
They would have been consistently out and your TRENDS would still have been perfectly evident.
And I can’t believe that you quote ABC garbage links when arguing your case.
But I suppose it follows……like the GCMs….. GIGO.
janama,
Hope you have a great time today. Looks like Newcastle was a success.
Jen,
Couldn’t raise your link on Jones but I did find four missing glaciers.
Maybe they formed just recently.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7007094.ece
Spangled,
The game the AGWers constantly play is when to ‘begin’ what they want to call a ‘trend’.
Pick your starting point and you can say anything.
Luke’s just gaming the system.
The question remains, anthropogenic, or not? That’s been answered, folks, it’s all speculation.
Jen,
Links working now, thanks.
That statute of limitations is crazy.
Well – the lunch was a success for the Brisbane Institute that hosted it. The biggest event they’ve ever staged we were told.
It was totally subscribed and my table estimated attendance at around 500 people – at my table was a graziers wife from west of McKay, the rest were geologists 🙂 The average age would have been above 50 😉
Lord Monckton was his shining self with his own charts that debunk all the IPCC nonsense, Prof. Barry Brook was very dry and used the same old Hansen NASA charts for temp we’ve seen many times before. Prof. Plimer backed Lord Monckton’s remarks with his historic geology references and Graham Readfearn just got more and more confused and tried unsuccessfully to attack Prof. Plimer and Monckton personally in typical warmist style. He was quietly booed once when he took it too far. Totally beyond his expertise.
All in all it was very interesting, hardly a debate as the audience were clearly mainly sceptics.
I checked out the media and it was covered fully by the ABC and the BBC was also represented. The full video will be avaliable on the ABC website and the Brisbane Institute told me it will be up on their website within a week.
To all the diehards here you’ve seen it all before but I enjoyed seeing all the participants in person. I must say I admired Prof. Brook and Graham Readfearn for turning up as the audience was clearly biased and as Lord M said – no one else on their side is prepared to debate this subject.
I thoroughly enjoyed myself and I did get the opportunity the shake the hand of Prof, Brook and Graham Readfearn and thank them for ‘being there’ as Tony Jones would say. 🙂
janama,
Good on you, I think Brook and Readfearn deserve to be congratulated too.
Thanks for the summary. Won’t hold my breath till Tony Jones presents it on Lateline though.
I have some time for Brook because he is at least reasonable about nuclear; Redfearn I don’t know much about except for the occasional link to him at Deltoid which constitutes damnation by association; I don’t put much stock on the willingness of warmists to debate; up to now they have known that the msm will report them favourably no matter what; for instance NBN 3 at Newcastle, which funnels channel 9, reported that 400 people attended the Newcastle talk by Lord Monckton; actually 650 attended with about 50 turned away; in addition 1/2 of the NBN report consisted of an interview with one of the local greenies denigrating LM because he was not a scientist and peddaling the usual rubbish about the poles turning into steam; this is not balanced reporting.
This idea that LM’s comments are worthless is a pernicious concept; pro-agw scientists haven’t been delivering the word to the public, it has been a biased msm which has concocted the story and trained the pro-agw scientists to legitimise what they have been doing; it is therefore hypocritical to castigate LM because he is not a scientist, which he admits, when he uses his media expertise to counter the expert agitprop which has been delivered by the msm up to now.
Agree, cohers, and Doltoid is such a sad little site but anyone who is prepared to debate openly is ok.
I heard from CS that 700 turned up at your place.
I bet ya never knew this:
“Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, and its decline in the stratosphere would reduce the rate of global warming expected from other gases such as carbon dioxide, the researchers said.
According to the researchers, water vapor enters the stratosphere primary from air rising in the tropics.”
Who’d ‘a’ thought?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=9689224
SD, the Soloman paper vindicates Paltridge and proves Dessler, Soden and the models are junk; what a sick mess AGW science[sic] is.
Spanglers – simply a moronic off-topic response. And fancy being so utterly dishonest as to furnish a detrended graph. You’re a twit.
Darkies Thurkettle – as usual dribbling on off-topic. We weren’t talking about AGW – but land use change impacts – your comments are simply stupid and reveal your ignorance of any science at all.
But Cohers – sometimes you do come up with something. Of course your aside to Dessler and Soden is just denialist bunk but note that it’s Solomon herself – a source you would normally discredit – so why accept it here. Anyway no accounting for massive hypocrisy.
Nonetheless it’s about the only interesting thing in the last few years. And of course denialist scum wouldn’t do quality work like this.
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of
Global Warming
Susan Solomon,1 Karen Rosenlof,1 Robert Portmann,1 John Daniel,1 Sean Davis,1,2 Todd Sanford,1,2 Gian-Kasper Plattner3
1NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Division, Boulder, CO, USA. 2Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3Climate and Environmental Physics,
Physics Institute, University of Bern, Sidlerstrasse 5, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.
Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by
about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this
acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface
temperature over 2000-2009 by about 25% compared to
that which would have occurred due only to carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data
suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased
between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the
decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by
about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
These findings show that stratospheric water vapor
represents an important driver of decadal global surface
climate change.
Science is far from settled eh? Wow !
Luke,
How thick do you have to be to not realise that I simply point out that 1910 was a well accepted low point temperature-wise and that the BoM are being dishonest in choosing this point to throw out data.
There are many instances of highest temp records in the 1880s.
And how is it that you cannot respond either rationally or honestly?
Why would I normally debunk Soloman? Anyway, the science is settling rapidly;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
This paper supports the assertions about the lack of climate sensitivity by lord Monckton in his epistle to Mr Rudd; the abstract reads:
“The processes controlling the carbon flux and carbon storage of the atmosphere, ocean and terrestrial biosphere are temperature sensitive1, 2, 3, 4 and are likely to provide a positive feedback leading to amplified anthropogenic warming3. Owing to this feedback, at timescales ranging from interannual to the 20–100-kyr cycles of Earth’s orbital variations1, 5, 6, 7, warming of the climate system causes a net release of CO2 into the atmosphere; this in turn amplifies warming. But the magnitude of the climate sensitivity of the global carbon cycle (termed γ), and thus of its positive feedback strength, is under debate, giving rise to large uncertainties in global warming projections8, 9. Here we quantify the median γ as 7.7 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C warming, with a likely range of 1.7–21.4 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C. Sensitivity experiments exclude significant influence of pre-industrial land-use change on these estimates. Our results, based on the coupling of a probabilistic approach with an ensemble of proxy-based temperature reconstructions and pre-industrial CO2 data from three ice cores, provide robust constraints for γ on the policy-relevant multi-decadal to centennial timescales. By using an ensemble of >200,000 members, quantification of γ is not only improved, but also likelihoods can be assigned, thereby providing a benchmark for future model simulations. Although uncertainties do not at present allow exclusion of γ calculated from any of ten coupled carbon–climate models, we find that γ is about twice as likely to fall in the lowermost than in the uppermost quartile of their range. Our results are incompatibly lower (P < 0.05) than recent pre-industrial empirical estimates of ~40 p.p.m.v. CO2 per °C (refs 6, 7), and correspondingly suggest ~80% less potential amplification of ongoing global warming."
Lukebaby,
I know you’re good at “research” ie providing links; you’ve told me so yourself.
So I would like you do a little research for me please.
I would be grateful if you could provide me with a link to any original literature prior to 1973 that contains the word “greenhouse”
I await in breathless anticipation.
Thanks for the report, Janama. If you have any links to broadcasts of the debate that would be good.
As for Luke’s use of hate-speech term, “darkies” in relation to Schiller, whatever the inside joke may be, this isn’t the first time Luke has exhibited xenophobic and supremacist sentiment on this blog. He’s been censored here before– a very rare event on our very tolerant host’s part — for advocating in the most foul racist and hate-speech slurs that Japanese sailors should be murdered to protect whales. Certainly, few condone Japanese whaling, but murder and sociopathic racist rants are not part of a rational solution.
Luke has in the past often advocated violence and used hate-speech language against any one who doesn’t toe the orthodox AGW dogma. He has often suggested legislative limitations on free speech for those critical of the AGW hypothesis, even possible prosecution for crimes against humanity and imprisonment for anyone critical of the ETS. It’s all part of his bully boy style which apparently is beyond reproach on the Internet, although he would surely have been haul before a tribunal long ago in the workplace.
Personally, I would wish for a more rational representative of the AGW apocalyptic POV as I fear Luke does the warmist position far more damage then it actually deserves. Then again, perhaps karma is at play here.
Once again, no links to appeal-to-authority are needed. I think for me self.
And so should you!
Cohenite, there is a discussion about that paper on WUWT http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought/
A few have made comments that the authors have used corrupted temperature data for the comparison. I made the comment that they based the CO2 on the corrupt Keeling CO2 curve which used selected icecore data and ignored actual accurate measurement such as by Kreutz 1941 (measuements ofl a range of data including wind speeds, temperature, rain, solar radiation and CO2 every 90 minutes for 1.5 years) see the results on http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm which several others mentioned. Several commentors doubted the ice core proxies especially when one looks at the satellite image on top of the post. The CO2 is lower at the poles.
Those who have thought about it feel that paper still exaggerates the link between CO2 and temperature as a number of researchers are finding that temperature leads CO2. In the case of the Vostok ice cores it is 800 years (long term). In Beck,2007 it is 5 years in the period 1840 to 1960 (medium term) and in a recent post on Jonova a plot of CO2 vs UAH temperature on Woodfortrees in 2000 to 2010 one year (short term). These latter shows that the CO2 alarm is nonsense. The same, can be shown calculating the absorptivity of the present level of CO2 (0.038%) and it will be found to be insignificant to that of water vapor and of clouds (ice and water mist). Inspite of billions of research dollars no one has proved the hypothesis of AGW but there is a range of falsification from straight physics, spectra and heat transfer, temperature leading CO2, past CO2 similar or higher than present, no increase in satellite temperatures and now corruption of surface temperature records (and likely no measurable increase).
Some of the people on WUWT at least know what they are talking about and there seem to be no Lukes or Gavins (anyone who is rude is blocked)
Spanglers – irrelevant twaddle for the topic of trends in Australian extremes.
Wes – Schiller’s beloved term – not mine. – don’t be bluffed by Thurkettles “fine sentiments” Wes. Know thy ring wing spruikers for what they are.
As for Japanese – if you’re happy to let your family and friends suffer at the hands of the Japanese nation in WWII – to win that war – and now have them trash our sovereignty – well mate you’re un-Australian. So perhaps at times one’s emotions may run somewhat high. But for the record I have no issue with Japanese people in general. Get some backbone Wes and stop being an apologist for their national behaviour on this issue. But shhhh – don’t upset the coal exports. shhhhh
And yes many sceptics deserve a punch in the nose for their rancid tactics. But I’m sure we really wouldn’t do that. Would we? Could just be our frustrations with gutter tactics getting the better of us.
And yes I’d lock you up for your thoughts on the ETS – although I also might be pulling your leg. What do you reckon eh? And how old are you?
Surely Wes with your pugilistic rhetorical style and libelous career assination of many good scientists who you have never met you would have a great deal of difficulty laying straight in bed. Shame on you ! But you have created us Wes – we’re just a mirror to your own style.
In terms of a more rational position on the AGW POV – well you’d have to STFU and listen for a while. Have you ever asked which aspects I ascribe to for example?
I have for example said that the ETS isn’t a good idea. Doesn’t mean that AGW is not a risk. I have not said that AGW has affected drought in all of eastern Australia. I have acknowledged natural climate variation. I have said that there is a good case for AGW influence in rainfall decline in SW WA and the Murray, southern Australian region. I have also said that the science is not perfect. Just a few bits n pieces.
Wes – sceptics won’t allow a rational exposition on AGW. You either take the whole 100% or nothing. It’s simply wedge tactics.
You ought be most interested in Cohenite and Spanglers aside to Solomon’s latest Science paper.
P.S. Mack – am I your librarian? You yourself could find Solomon’s paper in about – oh …. mmmm – a whole 20 seconds. Why don’t you just make your point.
P.S.S. Cohers – when Monckton publishes and gets some peer review I might take notice. But I suppose Lords don’t need peer review? They “just know”. In any case the Nature paper is another variant on “sensitivity”. And – normally you’d rubbish Nature as an alarmist source – so why accept this paper? From the same stable?
Folks,
By now I’m sure you all know that the people at Hadley CRU have been found to have unlawfully refused to comply with a legitimate FOI request for climate data, etc. — and that they cannot be prosecuted because the six-month statute of limitations has run out.
Even so, there remains the possibility that Phil Jones, and perhaps others, could be prosecuted under the provisions of the United Kingdom Fraud Act, which offers imprisonment of up to ten years. (1)
There’s another prosecutorial route that no-one seems yet to have noticed.
Have you heard about the hackers who got into the Hadley and NOAA computers and corrupted the databases?
Sure you have. It was an inside job — the kind of hack that IT professionals fear worst of all.
Hacking government databases and corrupting data is a criminal offense nearly everywhere. I’d love to see Hansen, Mann, Jones et. al. defending ‘hacker ethics’ in front of a jury.
—————
1. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100024266/the-criminal-case-against-dr-phil-climategate-jones/
Wes – I had to laugh heartily.
“Once again, no links to appeal-to-authority are needed. I think for me self.”
YOU DO ! WOW ! I must have missed that sentence ….
And Wes – I’ll leave it to your good judgement – read Thurkettle 12:13am – now Wes – how genuine do you reckon this bloke is. “Think for yourself” as you say.
And you’re “worried” about me Wes – wow !!
Folks,
Things are revealed to be worse (or better) than we earlier thought about the IPCC’s ‘scholarship’.
Turns out, there’s a ‘revolving door’ at the IPCC between Greenpeace’s authorship of what the IPCC cites, and Greenpeace’s ‘expert review’ of Greenpeace’s ‘research’ cited in IPCC ‘scholarship’.
There’s even a juicy Pachauri/TERI- style tidbit involving a Greenpeacer, a cited paper, and a new wind-power company the Greenpeacer is involved in.
I’m waiting for Luke to defend the research of WWF, Greenpeace, et. al. as being authoritative enough for the IPCC, and to hear if he believes this is the way climatology should be handled.
Link: http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/greenpeace-and-nobel-winning-climate_28.html
Now that it is shown that positive feedbacks to CO2 increases have been grossly overstated, are any of those demanding extreme measures willing to reconsider?
Now Hunter – as a bloke who has scorned formal science institutions and derided the mainstream peer reviewed literature – how do you know this paper is any good. Perhaps they’re “on the take” like you allege the whole other climate science community are. And what if they use “models”. Surely on consistency you’d reject the paper. Unless of course you’re completely unobjective?
Darkies Schiller – just keep trying to pump up the volume. Just some pimples for you professional activists to pick at.
There you have it, folks!
We finally have an answer.
Luke considers what he calls ‘pimples’ to be authoritative enough for the IPCC, and the use of them to be acceptable in the field of climatology.
Wild.
More religious, totalitarian scholarship on AGW to support luke and the other fundamentalists on this blog.
Asama bin laden has come out strongly in support of luke and other numbskulls here, gee luke what brilliant support, I don’t know how you do it.
It’s all America’s fault, of course the biggest emitter China and the other non OECD group won’t have any influence by 2030 when theywill be producing over 25 billion tonnes pa.
OECD countries will be producing less than 15,000 billion tonnes by 2030, but that won’t matter will it luke, anyhow congratulations on your important new found support, it really bolsters your case.
Remember this same luke still thinks that AGW could have had some link to our 1940’s drought, just so you understand the qualitative argument he can produce when cornered.
Folks,
Here’s a bit of a potpourri.
First off, I wanted to be the first to notice that Bin Laden and Al Gore are now on the same team, but I got beat to it. (1) The conclusion that Luke is on that team is beyond dispute, of course.
But there’s other stuff.
Apropos of the earlier discussion regarding Godwin’s law of Nazi Analogies, and its equivalence with the yet-unnamed corollary regarding the law of tobacco analogies, it turns out that Al Gore exemplifies this as much as Luke.
But it gets worse: Al Gore demonizes tobacco, but he takes tons of tobacco money — and has, for years. (2) Sort of like Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, sitting on the board of an oil company.
Now for the cool stuff: in the UK, it will soon become massively expensive — in terms of criminal fines — to screw with climate data. Fines up to £500,000. (3)
According to the cited article, after April 6, 2010, the fine will apply to those ‘contravening, overlooking or being merely careless with data’, resulting from ‘a serious breach that was likely to cause damage or distress (not just financial), it was either deliberate or negligent ( i.e. the data controller must have known that there was a risk that a contravention would occur) and the organisation failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it.’
This means that internal hacking of public records of climate data will no longer be priceless, but rather, costly. Hadley’s claim that the data were ‘lost’ or ‘erased’, or other claims that they were corrupted beyond retrieval, might be prosecutable.
After April 6, hijinks like that will be appropriately subject to criminal fines.
Luke will, of course, consider intentional corruption of data to be a ‘pimple’.
Luke considers the IPCC’s forecast of the disappearance of the main water supply for 40% of the world’s most destitute population, based on erroneous crap published by a fund-raising group, to be a ‘pimple’.
Luke, as long as you insist on the importance of ‘pimples’ in climatology, the more you appear to be a ‘pimple’ yourself.
———
1. http://beforeitsnews.com/story/14452/Bin_Laden_Warns_World_Of_Dead_In_Quote;_Joins_Al_Gore_In_Climategate_Fight.html
2. http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/al-gores-tobacco-hypocrisy.html
3. http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=a08d0a40-c2fa-4abe-b15e-fc61a1098794
Try not be such denialist scum Darkies Schiller. Maybe Bin Laden likes donuts too? Let’s demonise donuts.
“Internal hacking of public records” – go and say that in the UK on public record – although we all know rednecks and denialists love innocent until proven guilty. You’d be good in the wild west mate – in a lynch mob.
You’re just an old experienced astroturfer Darkies Schiller. But Wes loves you. He loves your morality.
And it is a pimple on a major report Darkies Schiller. Timing is wrong – issue still exists.
Denialist scum simply want to stop climate science. And if they can concoct any bogus legal device to do so they will. It’s fascinating to see the tawdry history of those involved in the denialist movement.
As for 1940s Neville – can I help it if you don’t understand forcing…. and are a science ignoramus?
Luke,
I’d like it if you could explain to me the origin and meaning of the phrase, ‘Darkies Schiller’, which you appear to employ as derogatory.
I am very concerned about your defense of Bin Laden. There are extreme defenses of AGW everywhere, but your defense of Bin Laden, in this context, or any other, is utterly, completely, and without equivocation, abhorrent, odious, and disgusting.
Luke, aligning yourself with the most horrid exemplar of extremism engaged in the exploitation of religionist maniacs has exposed you as worse than foul.
You are repugnant, Luke. A prize example of your pustulent, festering brood.
.
This argument about Monckton not being a scientist and peer-reviewed is a furphy; Monckton is an erudite layman with a good grasp of statistical analysis and a great ability to communicate; this puts him light years ahead of the Monbiots, Gores and other self-appointed experts in and out of the msm which is doing the promulgation of AGW. Monckton’s analysis of climate sensitivity in his letter to Rudd was done using the IPCC’s own methods and data; all the Deltoid boys could come up with is that Monckton was wrong in saying IPCC did not have its own formula for calculating CS;
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/the_australians_war_on_science_43.php
deltoid also argues that Monckton wrongly used the IPCC estimate of CS which was 2-4.5C for CO2x2 not 3.26C as Monckton calculated; in fact by doing this Monckton underestimated the IPCC estimate of CS. But none of this invalidated Monckton’s key point about how useless the proposed Copenhagen agreement would have beeen in reducing AGW at vast expense, even if one accepts the IPCC estimates of CS.
Of course these IPCC estimates for CS are wildly wrong as not only the Frank et al paper on CS shows; the simple fact is that CO2 increases do bugger all to anything except plant growth; the key to climate change is water and now from inside the heart of AGW territory comes the news from Soloman et al that water is contradicting AGW theory as well.
Lukefartard,
“Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by
about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this
acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface
temperature over 2000-2009 by about 25% compared to
that which would have occurred due only to carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data
suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased
between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the
decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by
about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
These findings show that stratospheric water vapor
represents an important driver of decadal global surface
climate change.”
Yup, it is your quote.
The best part is they only give a water vapor increase from 1980-2000 a PROBABLE!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Can’t even definitively show that it happened!!!!
Just wanted to point out that your loverly models had that demon water vapor feedback continuing through the early decades of the 2000’s. So, it is time for your rational explanation of what suddenly blocked the monotonic feedback that was alledgedly causing the unprecendented warming through the late 1900’s so that even the water vapor feedback that could maintain the temps started falling resulting in the current lower temps.
That’s right ‘tard, time to put up or shut up. So far you have presented NOTHING to show why that dangerous CO2 rise causing Water Vapor feedback isn’t continuing that temp increase.
You keep shuckin’ and jivin’ and throwing out one irrelevant paper after another. The one you quoted is laughable. It alledges that the temps would be even lower without the feedbacks that are allowing the decrease. What does that mean?? Are we heading for an Ice Age even as CO2 continues to increase?? They are claiming the ridiculous high atmospheric sensitivity can’t prevent the loss of the Water Vapor that the models REQUIRE for their temp increases!!
Time to pull your head out and realise how psychotic these papers and their claims are becoming!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Come on ‘tard, time to tell us how it works!!!!
Cohenite,
You bring up an interesting point about:
‘This argument about Monckton not being a scientist and peer-reviewed is a furphy; Monckton is an erudite layman with a good grasp of statistical analysis…’
The AGWers cannot bear any dissent from their false claim of ‘consensus’.
What they fear more is the ‘erudite layman’. After all, such people have exposed AGW and its advocates to the sort of scrutiny it, and they, have utterly failed to withstand.
This would be a shabby, stupid debate, except that the lives and livelihoods of billions are in the balance, along with billions in public-financed ‘Green’ projects that subsidize multinationals.
AGW is big business — it’s not a scientific debate, and hasn’t been, for a long while.
And, according to Luke, AGW is a good part of jihad.
.
Lukefartard,
“Stratospheric water vapor concentrations decreased by
about 10% after the year 2000. Here we show that this
acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface
temperature over 2000-2009 by about 25% compared to
that which would have occurred due only to carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases. More limited data
suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased
between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the
decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by
about 30% compared to estimates neglecting this change.
These findings show that stratospheric water vapor
represents an important driver of decadal global surface
climate change.”
Yup, it is your quote.
The best part is they only give a water vapor increase from 1980-2000 a PROBABLE!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Can’t even definitively show that it happened!!!!
Just wanted to point out that your loverly models had that demon water vapor feedback continuing through the early decades of the 2000’s. So, it is time for your rational explanation of what suddenly blocked the monotonic feedback that was alledgedly causing the unprecendented warming through the late 1900’s so that even the water vapor feedback that could maintain the temps started falling resulting in the current lower temps.
That’s right ‘tard, time to put up or shut up. So far you have presented NOTHING to show why that dangerous CO2 rise causing Water Vapor feedback isn’t continuing that temp increase.
You keep shuckin’ and jivin’ and throwing out one irrelevant paper after another. The one you quoted is laughable. It alledges that the temps would be even lower without the feedbacks that are allowing the decrease. What does that mean?? Are we heading for an Ice Age even as CO2 continues to increase?? They are claiming the ridiculous high atmospheric sensitivity can’t prevent the loss of the Water Vapor that the models REQUIRE for their temp increases!! Without the water vapor there is little warming in the models!!!
Time to pull your head out and realise how psychotic these papers and their claims are becoming!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Come on ‘tard, time to tell us how it works!!!!
As for Bin Laden – “my defense” – Where did I offer any support ?
You are a fabricating feral!
KochHead Kat – no not my quote. WRONG. and your diatribe is simply mindless twaddle – so stupid in its contorted stupidity – I can only suggest you stop playing with hallucinogenic substances and your willy or whatever alien species have.
But guys – just tell me – the end of video 2 here.
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/?p=2978
Do you guys like this? Or does it make you feel somewhat uneasy. Personally I barfed. What a nauseating performance.
Cohenite – when you get any of your bunk from landscape published let us know. Until then zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
All unpublished rot – like Monky’s stuff. Fringe literature.
I note that Luke has not explained his pejorative use of the phrase, ‘Darkie Schiller’.
I note that Luke has not explained his defense of Bin Laden.
I note that Luke has not justified frightening 40 percent of the world’s most vulnerable population with the fallacious notion that they will run out of water by 2035, a claim that Luke asserts is a ‘pimple’.
Every blog has its ‘village idiot’, but we have Luke.
Luke is more than the village idiot, he’s the village jihadist.
Come on, Luke, let’s hear your rejection of Bin Laden and jihad.
I want to hear you reject it. I want to see your rejection of Bin Laden and jihad, and to see your rejection of any connection with AGW, loud, clear, and unequivocal.
Luke, can you really bring yourself to rejecting jihadism?
Take a stance, dude. There’s ‘friends’ that some don’t want to have. Or, to acknowledge.
.
Oh, sure, published; maybe Dr Jones can help out; do you happen to have Dr Jones’ address; oh, that’s right, Dartmoor.
It’s your term Schiller. Your usage. It’s all in archives old chap.
And yes Schiller I saw the pictures of the frightened peoples of India running crazed about the streets after the IPCC report. It was in the news everywhere. Tell us Schiller are they your Darkies or do you have another name for them? I’m sure you do.
Schiller how long now have you been a jihad supporter? When did you convert? You certainly know a lot about it?
Take a stance Schiller – refute that you don’t use underhand astroturf tactics – refute that you don’t just make shit up. – refute that you don’t sex up commentary for political ends. I just want to hear you say it.
SD – here are some charts for you to ponder.
This is the current .csv file available from BoM regarding station 66062 – Sydney Observatory Hill.
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=66062
It covers 1859 – 2009
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_current.png
Here’ is the Data for Sydney 66062 that I took from that site I linked to on Jo Nova’s site which was Torok’s original data back in 1999. and covers 1859 – 1993
source: ftp://ftp2.bom.gov.au/anon/home/bmrc/perm/climate/temperature/annual/
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney.png
BTW – here’s Darwin over the same period
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Darwin.png
and why use 1910?
here’s why
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_1.png
BTW – I saw the Monckton Brisbane debate on Sky Climate Change channel being repeated over and over this morning on my hotel video.
janama,
Thanks for that. That is exactly the point. The hottest recording was 1896 and now all that pre 1910 data is being tossed out and Ken U B Sodum doesn’t think it’s relevant.
I sent David Jones a couple of emails in protest but I’m sure he’s related to Phil.
I listened to and watched the reports and he is really precise and crystallizes the argument, whereas many of the advocates of either side of the debate are often not specific enough.
Lukebaby…Jan 30th 12.11 am
” Why don’t you just make your point”
My point is Luke is that you won’t find any literature with the word “greenhouse” in it prior to 1973 because , as I have told you before, no one had ever heard of anything “greenhouse” before then.
The only heat kids were given to worry about back then was thermonuclear.
You can’t imagine a world without “greenhouse” can you Luke.
Us older guys have witnessed the genesis of your AGW scam from its inception. We’ve seen how Al Gore called together the first meeting of US scientists back in 1980 and was chairman of that meeting. We’ve seen how the media dropped quote-marks around the word “greenhouse” turning scientific hypothesis into scientific fact.
We can see through your corrupt scam of science in its totallity.
( Sorry for breaking thread a bit everybody)
Yes SD – I understand what you mean by the hottest year etc but didn’t you notice that the two charts are entirely different. The current chart shows a warming of 1.9C since 1859 whereas the data pre 1993 from my link shows a cooling of approx 0.2C since 1859!!
someone has been cooking the damn books since 1993!
Luke,
Thanks for the video links for the Sydney presentation. I noticed Andy Pitman described you to a tee – if you replace “climate sceptics” with Luke Walker.
Folks,
You’ll get a kick out of this bit.
We have the IPCC relying on the WWF ‘research’ as everyone knows.
But Australia’s CSIRO was helping the WWF!
Specifically, A. Barrie Pittock, who says he changed his analysis of climate data for ‘pedagogic’, rather than ‘statistical’ reasons.
He also notes, intriguingly, that his method ‘has the effect of showing precip. changes for the majority of Australia even in the B1 scenario.’
Link: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=126&filename=.txt
A fine read for a wet day – or any other day in fact!
http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html
“Global Warming: the Collapse of a Grand Narrative
For over a month now, since the farcical conclusion of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, I have been silent, partly through family commitments abroad in the USA, but also because, in this noisy world, in ‘The Clamour Of The Times’, it is on occasion better to be quiet and contemplative, to observe rather than to comment. And, as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. It is like watching the Berlin Wall [pictured] being torn down, concrete slab by concrete slab, brick by brick, with cracks appearing and widening daily on every face – political, economic, and scientific. Likewise, the bloggers have been swift to cover the crumbling edifice with colourful graffiti, sometimes bitter, at others caustic and witty.”
Schiller
Gee, that’s an interesting group of emails – there seems to be a very cosy relationship between the WWF and CSIRO. These people are also well entrenched in the system, so the AGW may not do a Titanic, but might limp back home, and venture out again when things become quiet.
Thanks Ian, that was indeed a dam fine read. So much so that I’ve bookmarked the site to explore at my leisure.
Unbeleieveable Janama & Spanglers – have you guys the faintest idea. The issue is trend in hot records vs cold records NOT which measurement was the hottest. Honestly do you guys have ANY clue? Seriously dudes – your utter silliness is why sceptics (well faux sceptics or shonk sceptics) are simply giggled at. Spanglers was peddling a detrended graph the other day. Pullease ….
Darkies Schiller – If you have any evidence of impropriety table it – don’t be a slimey little innuendo skunk. Put up or shut up !
Mack – simply the most moronic comment I’ve ever ever ever seen. You denialists don’t have 2 neurones to rub together. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ i.e. you’re a dickhead
Louis,
The scandals revealed at that site are endless. A search for ‘Greenpeace’ generates 26 hits. For ‘WWF’: a paltry 16, but still far too many for the comfort of any group of scientists interested in preserving an appearance of professionalism.
A search for ‘CSIRO’ brings up 21 results, which in this mix is not a good sign. Connecting these dots alone could generate a new ‘-gate’ all of its own. Government scientists bending data so that lobby groups can raise funds? Very bad.
The one email excerpted is symptomatic: a scientist saying he’s changed the analysis of data for ‘pedagogical’ purposes — and to satisfy the need of the WWF, at that. If that’s science, it’s political science at best. More accurate to call it malpractice, and that’s being kind.
This is like buying a carton of food at the grocery store, only to open it and find it teeming with maggots. My gosh, what a festering mess. Not even the most skeptical skeptic ever thought it was actually this bad.
hehe.
One need not look very far for bad stuff on that index of the CRU emails.
Just did a search on ‘Pachauri’.
Two of the early hits show that Pachauri was in on the discussions regarding the strangulation of authors/papers challenging the AGW religion:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=306&filename=1051156418.txt
and
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=308&filename=1051202354.txt
One of the hits was on an email from Mike Hulme to Phil Jones, and Mike says, ‘Why should not an Indian scientist chair IPCC … why not get an engineer/economist since many of the issues now raised by CC are more to do with energy and money, than natural science.’
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=270&filename=1019513684.txt
LOL! How refreshingly honest! CC is more about energy and money, than about science!
Since we don’t know how the ‘liberated’ emails and documents were assembled, we don’t know if this is a *complete* set of the *relevant* stuff. We know for a fact that this is *not* the complete set of everything, and until we know how this was collected, and by whom, this will remain an open question.
Luke – as you are so knowledgeable perhaps you can explain to me why this maximum temperature series for station 66062 – Sydney, Observatory Hill
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_current.png
is entirely different to this one
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney.png
yet both are sourced from BoM.
Janama,
Luke won’t explain it to you, but I will. Re Trenberth’s famous observation, if the data don’t fit the theory, the data are surely in error. So, once you ‘correct’ for ‘erroneous’ data, the data confirm the theory. Quite elementary…
Poor old lukey the stupid , what’s the bet this dummy will be the last idiot to wake up to the corruption and fraud.
All these gates just seem to be jumping out of the woodwork, over at WUWT the latest one is from students via a popular climbers magazine, complaining about reduction in ice due to AGW on popular climbing sites around the world.
REAL PEER REVIEWED stuff and yet these hopeless, fanatical believers seem to go on and on, clinging on to their AGW dummy like a dysfunctional babe.
As an old mate of mine used to say ” some silly buggers are so dumb they wouldn’t wake up if a country outhouse fell on them.”
Suits lukey exactly, he hasn’t got a clue and hasn’t enough brains to suffer any embarressment or feel any shame, what a dunce.
janama; are those 2 graphs both of the maxiumum temperature for each year and not mean [monthly] maximum temperature for each year?
It just gets more bizarre, now we are told that the pachauri looney has written a sordid sex novel, I mean hasn’t this idiot created enough fiction already?
Neville,
Sorry to have doubted you about the Pachauri sex novel. Being a skeptic, I had to look for confirmation — and here it is:
“Revealed: the racy novel written by the world’s most powerful climate scientist”, Telegraph (London, UK), Jan. 30, 2010, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111068/Revealed-the-racy-novel-written-by-the-worlds-most-powerful-climate-scientist.html
Remarkably, the novel ‘tells the story of a climate expert…’
We are assured that ‘passages in the novel involve group sex and more risqué sexual practices.’ Reminds one of Copenhagen and ‘strange bedfellows’.
This is great: ‘The novel was launched amid much fanfare with Bollywood stars and wealthy industrialists in attendance, a reflection of Dr Pachauri’s esteemed status in the country.’
This Pachauri dude definitely knows how to monetize. The open question is: where’s the biggest market for this novel? The ‘skeptics’, or the AGWers?
Will Al Gore show up to do a book-signing event for this novel? Shewt, these days, nobody can find Al Gore any better than they can find Tiger Woods.
Who needs novels anyhow? The real thing’s far more entertaining!
P.S. I wonder if there’s a Luke character in the Pachauri novel. There’s a twisted notion.
Schiller, something that really disturbs me about these emails that are about “peer review” is; how can Mann, Jones etc all be willing to put their hands up to be a reviewer when they are mostly from different fields of climate research? Doesn’t that negate the idea of “peer” review? It also comes across that any science that disagrees with their point of view is “bad science”. If there are literally thousands of climate scientists out there who agree with the AGW hypothesis, (as the true believers maintain) then by definition, there must be plenty around to be peer reviewers without the CRU boys having to be involved every time there is a dissenting paper waiting to be published.
If the word “conspiracy” is too harsh,surely there is plenty of evidence of collusion at least.
Cohenite – The Torok data is Maximum Temperatures from 1859 – 1993
The current data is from BoM and is Mean Maximum Temperature from 1959 – 2009
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=36&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_stn_num=66062
Surely the trends should be similar.
here are my two spreadsheets
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/sydney_current.xls
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/Sydney_Torok.xls
here’s how the data is described at the Torok BoM site
finaln.utx.Z ‘Data file of minimum temperatures’
fianlx.utx.Z ‘Data file of maximum temperatures’
Derek,
Your question is excellent and worthy of discussion.
The notion of ‘peer review’, as popularly conceived, implies a circular, insular process where those who agree with the ‘accepted notions’ review papers to determine if those papers express ‘accepted notions’.
The result is, obviously, the excrescence of some thoughts of ‘consensus’ and ‘the science is settled’ and so forth.
It is precisely at this point where ‘peer review’ goes wrong.
The editor of a scientific publication cannot be a master of all scientific disciplines and their sub-specialties. At best, the editor has enough acumen to sift out pseudo-science, but the question remains, what to do with the rest.
What to do with the rest is left to those whom the editor considers to be ‘peers’ of the authors involved. Is the paper junk science, or not? So, essentially, the editor is delegating the editorial task to others.
This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, aspect of science journalism. And it is just as corruptible as cronyism, subject to political whims, and — what is just as bad — the financial pressures exerted by the sales department. Subscriptions to scientific journals are incredibly expensive, and they have very small groups of subscribers.
A concerted blow to a journal can result in unemployment, and this is precisely the vulnerability which the Hockey Crew employed to strangle competition with the AGW creed.
I personally cannot see how ‘peer review’ can be improved upon. There is an observation that democracy is the worst form of government, except that all the other alternatives are far worse than that.
If you can say that about democracy, consider how things must be for science.
Science is, at its best, most beneficial exertions, anarchic. It obeys no creed, disdains tyrants and dogmas as equally pernicious. As actually superfluous.
Accordingly, ‘peer review’ is the worst process devisable for the publication of scientific findings, except that all the other alternatives are so dismally, frightfully worse that they’re not worth considering.
In the interim, the best we can do is to jettison preconceived notions of the function of ‘peer review’. It is most emphatically *not* to form ‘a consensus’, but rather, to provide expert assistance to editors of science journals as they attempt to determine what is worth the paper, the ink, and the journal’s reputation.
I hope this helps.
Now even the bbc seem to have doubts, when these loopy ratbags look like throwing in the towel you just know that the 5th report is looking more doubtful day by day.
The king tides this weekend are being quoted by both the BoM and MSM in SE Qld as the Highest Astronomical Tides for over a year and heavy coastal erosion is predicted so I thought it would be an ideal test for observable SLR against my benchmark of a river estuary wall and jetty I built in 1963, nearly 50 years ago.
With strong wind warnings out and cyclone depressions up north there should be additional wind pressure to raise SLs along the Qld coast.
Saturday’s and Sunday’s tides turned out to be about the same even though Sunday was predicted to be higher on the Gold Coast, [Saturday on the Sunshine Coast] however they were both about 8 inches [200 mm] below HATs of nearly 50 years ago.
If we are getting SLR as predicted, how can that possibly be?
Can anyone explain what’s really happening?
Sorry Lukefartard,
it IS your quote!!! I refed the paper for the measured decrease in water vapor. YOU SWALLOWED THE CRAP ABOUT THE DECREASE IN WV CAUSING LOWER TEMPS!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Ok – I’ve blown it – my apologies – I misunderstood the mean v max in the data.
forget about my previous posts.
Have to laugh, if pachauri’s dirty book is about a climate expert, it can’t be auto bigraphical can it, yuk yuk.
Thanks Schiller, I would have thought though that if peer review were pure, then research outside the bounds of “accepted” paradigms would still have to be assessed based on verification of calculations, empirical evidence and adherence to correct and accepted methodologies. If this were to happen, perhaps more so-called “fringe” science would get a fair hearing.
On that note, I recommend getting hold of a copy of “The electric sky” by Donald E. Scott. The section on dark matter and related topics is most illuminating and an example of how the guys with the biggest reputations can get away with making stuff up despite an abundance of empirical evidence to the contrary.
Spangles:
“If we are getting SLR as predicted, how can that possibly be? Can anyone explain what’s really happening?”
It’s simple – the BOM forecasting methodology is based on the flawed assumption of AGW. It’s built into the computer models, and when SLR doesn’t happen, then the model assumptions are wrong.
“your jetty” Spanglers – gee need one even ask. Maybe it’s settled/moved !! Moronic drivel from Sinkers in support.
What I did enjoy was this comment in RealClimate on sceptics from a sceptic.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/#comment-157571
Says in part:
“I have to say, I label myself (privately) as a “skeptic”, but I can’t use the term, because deniers have absconded it and twisted it to their purposes. But I’m a layman (2/3 degree in chemistry) who takes nothing at face value. I visit sites from both camps. For everything I read, I look for more, and when that seems to explain/debunk it, I look for more, and keep going, until I’m perfectly secure in my own knowledge and opinion. It’s still only a layman’s POV, and so incomplete, but it’s not simply what I’ve been asked to accept, or worse yet, just as much as I need to find to confirm my own desires, and nothing more.
That said… I’ve never once seen a denial argument pan out. They can be cleverly constructed so they take a lot to untangle, but they never ultimately come to anything.”
How exactly correct – denial arguments however clever don’t pan out. Denialists don’t advance science. THE END !
Lukebaby,
“you’re a dickhead”
Whatssamatter Lukebaby? Strike a raw nerve did I?
You sent me to Spencer Weart who just spouts AGW claptrap in the guise of history. Not history as I know it Lukebaby; no dates and times to speak of.
No mention of Big Al although he was part of your AGW history too eh Luke.
But now he is just history.
That also suits your case too eh Lukebaby.
Yeah, you’d like to disassociate yourself from Big Al but unfortunately he’s your annointed one. Tough dilemma eh .
If you come back to me with any original literature prior to 1973 containing the word “greenhouse” then you might be able to bend my ear about history.
Until then you’re the dickhead.
“your jetty” Spanglers – gee need one even ask. Maybe it’s settled/moved !!
Settled???
And still above the exceptional high tide?
The Domain name of Climategate.com has sold for over $10,000 US.
http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/07/climategate-com-domain-name-sells/
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12607#more-12607
IPCC Junk Science Exposed – Why Would Anyone Still Believe?
New AGW Climategater Tactic!
Here’s a remarkable tale from NewsoftheNorth.net They called for a debate, and nobody came — nobody from the AGW camp, that is.
Here’s an excerpt:
Event organizer Kim Simac spent weeks organizing the debate and was clearly frustrated by her failed attempts to get some balance into the discussion.
“I invited scientists from all over the country — even some from around the world — to a fair and balanced event,” she said. “I was amazed at the lack of response to the many invitations that went out, but more interesting were the insulting, mocking, sarcastic replies I received from scientists who seem to share a similar belief that a debate is ridiculous on such a settled science.”
–That’s right, folks! The ‘science is settled’, which is why Al Gore canceled his session in Copenhagen, and hasn’t been heard from since. Maybe why Pachauri has moved on to a new career in writing porn. (The ‘self-stimulation’ element in his opus may be meaningful.)
The fraudsters are now gone into hiding (with some exceptions) and pleading the excuse that ‘debate is ridiculous on such a settled science.’
They’ve likely been advised by their lawyers that further public statements will be constitute additional evidence of their involvement in fraud.
This is a terrible episode in human history, but I remain a hopeful cynic. As the dust settles, and the members of the global Doomsday Cult either go to prison or subside into oblivion, the practice of science will emerge in a way which is so robust that it will challenge the European Enlightenment.
———-
1. ‘Global warming – hoax or fact? Debate rages on in search of truth’, Jan. 30, 2010,
http://newsofthenorth.net/article/Top_Stories/National/Global_warming_hoax_or_fact_Debate_rages_on_in_search_of_truth/34186
Since it’s well-settled on both sides of ‘the AGW debate’ that we’re dealing with notions of Global Apocalypse, it makes some sense to investigate past experiences with Doomsday Cults and what we know of them.
Wikipedia is polluted with political interests and therefore unreliable, but it’s an easy starting point. Apologism for doomsday cults (1) is apparent, but there is a more reasoned approach in the article on apocalypticism. (2)
These articles serve as general introductions to better investigations, (3) which reveal such behavior as a ‘club good’ shared amongst members, even though these behaviors are deleterious in a wider context.
Consider Luke, for instance.
Nearly every day, he is revealed as cognitively compromised, and verbally vacuous. While he is reviled as ridiculous, he nonetheless perceives himself as receiving accolades from other members of the Doomsday (planetary carbon suffocation) Cult, and that gives him a sense of purpose.
Making sense of these people is making more sense all the time.
—————–
1. Wikipedia: Doomsday Cults, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_cult
2. Wikipedia: Apocalypticism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypticism
3. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2138608
Meanwhile while Darkies Thumbkettle dribbles on laying more and more astroturf, (Hi Ho Hi Ho – it’s off to work we go laying astroturf and bullshit as we go, paid by think tanks in the know – hi ho hi ho) it appears we ain’t heading for an ice age after all.
But hey you can’t trust the numbers – motivated by those who want socialist world govt by the UN (who can’t seem to organise a chook raffle) in a major global conspiracy over multiple institutions and multiple jurisdictions. Oh excuse me I just have to shoo the flying pigs away from the fairy lights again ….
Warmest since records began: 2009
MATT CAWOOD
29 Jan, 2010 03:47 PM
NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has placed 2009 as the warmest year in the Southern Hemisphere since records began 130 years ago, and the past decade as the warmest globally.
Globally, 2009 tied with 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 as the second warmest year on record after 2005, according to the GISS analysis of planetary temperatures.
The decade from January 2000 to December 2009 was clearly the warmest since modern instrumentation was introduced in 1880.
“There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle”, said GISS director James Hansen.
“But when we average temperature over five or ten years to minimize that variability, we find that global warming is continuing unabated.”
Over the past three decades, according to the GISS analysis, the global average temperature has increased 0.2 degrees Celsius a decade.
The Australian Bureau of Meterology (BoM) is waiting on the results of a similar analysis by the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre, which BoM has traditionally used as a guide to global temperature trends.
The Hadley Centre analysis tends to be more conservative than GISS, according to BoM senior climatologist Dr Karl Braganza, because Hadley scientists leave out areas of the Arctic and Antarctic where climate monitoring stations are scarce.
GISS extrapolates data for these areas from the nearest monitoring stations in an attempt to deliver a fuller climate picture.
In the Hadley analysis, polar areas without monitoring stations are assumed to be warming at the same rate as the global average. GISS incorporates sea ice data from satellites that indicates the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet.
Dr Braganza said while the two methods produce slightly different results – although often within a tenth or a hundredth of a degree – both show the same global warming trend.
A key driver of natural climate variability is the El Nino-La Nina cycle, which stems from the cyclic warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean.
GISS and BoM climatologists believe the El Nino of late 2009 combined with greenhouse gas-driven warming to produce an unusually warm year in 2009.
“The unusual thing about this El Nino when it got going around mid-2009 was that Pacific ocean temperatures were already very warm, which was likely a continuation of the greenhouse warming effect,” Dr Braganza said.
That warmth across the Pacific generated rain, which counteracted the usual El Nino drying effect on eastern Australia for several months. But as the year went on, across eastern Australia as a whole it was very dry.
“Tasmania got some good rainfall, and Victoria had two or three rainfall events, but they were just weather events. Typically during an El Nino we get less of them.
“When you are talking about climate, you’re talking about what history can tell you might happen over a particular stretch of time–but during an El Nino, you can still get a good rainall event coming through with the normal weather that gives a bit of relief.”
The global warming trend, which is reflected in the warming of the Australian temperature record, appears to be continuing despite the deepest recorded solar minimum.
During solar maximums, high sunspot activity is generally correlated with higher surface temperatures on Earth. Solar minimums, or low sunspot activity, are generally related to cooler temperatures, but this is not the case during the current minimum.
Aerosols, particularly sulfate aerosols produced by volcanoes, are also known to cool global temperature by reflecting sunlight, but aerosols appear not to have played a significant role during 2009.
hahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH – denialist scum. Oh diddums – I forgot – aren’t we heading to an ice age? Oh that’s right it’s all “fabricated” isn’t it.
Pigs bum it is ! Flying pigs bums – hahahahahahahahhHAHAHAHAHA
Gee Mack – I see your point. Pretty devastating comeback. Don’t think I’ll recover after that dressing down. I had’t thought about the issue like that before. Yes indeed Al Gore is responsible for 100% of the science so I guess it’s all bunk then.
Can I join you guys? How long before I can have a gun and a white gown. Which right wing think tanks will be paying me?
Goodness gracious, Luke!
Now, I’m ‘Thumbkettle’?
I’d like to hear your etymology on that one! Doubtless, your explanation will be equally as magisterial as your explanation of ‘Darkies Schiller’, which I trust is forthcoming.
With ‘respect’ to your attempt at authoritative augury about claims based on GISS, we all already know that GISS stuff is cooked. The data are useless.
Luke, you’re not going to convince anyone here with your bogus claims.
I really have to wonder what you’re doing here. Being thumped on the head constantly can’t hardly be a fun thing for you.
Yes Jonathan, great logic, as you’d expect.
The river wall BTW, is quite long, fronts 4 properties, is reinforced concrete with a step height set at the old king tide level. It is still straight, level and completely intact. The jetty would have moved somewhat but the wall and step could not move enough to affect the data without cracking badly and that has not happened.
Boring Darkies Schiller – your term used here. We remember all our little rednecks very well.
Darkies is what you kindly refer to the 3rd world people you are “so” concerned about.
Mack Mack Mack – you’re a bit of a moronic clown aren’t you. Two minutes work Mack …. tsk tsk tsk -1935 even … dear dear me – now ping off !
I wonder what a serious search would turn up.
Venus: Implications from Microwave Spectroscopy of the Atmospheric Content of Water Vapor
J. B. Pollack and A. T. Wood, Jr.
Science 13 September 1968 161: 1125-1127 [DOI: 10.1126/science.161.3846.1125] (in Articles)
……Venera 4, the existence of aqueous ice clouds, and a greenhouse effect caused by water vapor and carbon dioxide. The computed…percent, re-quired for a carbon dioxide and water-vapor greenhouse effect (18). We have considered models having water-vapor……
Abstract » References » PDF »
Earth and Mars: Evolution of Atmospheres and Surface Temperatures
Carl Sagan and George Mullen
Science 7 July 1972 177: 52-56 [DOI: 10.1126/science.177.4043.52] (in Articles)
……significant con-tribution. The total greenhouse effect is only a few degrees Kelvin…absorption; and eventually a runaway greenhouse effect wyill occur, as previously…would yield an insig-nificant greenhouse effect. 27. J. Bada, in Proceedings……
Abstract » References » PDF »
The Planet Venus: Recent observations shed light on the atmosphere, surface, and possible biology of the nearest planet
Carl Sagan
Science 24 March 1961 133: 849-858 [DOI: 10.1126/science.133.3456.849] (in Articles)
……have been per-formed on the existing environment of Venus. As the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere falls, the greenhouse effect is rendered less efficient and the surface temperature falls. After the atmospheric temperatures decline suf-ficiently……
PDF »
Space: Highlights of Recent Research
Robert Jastrow and A. G. W. Cameron
Science 11 September 1964 145: 1129-1139 [DOI: 10.1126/science.145.3637.1129] (in Articles)
……infrared radiation from the atmosphere is analogous to the ac-tion of the glass panes of a greenhouse, and is called the “greenhouse effect.” It is sufficient to raise the temperature Fig. 1. Geoid heights (in meters) relative to an ellipsoid with a flattening……
References » PDF »
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. Rasool and S. H. Schneider
Science 9 July 1971 173: 138-141 [DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138] (in Articles)
Abstract » References » PDF »
Solar Energy: A Feasible Source of Power?
Allen L. Hammond
Science 14 May 1971 172: 660 [DOI: 10.1126/science.172.3984.660] (in Articles)
……energy extremely efficiently by means of specially coated collecting surfaces, which would be heated by the resulting super “greenhouse” effect to temper-atures as high as 540?C; the heat en-ergy would be collected and stored in a thermal reservoir, to which conven-tional……
PDF »
Venus: The Next Phase of Planetary Exploration
Donald M. Hunten and Richard M. Goody
Science 26 September 1969 165: 1317-1323 [DOI: 10.1126/science.165.3900.1317] (in Articles)
References » PDF »
THE ATMOSPHERES OF THE PLANETS
HENRY NORRIS RUSSELL
Science 4 January 1935 81: 1-9 [DOI: 10.1126/science.81.2088.1] (in Articles)
……ob-serve the sunlit (and warmer) side; partly to the “greenhouse” effect of the atmosphere, which lets in the short-wave…Whether the difference arises from the powerful “greenhouse” effect of the methane itself, or from internal heat, can……
PDF »
Solar Energy: The Largest Resource
Allen L. Hammond
Science 22 September 1972 177: 1088-1090 [DOI: 10.1126/science.177.4054.1088] (in Articles)
……trans-parent to the incoming sunlight, but absorbs the longer wavelength radiation emitted by the hot metal, so that a “greenhouse” effect is created and the effectiveness of the collector is in-creased. The heat is collected in water or air that is circulated……
References » PDF »
Man-Made Climatic Changes: Man’s activities have altered the climate of urbanized areas and may affect global climate in the future
Helmut E. Landsberg
Science 18 December 1970 170: 1265-1274 [DOI: 10.1126/science.170.3964.1265] (in Articles)
……J. Namias, in Proc. Amer. Water Resources Conf. 4th (1968), p. 852; J. Geophys. Res. 75, 565 (1970). 18. The term greenhouse effect, which has been commonly accepted for spectral absorption by atmospheric gases of long-wave radiation emit-ted by……
Abstract » PDF »
Will the SST Pollute the Stratosphere?
Virginia D. Nuessle and Robert W. Holcomb
Science 26 June 1970 168: 1562 [DOI: 10.1126/science.168.3939.1562] (in Articles)
……temperature by radiating heat into space and an increase of 0.6?C in the tem-perature at sea level, as a result of the greenhouse effect. Both models are based on imprecise knowledge and con-tain simplifications, but Machta’s model contains more uncertainties……
References » PDF »
Jupiter: His Limb Darkening and the Magnitude of His Internal Energy Source
Laurence M. Trafton and Robert L. Wildey
Science 5 June 1970 168: 1214-1215 [DOI: 10.1126/science.168.3936.1214] (in Articles)
……smeared to reproduce the effects of astronomi-cal “seeing” and of a nonzero photom-eter aperture. We thus neglected any greenhouse effect due to NH3, which can be incor-porated into the model only with con-siderable difficulty. Preliminary compu-tations indicate……
Abstract » References » PDF »
Power Generation: The Next 30 Years
Robert W. Holcomb
Science 9 January 1970 167: 159-160 [DOI: 10.1126/science.167.3915.159] (in Articles)
……balance by producing car-bon dioxide that absorbs energy reradi-ated from the earth after being received from the sun. The greenhouse effect of carbon di-oxide has long been known, but effects resulting from man’s production of the gas have not been established……
PDF »
Jupiter’s Atmosphere: Its Structure and Composition
Jack A. Greenspan and Tobias Owen
Science 16 June 1967 156: 1489-1494 [DOI: 10.1126/science.156.3781.1489] (in Articles)
……hydrogen abundance can be obtained from the recent work of Trafton (17), who has shown that hydrogen can produce a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere of Jupiter. The atmosphere thus as-sumes a temperature gradient depend-ent on the amount of hydrogen……
Abstract » References » PDF »
Global Weather
Philip H. Abelson
Science 13 January 1967 155: 153 [DOI: 10.1126/science.155.3759.153] (in Articles)
……If present trends of release continue until the year 2000, global atmospheric temperatures could be increased, through a greenhouse effect, by as much as 4?C. Potentially more serious are effects we cannot now foresee or evaluate. The atmosphere has intrinsic……
PDF »
Behavior of Carbon Dioxide and Other Volatiles on Mars
Robert B. Leighton and Bruce C. Murray
Science 8 July 1966 153: 136-144 [DOI: 10.1126/science.153.3732.136] (in Articles)
……bright-nesses of Mars at wavelengths of 10 microns and 20 microns are similar, and consistent with the absence of any such greenhouse effect. Furthermore, the average disk temperature was found to be much higher than, and not con-sistent with, the radio……
Abstract » References » PDF »
Factors Favoring Nuclear Power
Philip H. Abelson
Science 6 May 1966 152: 703 [DOI: 10.1126/science.152.3723.703] (in Articles)
……land. In addi-tion, the large-scale burning of fossil fuels raises the specter of runaway climatic changes due to the “greenhouse effect.” For many years it has been clear that atomic energy is destined to be the primary energy source; reserves of fossil fuels……
References » PDF »
Meteorology of Air Pollution: The need to preserve our air resources challenges our understanding of the atmosphere’s capacities
Donald H. Pack
Science 27 November 1964 146: 1119-1128 [DOI: 10.1126/science.146.3648.1119] (in Articles)
……there are probably no undisturbed at-mospheric conditions left in any of the mechanized areas of the world. The possible “greenhouse” effect of carbon dioxide is not known pre-cisely, yet extrapolation of present measurements indicates a global in-crease in this……
References » PDF »
Atmospheres of Other Planets: Much has recently been discovered about the atmospheres of the planets, but some puzzles remain.
Seymour L. Hess
Science 10 October 1958 128: 809-814 [DOI: 10.1126/science.128.3328.809] (in Articles)
……on Earth. This is primar-ily due to the great dryness of the Mar-tian atmosphere, which cannot provide a strong “greenhouse” effect. The radiometric data apply to areas of the planet that are small enough to per-mit the temperatures to be plotted……
References » PDF »
Gases in Glaciers
L. K. COACHMAN, E. HEMMINGSEN, P. F. SCHOLANDER, T. ENNS, and H. DE VRIES
Science 30 May 1958 127: 1288-1289 [DOI: 10.1126/science.127.3309.1288] (in Articles)
……theory has has been postulated, though, that a high carbon dioxide content would result in a warm climate, through a “greenhouse” effect (8); this theory lends special in-terest to the study of the carbon dioxide content of the air. What was the climate……
References » PDF »
Photochemical Activity of Digitonin Extracts of Chloroplasts
RUSSELL A. EVERSOLE and JEROME J. WOLKEN
Science 30 May 1958 127: 1287-1288 [DOI: 10.1126/science.127.3309.1287] (in Articles)
……The theory has has been postulated, though, that a high carbon dioxide content would result in a warm climate, through a “greenhouse” effect (8); this theory lends special in-terest to the study of the carbon dioxide content of the air. What was the climate and……
References » PDF »
News of Science
Science 10 May 1957 125: 923-927 [DOI: 10.1126/science.125.3254.923] (in Articles)
……of the Antarctic with the atmosphere of coal and oil-consuming regions is ex-pected to give data on the suspected “greenhouse” effect caused by the release of large amounts of carbon dioxide. Meteorological data from all the IGY Antarctic stations……
PDF »
THE BRITISH WATER POLLUTION RESEARCH BOARD
Science 4 January 1935 81: 9-10 [DOI: 10.1126/science.81.2088.9] (in Articles)
……Solar radiation alone would maintain a mean temperature near 2200. Whether the difference arises from the powerful “greenhouse” effect of the methane itself, or from internal heat, can not yet be determined. It may be, however, that if the methane……
Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the “Greenhouse” Effect
J. S. SAWYER
Nature 239, 23-26 (1 September 1972) doi:10.1038/239023a0 Article
Abstract | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
Late Precambrian Glaciation: an Anti-Greenhouse Effect?
J. D. ROBERTS
Nature 234, 216-217 (26 November 1971) doi:10.1038/234216a0 Letter
Abstract | PDF | Rights and permissions | Save this link
The Effect of Cloudiness on a Greenhouse Model of the Venus Atmosphere [Preview]
G. Ohring and J. Mariano
J. Geophys. Res., 69, 1, doi:10.1029/JZ069i001p00165, 1964
The Aeolosphere and Atmosphere of Venus [Preview]
E. Öpik
J. Geophys. Res., 66, 9, doi:10.1029/JZ066i009p02807, 1961
Elevation Differences on Mars [Preview]
C. Sagan and J. Pollack
J. Geophys. Res., 73, 4, doi:10.1029/JB073i004p01373, 1968
Carbon Dioxide Absorption for Path Lengths Applicable to the Atmosphere of Venus [Preview]
G. Plass and V. Stull
J. Geophys. Res., 68, 5, doi:10.1029/JZ068i005p01355, 1963
The Heat Budgets of an Ice‐Free and an Ice‐Covered Arctic Ocean [Preview]
W. Donn and D. Shaw
J. Geophys. Res., 71, 4, doi:10.1029/JZ071i004p01087, 1966
Some Comments on the Venus Temperature [Preview]
D. Applebaum, P. Harteck, R. Reeves, and B. Thompson
J. Geophys. Res., 71, 23, doi:10.1029/JZ071i023p05541, 1966
Planetary exploration: Accomplishments and goals [Preview]
T. M. Donahue
Rev. Geophys., 9, 2, doi:10.1029/RG009i002p00437, 1971
A Consideration of Microwave Radiation Associated with Particles in the Atmosphere of Venus [Preview]
C. Tolbert and A. Straiton
J. Geophys. Res., 67, 5, doi:10.1029/JZ067i005p01741, 1962
Mercury: Recent Observations at 3.75-cm Wavelength—Summary [Preview]
M. Klein
Radio Sci., 5, 2, doi:10.1029/RS005i002p00397, 1970
Anisotropic Nonconservative Scattering and the Clouds of Venus [Preview]
C. Sagan and J. B. Pollack
J. Geophys. Res., 72, 2, doi:10.1029/JZ072i002p00469, 1967
Measurements of Infrared Radiative Fluxes over India [Preview]
A. Mani, C. Sreedharan, and V. Srinivasan
J. Geophys. Res., 70, 18, doi:10.1029/JZ070i018p04529, 1965
The Relationship of Total Atmospheric Ozone to the Sunspot Cycle [Preview]
H. Willett
J. Geophys. Res., 67, 2, doi:10.1029/JZ067i002p00661, 1962
Studies of the Surface of Mars (Very Early in the Era of Spacecraft Reconnaissance)
J. Pollack and C. Sagan
Radio Sci., 5, 2, doi:10.1029/RS005i002p00443, 1970
Thermal Convection in the Martian Atmosphere [Preview]
F. Neubauer
J. Geophys. Res., 71, 10, doi:10.1029/JZ071i010p02419, 1966
Abstracts of the Papers Presented at the First Western National Meeting, American Geophysical Union Los Angeles, California, December 27–29, 1961
J. Geophys. Res., 67, 4, doi:10.1029/JZ067i004p01627, 1962
Abstracts of the Papers Presented at the Forty‐Second Annual Meeting, American Geophysical Union Washington, D. C., April 18–21, 1961
J. Geophys. Res., 66, 8, doi:10.1029/JZ066i008p02509, 1961
Maybe that 20cm observed fall in highest astronomical tide is this ocean cooling:
http://i47.tinypic.com/20kvhwn.png
Spanglers – you simply don’t know whether the whole structure has settled or not – no matter how big it is. Get serious.
Why don’t you get hold of the national tidal data and publish a paper showing the establishment where they’ve made a mistake. (sound of crickets …)
Funny isn’t it – obsessed over tenths of a degree in 1880s but and old crap will do for your sea level analysis. What hypocrisy. Which is why you’re denialists hahahahahahahaha
Spangled,
Surely your data are in error, since they do not match the ‘settled science’ which is captured precisely in the AGW computer codes we aren’t allowed to see.
We all know that sea levels are rising like crazy.
Therefore, we can conclude that Australia is rising really, really even even like, way faster than that, and will eventually become an airborne continent. Real estate investors will totally want to be there. Do the math. Extrapolate the curve. That would be like the coolest real estate anywhere.
“Now, everyone’s pretty much used to the notion that the darkies in Africa die when food is short, what the heck, but what happens when Australians and Irish face sky-high food costs because they prefer antique agriculture? Will they die just as quietly as darkies, or will they whine and complain and cajole and point fingers?”
Posted by: Schiller Thurkettle at September 17, 2007 08:26 AM
He’s your boy denialists ! Your little mate.
BTW must tell our Aussie cotton, sugar and rice growers they’re into “antique” agriculture.
Schiller – GCM codes are available – where is your critique. GISS codes are available. Caught lying again. Typical denialist.
Luke,
I sure am glad that you finally admitted your antipathy toward those in developing nations in the course of your explanation of how ‘Darkies Schiller’ is an epithet.
Did you ever think to ask if I might be darker than white? No. You are a stinking white-supremacist Aryan-nation [other descriptive terms deleted] ‘person’. Be astounded and relieved that I don’t say more on this point.
You still haven’t explained your etymology for ‘Thumbkettle’. That’s bound to involve far more inveigling.
Don’t try to wiggle out of it!
Schiller,
you can easily evaluate the quality of luke’s argument and intellect from all this brilliance.
Here I have an 80 metre RC wall that is still straight, level and intact and the only way it can go while remaining in this condition is [possibly but highly unlikely] down, and relative to SLR this benchmark is now 20 cm higher than it was nearly half a century ago.
What conclusions would any rational person draw d’you reckon?
I should have added that this wall is on an alluvial sand island and could not move without cracking. All the infrastructure on this island has a good record for foundation stability.
And no post-glacial rebound.
Luke, the “tenths of a degree” are what the BoM and the rest of you warmers use to prove your feeble case.
spangled drongo
re. your last post,
I really wonder if Luke reads the posts he is replaying to or thinking while typing.
To me “settling” means moving to a lower level.
I live in a seaside suburb myself and for the last 30 odd years walked the beach every day, rain or shine, and the high water mark never changed, OK maybe a few inches! one can see it by the deposited seaweed on the beach in turbulent conditions. ( not including severe storms of course)
As to the “tenths of a degree” , that was and still is the main stumbling block for me to except the warmists’
arguments. When the error of instruments used is greater then the anomaly, one simply cannot accept the data as proof.
And if the error is greater than the change, then one cannot reasonably claim trend either, because the error can go either way.
The only way to claim a trend from dodgy data is by “homogenising”, “adjusting” etc. the data.
here’s Jon Faine’s ABC morning debate with Lord Monckton – Go the Lord 🙂
http://blogs.abc.net.au/files/climate-debate.mp3
http://blogs.abc.net.au/victoria/2010/02/the-scare-is-over-climate-change-skeptic-lord-monckton-debates-rupert-posner-from-the-climate-group.html#comments?program=melbourne_mornings
The comments are worth reading 🙂
Lukefartard,
“That said… I’ve never once seen a denial argument pan out. They can be cleverly constructed so they take a lot to untangle, but they never ultimately come to anything.”
How exactly correct – denial arguments however clever don’t pan out. Denialists don’t advance science. THE END !”
OK, here is a really clever, intricate denialist argument.
WHERE IS THE WARMING!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukefartard,
“Over the past three decades, according to the GISS analysis, the global average temperature has increased 0.2 degrees Celsius a decade.”
Of course it was about .6C through 1998!!!
Thanks for ignoring all the excellent posts debunking GISS and HadCrud and NOAA…
WHERE’S THE WARMING!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lukefartard,
I see you have stooped to the Venus fallacy.
Please show how an atmosphere primarily CO2 and 90 times more massive than earths can generate more energy than it absorbs!!!
Oh, it can’t??? Well then, I guess Venus proves NOTHING!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
janama,
Faine’s early comment “often we’ve been…..CHALLENGED… to conduct debates with climate deniers and on several occasions we have…..” says it all really.
How’s that for an even-handed adjudicator? “Our ABC” really needs to take stock of itself and check its own rules about bias.
But Monckton blew ’em away.
KockFace Kat – didn’t say Venus did. Don’t verbal me matey. Read what Mack said and had answered fully. THE END.
And temperature record has been “discredited” only in the minds of the denialist filth. Is there a comprehensive set of peer reviewed papers of rebuttal. No – only “grey” literature like you salivate over. Not worth a crumpet ! I mean who has the time to track down every denialist slimey scam …. who can be bothered ….
Spanglers – of course you wouldn’t be talking out of your butt – you would reviewed the sea level rise analyses wouldn’t you. Of course not – easier to rant than engage 1st gear.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
Now where is your “jetty” on the map !
Monckton has never been up against serious scientists in a long enough format to prove anything. Show ponies aren’t best for the long haul.
Lord Monckton debated Professor Brook recently [and won handsomely] and his calculations about climate sensitivity have been vindicated by this study;
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/abs/nature08769.html
Monckton has never been up against serious scientists in a long enough format to prove anything. Show ponies aren’t best for the long haul.
so Posner isn’t a real scientist – I have to agree – are there any left on your side?
Lukebaby,
OK , yeah right , you’ve caught the layman out. Fair enough. 10/10 for effort. As a team maybe I’ll retract the dickhead comment.
It still dosen’t counter the fact that your precious science was hijacked and politicised by Big Al, and if it wasnt for him you would be banging away on your key board here in support of an old Arrhenius CO2 theory. A tad strange eh .
thx for the links to the monkton debate with faine. how anybody with an open mind could no longer be sceptical about climate change is mind boggling. Interesting that nearly all of the comments on the blog support the need for sceptiscm and raise the issue of balance. Im sure Jon thinks that just allowing a sceptic to air his views proves the ABC’s lack of bias. to me it shows just how far removed they are from balanced journalism.
We only have to read the bleating from Luke on this blog to know that the case for AGW is struggling.
I actually thought that Monckton swayed the steadfast Faine – Faine’s attitude calms as the interview goes on IMO.
Mack – I’ll turn off the derision for a moment – Al Gore may have a great public profile (good or bad) but he’s really irrelevant to the long term science of climate change. Al is one of the more bizarre personality cults (good or bad). He is a relative late-comer to the public scene on the issue. I’m not sure whether his net contribution is a hindrance or hazard to the subject. BTW finding those links was 5 minutes work with search engines on the journal sites. Anyone could do that in minutes.
And remember one only needs to consider AGW as a potential risk at high enough probability. So a potential risk simply need fair consideration. That’s all I ask. And all I am representing. Fairness in evaluation of the science. It would be most convenient indeed if AG was not true and we could all drive V8s forever.
So in terms of fairness in science evaluation, what would be a serious threat to Phil Jones is an alternative analysis, fully publicly available. I don’t think witchhunts like what are being proposed are dignified nor auger well for anyone contemplating a public career in science.
Cohenite – how can you possibly lay straight in bed and quote Nature. If it had set the opposite – in fact you would have derided it without thinking. And furthermore it’s about feedbacks. I really am amazed what you’ll consort with.
Luke,
I’ve been reviewing the satellite measurements for sometime and that’s what I am questioning.
If they were right this recent highest astronomical tide would have been 20 cm above my benchmark, not 20 cm below.
Also, I’ve got news for you. Monckton’s no show pony. He tells it like it is and if you fancy yourself, he’s always happy to talk to the difficult and the thick. Look how he spoke to that greenie in Copenhagen.
I just listened to “Climate Change skeptic Lord Monckton debates Rupert Posner from the Climate Group” on ABC site. And got Monckton on the issue about the accounts of some charity that the IPCC chairman is involved with. Fair dink guys !
How utterly nutty – in terms of the science – so you would like me to believe all the Australian scientists who have contributed to the IPCC reports have changed their writing because the chairman may or may not be involved with some charity with crook books in the UK?
His biofuel protest was pretentious. Is anyone arguing with him?
So we then endure the diatribe that it’s a difficult problem – so the science must therefore be wrong.
Just tell me you find it fanciful. Please tell me. Tell me you believe all scientists have been “bought”.
Will I have to laugh hysterically.
But Posner wasn’t very good (actually). Sigh. He could have had him on the ropes on a number of points but stuffed it.
Spanglers – his position is not invulnerable. His approach implying conspiratorial aims by the broad science community. But he is a fearsome debater and orator. Doesn’t mean he’s right however.
Back to sea level. If you go to the link I have provided above you will not some areas – probably your jetty have shown little rise. i.e. sea level rise has not assessed to have been even over the globe
You would also know there are major seasonal – ENSO and interdecadal IPO like influences as noise in the system. Up and down.
If you were fair dinkum you would ask John Church in CSIRO what the sea level rise in your jetty’s region would be over the last 30-40 years. It’s an email Spanglers.
Otherwise you may be railing against something which is not assessed as being high. At least know what the science source says the number is !!
Luke, I’ve already sent an email to EPA-Coastal Sciences but John Church might not be a bad idea.
‘Nature’ is irrelevant; the Frank et al paper raises the issue of climate sensitivity because ACO2 forcing cannot be different from CO2 feedback; I’m waiting on Nick’s response to this point here;
http://landshape.org/enm/moncktons-argument/?dsq=32276229#comment-32276229
Luke,
I would say Al Gore’s net contribution to your AGW science would be the biggest hazard the subject could ever run into.
“that’s all I ask……fairness in evaluation of the science”
I’ve done that Luke. From a laymans point of view I’ve evaluated the risk and it appears to me the risk from man-made CO2 is miniscule; if anything at all.
Any quackness of the science I might have referred to in the past is not actually the theory itself but the degree of total disproportionallity of the amounts involved and the extremely tenuous nature of the actual physics.
Sorry Luke but as Monckton says “the game is up” and Phil Jones has had his public career in science .
Thumbs down.
Hang him.
Folks,
Here’s a very interesting interview which reveals that AGWers aren’t really about CO2, or even about global warming:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/25_01_10.txt
Let’s start a betting pool.
Penn State has concluded its investigation of Michael Mann regarding whether or not he violated University Policy, and the conclusions will be announced later this week. (1)
PSU is a top recipient of AGW money, which is at stake. At the same time, this investigation is considered a ‘personnel matter’, which makes everything essentially ‘secret’. (2)
At the same time, there’s federal whistleblower statutes involved, which could result in Mann et. al. having to pay back research money they got fraudulently. (3) Maybe PSU would have to pay the money back.
According to the campus newspaper, ‘The inquiry’s findings will determine if the university will further investigate Mann’s work.’ (1)
The maximum bet is 100 Lukebits. (We can call them Lukebits on account of Luke and the bits are known to have no value, thereby not being subject to authoritative oversight.)
I’ve included the links/footnotes below so that bettors can inform themselves of the political minefield.
I open the betting thusly:
I bet 60 Lukebits that PSU will say that Mann has violated university policy, but insignificantly
I bet 20 Lukebits that PSU will say the investigation was expensive
I bet 20 Lukebits that PSU will say that further investigation will have to be done by the government.
————-
1. http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2010/02/01/mann_inquiry_concludes_board_t.aspx
2. http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2426954/posts?page=1
3. http://www.climategate.com/penn-state-paper-spreads-the-word-on-ex-cia-agent-going-after-michael-mann
Schiller I am pessimisstic about the PSU investigation; the British one will have longer legs; I think Mann will continue because he is rat cunning as this shows;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html
The comments are especially good; still your idea of lukebits is a good idea and perhaps all future grants for AGW research can be paid in them.
Mack – why are you going to hang him. Coz you’re in a mindless pack? Coz he hates faux sceptics guts and has assiduously avoided cooperating with people he distrusts.
Darkies Schiller is frustrated coz he’s trying to make mountains out of a molehill.
But hey sceptic shonks are always trying to pump up the volume.
Schiller all you have is people who have had a gutful of faux sceptics and behaving like human being who are being slandered on a daily basis by sceptic creeps. There is no conspiracy. There never was.
Instead of running around armwaving and persecuting people, sceptics could have whipped out 10 papers repeating analyses and rebutting previous findings. What everyone else does. Obviously too hard for our faux sceptics. Or if they do – non-peer reviewed tosh.
This isn’t about science – it’s about spoiling tactics. Marginalising debates. Running the car into a ditch.
And Monckton would say “the game is up” wouldn’t he. Gee whiz ! But alas Margie is gone – and he’s not in power anymore. A feather duster.
Mack if you have “evaluated” the evidence – I’d have to laugh. What? – using the information on your Weeties packet? How you “feel”. Or a few reactionary blog bilge sites full of sophistic nonsense.
Cohenite,
I’m also very skeptical about the ability of the university to investigate one of its main grant-suckers.
Sort of like, with Greenpeace all over the list of ‘Expert Reviewers’ of the IPCC. What’s the odds that Greenpeace ‘Expert Reviewers’ will reject ‘Greenpeace ‘research” as authoritative?
Yeah, right.
By the way, you have any sense of why Luke is working so hard to get my attention? It’s almost creepy. Maybe he’s paparazzi or something.
Bunk Schiller – all manner of faux sceptics are also IPCC “reviewers” – pull the other leg matey – hohohohoho ! I’m only getting your attention pointing out what a shonk you are.
Hey dudes – looks like Abbott has a …. wait for it …… “climate change policy”. I thought he didn’t believe in it? Did you sceptics screw up ? again …. Cohers is this your fault?
Tony Abbott is a politician and he said so, “I want people to vote for me”!
As long as there are believers who “want” something done, but not pay for it, he is playing their tune.
I bet you, K Rudd would give an arm and a leg if he could somehow weasel out of his ETS commitment, they already refused to cooperate with the Greens, to make sure it will fail.
One can never blame a politician for trying to garner votes any way they can, it’s their stock in trade, best world we could have, would be one without politicians of any flavour!
Unfortunately, like democracy, bad as it is, what we have is still better than all the others.
Simply don’t blame politicians on either side for what they do, they do it for votes!
Of course, sometimes they get it wrong and suffer!
Great to see even a rag like the guardian is playing catch up on the AGW fraud.
Over at Bolt’s blog we see that this rag now mentions the Phil Jones and Wang scandal and the siting of chinese stations and their supposed longevity and accuracy BS.
Aussie scientist Tom Wigley has been on this case trying to get jones to admit his involvement in this cover up, particularly his dismissal of the UHI effect as trivial because of some of these bogus records.
If this rag for leftwing idiots can get involved in exposing the corrupt fraud surely this could be the beginning of the end for the AGW ?
Then hopefully we can expect charges to be laid and some stiff prison sentences handed down to corrupt individuals ? Of course loss of accrued superannuation should be a part of the sentence as well.
Phil Jones is still looking at a ten-year prison term, which is good news.
Meanwhile there’s another ‘-gate’ blowing up in the press, relating to the ‘secret’ location of Chinese stations.
One thing that’s bothered me lately about Glaciergate is, why should that be special for the MSM? I mean, everyone knew the glacier thing was bogus, for a long time.
I went back and looked, and there was this popular old argument, ‘If you’re not sure about the science, look at the facts: the glaciers are disappearing.’
Folks in the MSM, when they found they couldn’t even rely on the glacier stuff, realized they’d been betrayed. No science, no facts, they’d been reporting crapola. Reporters don’t want to be lied to, and worse, don’t want to be found out reporting lies.
So that part makes a great deal of sense.
AGWers are having a field day saying that denialists are alleging a ‘conspiracy’, thinking that such a label will discredit skeptics. Likely there will be some conspiracies involved, if prosecutors grow some cojones.
Even so, AGW is better described as a Doomsday Cult. Like Y2K, Jim Jones, etc.
Just had a chin wag with a bloke from senator Judith Troeth’s ( liberal Vic ) office and it isn’t good news.
She voted with krudd to pass the ets before Copenhagen and it seems there is a good chance she will do so again, even the green’s ( latest) brainless nonsense.
There is a Queenland liberal senator who voted with krudd as well, but I can’t recall the name, of course the turnbull idiot is all set to cross the floor in the house reps, what a hopeless delusional fool.
Anyhow I hope that anyone concerned from either Vic or Qld could get on the blower or email them asking for the reasons they would side with labor and the greens destroying the jobs of their fellow Aussies .
Neville,
That’s Sen. Sue Boyce. I recently sent her an email to try and lead her down the paths of righteousness and every Qlder should do likewise.
senator.sue.boyce@aph.gov.au
This is the third reading speech of Senator Sue Boyce:
I rise today to speak with a heavy heart but in good faith. Last week in this place I urged senators to pass the amended CPRS bills. That continues to be my view. I continue to oppose the Rudd government’s unamended CPRS, but the changes that were negotiated in good faith, particularly by Ian Macfarlane and Malcolm Turnbull, have turned this into something that will assist not only Australia’s climate but also Australian business, Australian consumers and Australia’s energy-generating industries. It could be a solution to what I believe is a very real and uncontested problem that we must address in the near-term future, and that is the damage that climate change can do to this country if we do not act. It is part of the damage that climate change can do to the world. I am very much aware of the argument that has been put by many people that this must be a global agreement and it is ridiculous for Australia to act first.
My own background is as a manufacturer. In that sphere, I know the benefits of early adoption. I would just like to point out to the Senate that it was the Shergold task force, commissioned by the Howard government, who said, long before we got to this place, that Australia should not wait until a genuinely global agreement has been negotiated, because there are benefits which outweigh the costs in early adoption by Australia of an appropriate emissions constraint. That continues to be my view, but I think there are better ways to go about developing emissions mechanisms in Australia. A straight carbon tax, in my view, would have been the cleanest, easiest option, but that is not an option that is on the table. The option that we have is the CPRS as amended by Ian Macfarlane and Malcolm Turnbull. I was delighted to see yesterday that Mr Greg Combet has said that, irrespective of the outcome in the House, those amendments will form part of the Labor government’s policies around an emissions trading scheme. I hope that that is also a comment that has been made in good faith and will continue to be honoured by the Labor government.
I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by Senator Troeth. I think we now need to look at nuclear power as part of the solution to lowering carbon emissions. We are the only country in the G20 that does not have nuclear energy capabilities. I consider it completely hypocritical of the Labor government to have the stance that it does on Australia having nuclear energy whilst we are exporting all our uranium to assist others to have nuclear energy. I think we need to work very, very quickly in this area, and this has been borne out by Dr Ziggy Switkowski, from ANSTO, who was commissioned by the Howard government as part of our attempts to reduce emissions, to look at the question of nuclear energy. He continues to make the point that this is something that is not only feasible but necessary if we are to have the whole suite of measures that are needed to overcome the problems that are caused by carbon emissions.
I must admit that I continue to be very concerned by some of the specious and fallacious arguments that are put around carbon. Yes, carbon is a necessary building block. Yes, it naturally occurs. But to suggest that, because of that, all forms of carbon in all quantities are reasonable is, in my view, specious and fallacious. It is the same as suggesting that there is lots of chlorine around because there is a lot of seawater and claiming that all forms of chlorine and all quantities of chlorine are acceptable—when that is wrong. I become very concerned by people who use those sorts of false sciences to attempt to mislead Australian consumers into thinking that it is safe to continue to do what we are doing. As Senator Troeth pointed out, there are very few scientists in this place. But I think we should be using the science that is available to behave responsibly, not to encourage fear or scepticism that is wrong and unnecessary.
I realise that, by supporting the amended CPRS, I will disappoint many constituents within Queensland. I would like to say to them that I am acting in what I believe is good faith. I am supporting the party policy of less than 24 hours ago. When I rose to speak to say that we should accept the amended bill, I was supporting party policy. I find that I can do nothing else except continue to do that. I would ask people to accept and understand that from the viewpoint of many, many constituents this is the way to go. If you look at the areas of Northern Queensland and around the Great Barrier Reef, there is immense concern that action must start globally and it must start quickly. Part of starting that global action is for us to start. I do not see any problems with us being a first adopter; in fact, I see benefits. I would very much like to thank my colleagues on this side for their understanding and support of my view over the last few days.
Lukebaby,
“Coz he hates faux sceptics guts and has assiduously avoided cooperating with people he distrusts” Aahahahahahaha Thats superb spin there Lukebaby. Sure you’re not a politician?
No, your Phil Jones just stonewalls and denys access to data when a request is made by someone for it. There are suggestions he has had some material deleted. He’s claiming he’s “lost” the raw data!!! (just too serious too laugh Lukebaby)
He replies to a request by Warwick Hughes…
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
I’d describe that attitude as arrogant, egotistical, unprofessional,but most importantly,UNSCIENTIFIC.
Science is supposed to be transparent, inquiring, and open to scrutiny (by anyone).
This snivilling little taxpayer funded “scientist” deserves the gallows Lukebaby.
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you,when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
Dr. Jones sums up the crux of his scientific corruption in a nutshell, Mack. Please provide links to that quote and post it everywhere.
“Luke, you are the Baghdad Bob of AGW.”
Hunter said that and I laughed. However, Luke’s really a very sad classic textbook case study. He has wasted his cred and he is transparent, naked. He deserves our sympathy, if he wasn’t so annoying.
Luke has all the psychological traits of what Eric Hoffer defines as a “True Believer.”
Luke’s a follower who needs to feel part of a dominate collective because his own personal self-esteem is too low to dare imagine himself as a unique, thinking individual. He needs to be told what to believe by a strong authority. He thrives on a combination of blind faith, verbal (perhaps physical?) abuse and the hope of redemption through an apocalypse myth.
The only way he can feed his anaemic sense of self-worth is by directing his self-loathing towards those outside his mob. He thrives on Us versus Them mentality.
It’s extremely important to Luke to scatologically dehumanise those outside his mob not only to enhance his own self-esteem, but to justify his own violently sociopathic fantasies. Thus, Luke while trolling imagines that he is a brave soldier slaying evil deniers in order to save the planet from a sci-fi fantasy apocalypse. It’s not so much a delusion as self-medication. In Luke’s ritual posts content is irrelevant to the form. It’s not important for Luke’s posts to be rational outside of his self-referential fantasy life. As such Luke’s posts always harm the rational aspects of AGW theory. But Luke can’t control his need to fill that black hole inside himself with the instant gratification that outwardly projecting his self-loathing provides
Of course, there isn’t really anything we can do to help Luke in his struggle to find his humanity. Only he knows how to save himself. We can only refuse to indulge in the debasement, anger and descent into irrationality, which Luke so eagerly wishes to evoke. Instead, Luke’s example should steady our resolve to live compassionate and rational lives, but for the grace of enlightened self-awareness there go us all.
We should walk away in silence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMA33Bs3zAk&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
Mack – if you look at Hughe’s try-ons I wouldn’t trust him to cross the street. Why would you want to actually help someone like Hughes? Jones was 100% spot-on but politically naive.
So now you want to hang Jones by the neck do you. You need a punch in the mouth mate you prick. What a fucking disgusting thing to say.
Unless I hear some tuts tuts from your colleagues here I assume you’re all vile filth then? What say you Cohers – are you rabble now a lynch mob? But it’s about the level of conduct of your denialist filth isn’t it.
Tell you what Mack – do another 100% independent analysis – bet your learn NOTHING NEW.
Oh that’s right I forgot – you’re a moronic fuckwit. It’s already been done.
D. Parker, C. Folland, A. Scaife, J. Knight, A. Colman, P. Baines, and B. Dong (2007), Decadal to multidecadal variability and the climate change background, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D18115, doi:10.1029/2007JD008411.
So there we have another excrementally boring rant from Wes. Content = zero.point.zero. But makes me smile Wessy Wonk – as all you’re doing is being towed around in my wake.
Yes walk away in silence indeed – shame on the denialists – now a lynch mob – piss off !
Are you one of the lynch mob Wes ?
Settle down there Lukebaby
You don’t really think I meant that (hanging)
You’re going to have to cut down on that dosage of speed , or whatever you’re on.
Cinders,
You haven’t been paying attention to the science (or the political zeitgeist that is building quietly under the clueless ABC radar.) If you get on the wrong side of this question, history will not forgive you. You’ll have to live with it the rest of your life. We will never forget.
Some points to ponder for pollies who are too busy to do their homework:
1. Climate change is an oxymoron. I.e. climate is always changing by default. The only thing unnatural would be a climate stasis. A climate stasis is akin to believing in creationism. The climate is always evolving in one direction or another. The science is not settled on which way climate is changing. Therefore, the only logical political initiative is to fund an inquiry into how research can be conducted to provide more robust climatological forecasts.
2. Climate is not amendable by acts of parliament until the science is settled… even then fine weather can not be legislated. Any politician who imagines he/she can control climate is real on about expanding the authoritarian powers of central government while reducing civil liberty. Perhaps Canberra should demonstrate that it is up to managing the Earth’s climate by first completing a divided highway between Sydney and Brisbane or properly funding rural fire fighters?
3. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It’s the breath we exhale and plants inhale. Lead and chlorine are pollutants. Don’t debase the language by labeling an essential gas as a “pollutant” in emulation of the Obamamericans. That’s pseudo-science Orwellian fear-mongering and will eventually be exposed as such. You’ll live to regret demagoguery about “carbon pollution.”
4.Heads up! The tide has turned. Climategate has exposed the fraud, misconduct and cultural bias of the IPCC assessment on global warming. It’s worst than Watergate. Momentum is building. People are learning about it slowly, but relentless, thanks to the Internet. The outcome will be that both the Australian Broadcasting Corp and Rudd government suffer permanently damaged credibility. Both have lied to the Australian people. Worse, neither seems to realize that we know they lied, so they keep on lying. Dig a little deeper. History will be unkind.
It’s a little like Bush/Blair/Howard on the Iraqi WMD issue. They probably actually believed Saddam had WMD. That was the “consensus” among the experts… But he didn’t. So Bush “lied” and people definitely died. Of course, the coalition had the media against them. But do you want to risk in our post-mass media internet world that the truth won’t get out about the true extent of climate change fraud and how little we actually really understand about the Earth’s most complex nonlinear system? That would be punting that the ABC propaganda machine can control public opinion in post-2011 as well as they did in 2006.
5. When the Australian public eventually cottons on to the fact that 97% of the earth’s CO2 is produced by nature and therefore not taxable under any ETS scheme or that Australia produces less carbon emissions each year than the mere percentage of growth in the Chinese and Indian economies, there will be a change of government.
6. That double dissolution better happen sooner than later for Rudd’s sake. Time is not on side of the ETS supporters. Obama is coming!
7. Yes, we can! Change you can believe in…it’s coming your way.
(1) Yea – so? And gee Wes if you had to guess a direction for the centennial trend what might it be. mmmmm dat’s a hard un’
(2) Stupid – so stupid
(3) Yes we know
(4) Bunk – ya got nuttin’ except the sound of frustration with denialist filth tactics
(4.5) LOL – fancy claiming that – most denialists LOVE wars in the Middle East.
(5) Yea we know …. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
(6) Doesn’t matter – climate doesn’t care who’s in.
(7) Nah – probably no we can’t …. a bit of bad luck with climate events and all the rats will desert the sceptics in droves
Now I wonder how the January MSU is going. Given how the sceptic filth here has been assuring me we’re heading for an ice age??!?!
We hear it over and over again….
“Overwhelming evidence,” ” Overwhelming evidence.”
AAahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
I tell ya I ain’t overwhelmed Lukebaby.
In fact I’m distinctly underwhelmed.
Things are looking even worse for NASA/GISS.
They (and the AGWers) have long been claiming that GISS is ‘transparent’ because the computer code for it uses for climate modeling is publicly available.
Turns out, the code it uses is not the code it’s published! What’s more, the code it uses is designed to generate heat by default!
See, “Chiefio asks: why does GISS make us see red? Is the NULL default infinite hot?”,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/01/chiefio-asks-why-does-giss-make-us-see-red/
Talk about caught red-handed!
HAHAHAHAHA!
Some good advice for Luke & Co. from Business Green:
‘How to fight the climate change backlash’, Feb. 2, 2010
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2257197/fight-climate-change-backlash
‘The golden rule of challenging a backlash is to return to the fundamental issues that originally inspired action – to get back to brass tacks.’
It’s an interesting list of ‘brass tacks’, but basically, it’s (1) ignore all evidence contrary to AGW dogma, and (2) bear in mind that the whole point is to create a ‘low-carbon economy’.
Oh, and by the way, this advice is for Green business leaders.
If you really believe that we have a AGW problem the only obvious solution is to invent new technology to replace coal , oil and gas, in that order.
All your spending must first be directed at replacing coal, the main energy production underpinning our high standard of living.
One western country France produces around 75% of it’s energy from Nuclear, so we therefore have this example to look at.
The examinanation should compare energy prices paid by French customers and business against coal energy production in other first world countries.
If the difference isn’t too extreme then perhaps the other countries should gradually phase out coal and phase in nuclear.
If private companies are given solid tax incentives I’m sure new generation nuclear power stations could be up and running inside 10 to 15 years.
In the meantime where possible try and bring on a few geothermal stations to prove up this technology as well. In Australia we have very shallow hot rock deposits that should be much cheaper to drill than in many other countries around the world.
Also put just a few billion $ into new battery cell research, if a Tesla roadster can easily travel 400+ Klms per charge now, what can we expect say in 10 years time with some new nano technology already allowing recharge times as low as 10 minutes.
Remember the average travel distance
per day per car is very low, something around 100Klms . ( I think)
I’m not convinced any of the above is necessary but it beats the hell out of putting a price on carbon that will ruin our economies and export jobs to China or India and will certainly make zero difference to CC.
Neville – err YES indeed !!!!! agree
Neville,
I agree with you — until you get to ‘private companies are given solid tax incentives’.
AGW is not about CO2 or global warming, not really. It’s about ‘solid tax incentives’ for ‘private companies’.
That’s where Gore, Pachauri, carbon traders, people who convert food to fuel, and all the other assorted AGW crooks are salivating.
Trouble is Neville it’s dreaming. Geothermal is racked full of problems, all they’ve achieved so far is an unreliable power station for Innaminka, solar thermal is the same – all the talk from the great solar hope, Ausra, about powering the US 24/7 has disappeared and they now tout themselves as a steam generator or an addon to supplement coal or gas power stations. http://www.ausra.com/
Atlantis is boldly pushing their new tidal powered underwater turbine as the largest in the world – 1MW – give me a break! http://www.atlantisresourcescorporation.com/media/news/1-latest/93-atlantis-to-test-worlds-biggest-tidal-turbine.html
The fact is there is no alternative to coal in the short term and Nuclear is our only alternative solution.
All this talk about China increasing alternative energy is just talk – they want to get into the alt market so they can sell wind turbines and solar panels to the greenies in the west who still believe, like Luke, that they can compete with coal – meanwhile they are building 20 new nuclear power stations and still 80% of it’s power comes from coal..
Here’s a letter to an aussie paper by a T L Cardwell regarding coal power:
The Editor
The Morning Bulletin.
I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading Scheme.
Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so called incorrectly named man made ‘carbon emissions’ which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet.
Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.
And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters and heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.
Coal fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.
As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.
We have, like, the USA, coal fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.
The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don’t have the coal supply for the future.
Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply. Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don’t have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem—It doesn’t exist.
Yes – there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.
The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied for a ‘base load’ because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.
The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (The ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain. And yes they can pump it back but it cost to do that. (Long Story).
Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.
Based on a average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.
As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types. Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.
Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal power generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)
We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.
Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.
According to the ‘believers’ the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.
To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;
If you had a room 12 ft x 12 ft x 7 ft or 3.7 mtrs x 3.7 mtrs x 2.1 mtrs, the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25m x .25m x .17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.
Australia emits 1 percent of the world’s total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by twenty percent or reduce emissions by .2 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions.
What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?
By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.
Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by .004 percent.
Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = .00008 percent. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).
Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 = .0000008 percent.
Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 = .00000016 percent effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.
That would equate to a area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.!!!
For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and roofing installations, Clean coal technology. Renewable energy, etc, etc.
How ridiculous is that.
The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller business.
T.L. Cardwell
To the Editor I thought I should clarify. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Station near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.
The global meltdown of AGW is spectacular, with the press and the blogosphere ripping apart the IPCC bit by bit.
Which means, there’s a welter of commentary everywhere, nearly all thumbs-down on AGW. Bulk Media hasn’t quite caught up yet, but they will.
Amidst the welter, there’s a gem:
“Climategate takes steam out of global warming litigation”, Keith Loria, publicnuisancewire.com, February 3, 2010, http://publicnuisancewire.com/stories/211852-climategate-takes-steam-out-of-global-warming-litigation
Pull quote:
‘Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, says these revelations may prompt courts to refuse to take judicial notice of any claims attributed to the IPCC.’
The USA is rife with AGW-motivated lawsuits launched against everyone other than God. The news of Climategate will totally stall these stupid lawsuits as each petitioner is forced to prove AGW in court. With discredited IPCC reports, this will be difficult.
Maybe the petitioners could call Luke as a witness and all would be well with their cases.
No, probably not.
here’s another one Schiller
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/papercolumnists/donaldmacleod/2831667/Inconveniently-for-the-experts-global-warming-is-a-con.html#comment-rig
Janama I’ve seen that letter by Cardwell and I’m not convinced by everything I’ve written above but it’s pure commonsense compared to the krudd and wong garbage trotted out by the msm.
It’s now official — it takes one decade to fix bogus science.
‘A major British medical journal on Tuesday retracted a flawed study linking the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine to autism and bowel disease.” (1)
‘Since the controversial paper was published, British parents abandoned the vaccine in droves, leading to a resurgence of measles.’
Junk science kills, no doubt about it, and I won’t add more footnotes.
Headline, February 2020: ‘IPCC withdraws claims, millions died in pointless climate programs’
Luke would be proud. Overpopulation amongst the darkies, he would say, is no loss. After all, they can’t afford to donate to Greenpeace or to purchase Carbon Credits. Economically meaningless entities.
———
1. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/02/health/main6166269.shtml
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/how-not-to-respond-to-skeptics/#more-9129
What odds that Luke takes any notice?
Just in case anyone’s interested, Lord Monckton will be on the 7.30 report tonight, let’s hope red kerry doesn’t do the usual pig ignorant down market interview he’s famous for, one can only hope.
I hope Kerry is up to speed on world opinion.
Editorial in the Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/…home_headlines
here’s another one
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/home…ml#comment-rig
and yet another one
http://www.businessgreen.com/busines…hange-backlash
oops another one
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen…-weather-fraud
they just keep coming
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
” Just in case anyone’s interested, Lord Monckton will be on the 7.30 report tonight, let’s hope red kerry doesn’t do the usual pig ignorant down market interview he’s famous for, one can only hope.”
I agree… whats the betting that O’brien does his usual obnoxious tricks of asking questions of people he is obviously biased against, and then doesnt let the victim answer, by talking over the top of, and throwing in furphys that have little to do with the original question.
All the usual ABC lefty journo tricks. But OTOH he might have met his match with Monckton.
Jamana
You links above are incomplete and therefore dont conect..all but one are duds.
Sorry Malcolm try these
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/02/osama-and-obama-on-global-warming/?feat=home_headlines
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/papercolumnists/donaldmacleod/2831667/Inconveniently-for-the-experts-global-warming-is-a-con.html#comment-rig
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/comment/2257197/fight-climate-change-backlash
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1002/S00004.htm
We should count our blessings. Smart people like Monckton et al on one side, and railroad engineers and people like Luke who say f**k all the time, on the other.
Maybe what we need is a ‘global stupiding’ scare, where we could raise some money to pay stupid people to shut up and weave baskets or something. Luke & Co. would buy into that for sure. We could tell them it saves CO2 or something.
and yet another one from MSM
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10623715
Usual distortions by the ABC in the 7.30 report. pictures of polar bears with no ice, chinese pollution, comment that monkton disputes the planet has warmed and equal / more time given to believers. As usual the ABC should be ashamed.
I wish that Ben McNeil would stop his bleating about how much science has been done by him and his colleagues and how offended we are that people without their exalted qualiifcations and brain power should not be questioning it.
Oh diddums ..tough. Pity that the science is so sullied with malpractice and atrocious management at the IPCC level of which McNeil was an expert reviewer of two main chapters.
The ABC couldnt help itself and just had to present film clips of fires and polar bears etc ,as Tony Robertson has highlighted above..but at least O’brien behaved himself
Luke, you got any cupboard skeletons like this one of Schneider’s:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/173/3992/138
Kerry simply wimped out while “Our ABC” turned the dogs on Moncton with no right of reply.
“In simple terms Moncton disputes the earth is warming and that humans are to blame.”
What absolute lies! He does not claim that. In fact quire the opposite. He simply claims that climate sensitivity is just a fraction of that claimed by the warmers and this is now being borne out in their own studies.
It was a very dishonest portrayal of Monckton as was only to be expected.
SD; excellent find! I’ll bookmark the Schneider effort; the log decline of ^ACO2 indeed.
Wes George, re my post at the top of the page, these were not my words but those of Sen Sue Boyce on why she crossed the floor to vote for the ETS last year.
There were from the third reading speech of the CPRS bill, and as such your points should be directed to her office. Contact details provided in the post above mine.
However, now the opposition has an alternative policy there should be no need to cross the floor.
Well as always – none of these TV interviews reveal anything for anyone seriously interested. A few drought pictures and sundry polar bears – yawn.
You’d need a multi-week series with a full-on exchange to get anywhere. “Climate Wars”.
But you’d have to admit Monky is a great showman for the over 50s rednecks out there. He tells you all just what you want to hear and panders to your inner needs. For anyone with half a brain though it’s patronising sophistry. Barf !
I reckon none of our politicians have a clue about climate change. Neither does the Chief Scientist.
It’s time to move on to the obvious question nobody anywhere is asking.
UK officials have decided that the Climategate criminals broke the law by refusing to respond to FOI requests. That part’s settled.
Obvious question: will they now comply with the FOI law?
There seems to be an assumption that the ‘liberated’ emails and data render those unfulfilled FOI requests moot. If we take the AGWers at their word, and the emails and data were ‘hacked by foreign spies to derail the Copenhagen summit’, that’s a poor proxy for compliance.
Did someone place an FOI request for ‘information that will derail the Copenhagen summit’? I doubt it, but even if they did, that’s still a *very* incomplete disclosure.
There’s more smoking guns to come — and the world (or at least, I) am waiting to see what comes of those FOI requests.
Governments and participating organizations are invited to nominate experts who can act as Coordinating Lead Authors (CLA), Lead Authors (LA) and Review Editors (RE) for the next IPCC report, AR5. The nomination period is open from: 15 January to 12 March 2010. (1)
You can nominate experts online. (2)
In a letter to ‘International and other organizations’ dated Jan. 15, (3) the IPCC says that “The role of the IPCC is to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information, based on
peer reviewed and internationally available literature. Therefore, the IPCC requires that the
nominee(s) have appropriate expertise.”
One has to wonder if, this next time around, they will be accepting ‘Expert Reviewers’ from Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc. Or, for that matter, any skeptics.
————————
1. http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activities.htm
2. http://www.ipcc.ch/activities/activitiesar5nomination.htm
3. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/Web%20version%20-%20ORG%20Nomination%20of%20Authors%20for%20the%20AR5.pdf
“Usual distortions by the ABC in the 7.30 report. pictures of polar bears with no ice, chinese pollution, comment that monkton disputes the planet has warmed and equal / more time given to believers. As usual the ABC should be ashamed”
Not balanced enough Toby? Someone else should do the blow by blow timing, ie min v min for each side because I reckon it was fair enough given Monckton’s other recent exposure on our ABC
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/
“It was a very dishonest portrayal of Monckton as was only to be expected”
SD, that interview actually softened my opinion of the guy
Gavin – we have seen all those warmists and their opinions on their own interview programs – why did the ABC suddenly need to have all the warmists opinions during a supposed interview with Lord Monckton? It wasn’t an interview, it was a fraud!
As Andrew Bolt has noticed:
The three warmists get to say 412 words (not including those of the reporter or of IPPC chairman Rajendra Pachauri); Monckton himself is permitted 401.
Gavin the fact that you could see no imbalance in the supposed “monkton” interview, says a lot about your own bias….if we needed a further example.
Do you think if an interview had been done with ;
1. stern or garnaut, would they have balanced it with the majority of economists who think there economics and cost benefit analysis belongs where the sun don t shine?
2. If they had interviewed gore or hansen or any of the disciples of AGW would they have allowed any, let alone equal time to sceptics?
wake up get those blinkers off and smell the whiff of common sense that is at last entering the debate.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_the_730_report_nobbled_monckton/
Andrew Bolts assessment of last nights ABC so called interview with Monckton is very incisive..jounos judging journos stuff, and exposing the games that were played by their ABC.
Isnt there a theme here.
Publically funded media outlet protecting publically funded science ..thats peddling a sullied and poorly managed science paradigm that wants the keys to the Treasury based upon highly contentious material because they failed to do their jobs properly..and that includes the IPCC crapola.
What sort of organisation is it that still tolerates being chaired by a crook with innumerble conflicts of interest and side lines that includes being a peddler of cheap porn..and they all remain silent ..including the politically appointed Chief Scientist
Can any of these people do their jobs in a professional and responsible manner just daring to tell the truth..and just for once act in our best interests.
What a fraudster you are gavin, as Bolt has pointed out why couldn’t Monckton have the normal interview allowed to all of the alarmists, without stupid interventions by dummies who have little knowledge of CC but are professional fraudsters.
The abc wouldn’t allow a normal interview repeatedly given to rudd, wong, sackett, flannery,stern, gore ,connor, o’brien, climate institute, greenpeace, aca, etc etc etc.
What a giant bloody con, but it just underlines their insecurity and complete lack of genuine argument.
If Monckton is such a dummy and knows so little about the AGW fraud then obviously you would get him on and let him make a fool of himself, amazingly this never ever occurs at your abc, what a corrupt mob.
Thank our lucky stars that this total fraud is now unwinding in the msm overseas even in the guardian and some other leftwing media that have previously promoted the same fraud for years.
Even Anthony Watts was asked to submit an opinion at the guardian and has now been approached by the bbc, WHY THE CHANGE?
.
Must admit I agree with luke and his assessment of our chief scientist and others on the alarmist side, they sure are dullards.
As I’ve said before, you can print endless hectares of newsprint or fill up the blogosphere with arguments for and against AGW but you can’t deny facts and the truth.
Irrespective whether you believe or disbelieve AGW, the IEA is telling us that by 2030 the OECD countries will be producing less than 15 billion tonnes of ghg’s while the non OECD countries will then be producing more than 25 billion tonnes.
There within those two numbers ends the AGW argument, which is meaningless without the advent of new technology.
What great bullduster you are too Neville. Listen to yourself – “giant bloody con”, “total fraud”, “corrupt mob” etc. hohohohohohohoho – I thought you were describing the denialist filth !?
Moncky hasn’t faced a decent interview with nerdy domain experts either. The sort of people you don’t see, who shun any publicity at all, but have knowledge in depth.
It’s just TV Neville – you’re having yourself on if you think you’re learning anything on this issue from the msm or ABC grab interviews …. it’s all just razzamataz ! It’s show business.
I think it’s absolutely fabulous to see the media giving Moncky and Wattzy a run. The public will remember when they see how they have been conned. We’ll see who the real fraudsters are soon enough.
And tides go in and out. Just a run of bad weather, some ice melt and higher temps and the media will all run back down the other end of the boat again (regardless of the merit of those weather events in the longer scale picture).
So if you like – sack the IPCC chairman, rerun all the temperature analyses, review and rewrite the all IPCC reports. Do you really really think they will change much at all. Of course not. You don’t want to listen. (AND you haven’t even read them – HAVE YOU? – of course not)
Something for both alamists and sceptics,
A small snippet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8491154.stm
What we need is a new discourse which acknowledges the majority view on climate science, accepts uncertainties and encourages debate among scientists over their observations of the world – a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.
Will we see such a debate? Don’t bet on it. There is more fun to be had for some journalists when combatants are throwing bricks at each other. The pity is that it’s public understanding of climate change that’s being damaged, and maybe the planet as well.
Regarding my comment above (February 4th, 2010 at 2:24 am) I think we should nominate Jennifer Marohasy as a Review Editor for the next IPCC report.
Nominations close March 12 (again, see above).
P.S. Luke, not even Pachauri has scrutinized, much less, read the IPCC reports. “You can’t expect me to be personally responsible for every word in a 3,000 page report,” he said. Well, with the WWF and Greenpeace supplying ‘expert’ editorial oversight, who needs to read the durn thing? Once we know it’s Green, that’s good enough for anyone. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Proof that Schiller is a complete imbecile:
“Once we know it’s Green, that’s good enough for anyone. HAHAHAHAHAHA”
We know you wouldn’t have read them either Schiller otherwise you wouldn’t make such blatantly STUPID comments.
And you know Schiller all manner of sceptics have all provided “expert” (hohohohoho) advice in IPCC reviews. (Barf !) Provided some of the great laughs of all time.
You’re such a shonk Schiller.
Luke you’ve been caught redhanded as a kooky whacko when you thought AGW might have caused the 1940’s drought , what an embarrassing stupid thing to say.
In other words a 5% increase of co2 by say 1930 could cause a drought in Australia in the 1940’s, what a loon. A higher level of co2 caused incredible droughts in the 1950’s and 1970’s as well I suppose, what an embarrassing fool.
Well, folks, there you have it.
Luke is on the run, fleeing for cover, abandoning the ‘settled science’!
We see Luke warmly [sic] embracing this quote:
‘What we need is a new discourse which acknowledges the majority view on climate science … a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.’
Great! Let’s take a public vote on
– whether the glaciers are disappearing
– whether nearly half of the Amazon will become a savannah
– whether warming precedes increasing CO2 or not
– whether NOAA/GISS surface ‘measurements’ are more accurate than satellites
– whether there was actually an Ice Age with higher CO2
– whether there was a MWP/was the ‘hockey stick’ accurate
Whoopee! A public vote will ‘settle the science’, and then ‘economics and societal values’ can ‘play a central role.’ Like in all those luscious subsidies for wind farms and turning food into ‘biofuel’.
This is all so sordid and tawdry. Some day the world will wake up and discover AGW is all about subsidy money-grubbers and the politicians who abet them.
Sheesh, Luke. When you use social attitudes and pecuniary incentives to measure climate change, you’re flat busted.
Luke,
Regarding your assessment of my remarks as ‘stupid’, [all caps omitted] I would point out that a search of your remarks here leads to a count of the word ‘s**t’ in 34 of your posts, and the word, ‘f**k’ at 97 of them.
The asterisks were not part of the search string, i.e., as ‘wildcards’. The asterisks are merely to avoid engaging in the foul language you seem to prefer.
People who believe that saying ‘f**k’ and ‘s**t’ is somehow persuasive need to adjust their notions.
Such as you, Luke.
I’m still thinking that Exxon is paying you to make AGWers look like foul-mouthed idiots. Even though the AGWers seem to do that voluntarily, out of some intrinsic exuberance that surpasses the least notion of civility.
Now guys, occasionally luke does say something reasonable or at least interesting and this claim by him:
“a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.”
has the the virtue of being a concession that there is no science supporting AGW but that it should continue to play a part in shaping economic and social values because of the precautionary principle; the PP is of course not a scientific indice but it does have great merit in shaping social parameters; religion used it to generate social conformity for yonks so it is no wonder that the boy-wonder should extol its merits; unfortunately it will still blur the real debate that humanity should be having and that is how humanity should interact with nature; that vital debate has been hijacked by green misanthropes and malthusians who have simply taken the gaia path and declared humanity to be of inferior and even destructive value to the idea of pristine nature, an idea I explore in these 2 posts:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/ten-worst-man-made-disasters/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/defining-the-greens-part-9/
‘What we need is a new discourse which acknowledges the majority view on climate science … a debate framed in the language of risk and uncertainty in which economics and societal values play a central role.’
we just need the MSM to allow those with a different opinion to the warmists to have a voice as Alan Jones allowed this morning regarding the GBR.
Check out the interview with Prof Peter Ridd on his page posted today
http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_homepage&id=1&Itemid=44
it starts 1/4 way in.
Luke,
Amongst your many entertaining rants, there is occasional truth. I agree that a new climate discourse is needed. I would say that there is a need for a whole new climate epistemology, based on consilient evidence from natural science, social science and humanities, especially history (MWP and LIA?).
I say this because, in a recent writing exercise in my own field, I have concluded that there is a need for a whole new bushfire epistemology, as outlined above. Natural science is valuable, but not infallible. It must not be seen as the dominant form of knowledge. For example, the economics, psychology, and history of bushfire matter too. ‘Scientism’ in bushfire management has led to social and natural disasters, due to too much leaf litter and bark lying about, when history tells us that this is a sure recipe for disaster, no matter what climate does.
The more wooden headed climate scientists (and journalists, and bushfire ‘experts’) might note the wisdom of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
‘…But science offers only one window on human experience. While upholding the honor of their profession, scientists must seek to avoid putting scientific knowledge on a pedestal above knowledge gained through other means.’
I note that Lord Monckton seems to have a good grounding in the humanities, as well as other fields. Perhaps this explains his command of language, and rhetoric. His exopthalmia may also have a hypnotic effect. Is it due to thyroid deficiency? Just asking.
Lord Monckton apparently suffers from Graves Disease as that bastion of measured reporting and impartial responsibility to the populace, the age, kindly highlighted today;
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/mad-monk-meets-monckton-20100203-ndl9.html
Ah…poor fellow. Probably the result of working for Maggie Thatcher.
Isn’t it paradoxical that Monckton, peer of the realm, inadvertantly champions the rights of blue- collar workers for their jobs. ie coalminers etc.
It must also be refreshing to attend a “conference” laden with optimism rather than doom.(about the planet)
In addition to all this there is an element of rebellion against the establishment. Who would have thought that you are the establishment Luke.,and us 50+s are kicking against you.
Yeah, poor Luke, born in unexciting times and just another brick in wall of the establishment.
Come and join the revolution Lukebaby!!! 🙂
Mack February 4th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
“Come and join the revolution Lukebaby!!! :)”
Maybe the on-line display is because he thought he was in it??
Schiller – what fucking shit !
Don’t see me as trying to persuade you – it’s simply a combination of frustration and derision.
But maaaatttteeee – as a denialist you’re not very good are you. I mean this is bummper car bullshit.
OK – sigh ….
– whether the glaciers are disappearing
Yep most are. So says world glacier body. Some aren’t. Needs detailed analysis on some. Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica should have you worried especially.
– whether nearly half of the Amazon will become a savannah
dunno – but Amazon rainfall may be compromised. More fires.
– whether warming precedes increasing CO2 or not
*** Oh come – you mean in ice age cycles – WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU EXPECT ! SHOWS NOTHING. IF YOU THINK IT SHOWS SOMETHING YOU’RE DENSER THAN A BRICK.
– whether NOAA/GISS surface ‘measurements’ are more accurate than satellites
Well they don’t measure the same area do they doofus? They measure different things. But isn’t it REMARKABLE that they follow the same pattern. HOW CAN IT BE SCHILLER?
As does CRU – as does the two separate SST analyses. Fuck me !
– whether there was actually an Ice Age with higher CO2
OH DEAR – hmmmm dat’s a hard un. Tell me Schiller if solar output was 4% lower have you done the maths. OF COURSE NOT ! You moron.
– whether there was a MWP/was the ‘hockey stick’ accurate
Yes an MWP, exact extent and temperature debatable. Even McIntyre doesn’t know. BUT – how about them thar megadroughts in USA, Africa and China. You’ll love it ! Hockey Stick in heavy question IMO.
As for biofuels – hmmmm – is the engineer who builds a road responsible for someone driving on it with illegal drugs – of course not. Inappropriate market responses are irrelevant to the climate science. IRRELEVANT.
Jeez Schiller – you need to try what’s called thinking and reading…. Fuck !
No Neville – why do you keep lying. I have said continually “made a contribution to the 1940s drought”. But mate we know you’re thick and don’t get anything. But hey if you’re gonna have a go – don’t verbal me eh?
But for the record logic is this:
The on-going drought is explained by the strengthening of the STR
(80% of the rainfall signal reproduced by the STR-I anomalies)
•
The STR is responding to global temperature of the planet
(two periods of warming during the 20th century as well as one of stabilisation)
(not by chance since it is reproduced by a fully coupled GCM –ensemble-)
•
Anthropogenic emissions are needed for a model to reproduce the STR intensification
(as well as a long list of regional changes which resemble the observations:
regional temperature rise, MSLP build up, the rainfall decline: autumn in SWEA)
•
The WWII drought is the first protracted drought in SEA partly due to G.W.
(albeit only 30% can be explained by the STR-I linked to G.W.)
Now you’ll just roll your eyes and go back to divining chook guts – but that’s your loss.
No Cohenite – a few flesh wounds – but nothing major conceded at all.
And as I have said all along – let’s not be unfair to the science – rail against the ETS, Al Gore, Kevin and the 2 Pennies as much as you like. Really all the pollies are crap on climate change knowledge.
However, as Bazza has often tried to tell you – it’s a serious risk analysis issue. And Bertrand’s untangling of the Murray drought is quite concerning to anyone with half a brain.
But anyway with El Nino and IODs and the STR wreaking natural havoc surely an understanding of climate is important for reasons other than AGW.
IPCC is busted again!
This time, for wildly exaggerating the area of the Netherlands that is below sea level!
Another IPCC hit: Netherlands 20%, not 50%, below sea level
posted: 2010-02-04 08:25:00
http://patriotroom.com/article/another-ipcc-hit-netherlands-20-not-50-below-sea-level
“Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.”
According to the European Union, about a quarter of the country is “at or below sea level”.
http://europa.eu/abc/european_countries/eu_members/netherlands/index_en.htm
Here’s what the IPCC did: Over half of Holland is below sea level.
Here’s a map: http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/holland.htm
But Holland is only a part of the Netherlands. Holland consists of North Holland, at 2,663 sq. km., and South Holland, at 2,877 sq. km. While all of the Netherlands is 33,935 sq. km.
http://www.statoids.com/unl.html
What’s more, Holland is the *lowest* part of the Netherlands.
Here’s a topo map of the Netherlands:
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/europe/lgcolor/nlcolor.htm
So the IPCC, true to form, ‘extrapolated’ the altitude of the lowest part of the Netherlands (about 20 percent of the country) to the entire country!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey Lukey! Maybe we should have a ‘public debate’ to get a ‘consensus view’ on the geography of the Netherlands! No altimeters allowed! HAHAHAHAHAHA
Hey Schiller – tell us – does a right wing think tank pay your salary – is it one who like to refer to Africans as “Darkies”.
And hey need we look any further than the corrupt campaign to exaggerate anti-IPCC claims. Indeed an inquiry into sceptic conspiracy is now being called for.
Deltoid reports:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate.php#more
“The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete. (The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this note, and had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007.
Leake deliberately concealed the fact that error in the IPCC was a missing cite, rather than a factual error. Furthermore, despite criticizing the IPCC for allegedly relying on “green campaigners who had little scientific expertise” Leake based his story on “Research by Richard North”. Richard North is part of a right wing think tank which describes his background like this:”
Maybe Ollie North is back ? hahahahahahaa
AND Schiller having been exposed for bogus claims in his last post couldn’t even defend the ground. Pathetic.
“Leake deliberately concealed the fact that error in the IPCC was a missing cite.”
Luke, I promise you, I will never do such ‘deliberate concealment’. I freely admit that the IPCC is ‘missing cites’ everywhere!
HAHAHAHAHA Seriously, do you actually consider the ‘missing cite’ argument to be persuasive?
And exactly what bogus claims did I make about the geography of the Netherlands?
Luke, you’re getting a bit frantic, aren’t you?
Schiller – Luke with his finger in the dyke?
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5745566/by-the-waters-of-denial-they-sit-and-weep.thtml
“By the waters of denial they sit and weep… (Melanie Phillips)
Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband issued a warning that recent controversies over scientific data must not be allowed to undermine efforts to tackle global warming. Mr Miliband said the evidence that man-made climate change was occurring was ‘overwhelming’ and was backed by the vast majority of scientists.
Miliband resembles one of those people who are discovered living in the jungle decades after the end of a war without realising it is all over. Someone should sit him down with a nice strong cup of hot sweet Fairtrade tea and a blanket over his shoulders, and embark him without delay upon a course of post-traumatic stress counselling.
An awful lot of reputations are about to be reduced to, um, carbon – his included.”
Monkton’s Press Club address is here
http://www.a-pac.tv/
Well, folks, ‘the fix’ is in place for the Penn State investigation of Michael Mann.
First off, the ‘investigators’ looked at this wording from the Code of Conduct:
“research misconduct does not include disputes regarding honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data, and is not intended to resolve bona fide scientific disagreement or debate.”
However, the investigators extended that a tad bit. Not wanting to involve themselves in ‘the debate’, they excused themselves from considering that Mann’s climate model generates a hockey stick even with random data.
With their approach, any halfway clever fraud in a contentious field is cool and OK. And writing crooked code is, by any measure, a halfway clever fraud.
The ‘investigating’ committee concluded:
“In sum, the overriding sentiment of this committee, which is composed of University administrators, is that allegation #4 revolves around the question of accepted faculty conduct surrounding scientific discourse and thus merits a review by a committee of faculty scientists. Only with such a review will the academic community and other interested parties likely feel that Penn State has discharged it responsibility on this matter.” (1)
So, ‘conduct surrounding scientific discourse’ is the hot hot issue!
They’ll likely reprimand him for being too frank and plain-spoken. Which is no offense at all — it’s a repeat of the (by now) stale, tired defense by the AGWers that ‘the emails only show scientists arguing heatedly’ or some such rot.
AGWers always rely on the emails to defend themselves. To be sure, there’s lots of bad news for them in the emails, but the smoking gun has always been, and will always be, in what they told the computers to do with the data.
Like ‘press enter and generate global warming’. Sheesh. What rot.
——————-
1. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/psu10-feb3-findings_mann_inquiry.pdf
Luke you are a tedious fraud, while you can argue ad nauseum about this or that drought or lack of rainfall and make zero historical sense, you can’t beat that 15/25 ratio of real world data from the IEA.
If the developing world is producing 10 giga tonnes more GHG’s than the developed world by 2030 then your total argument is fraudulent nonsense.
In simple language you can’t reduce GHG’s or change a thing without the advent of new technology plus large scale take up of nuclear energy.
You can flush as many trillions of dollars down the toilet as you like but you won’t reduce GHG’s in the slightest.
Lomborg got it right adaptation is the only solution.
Monckton in Adelaide was to a packed audience with over flow into another room.
He was in fine form.
Monckton said that he has been speaking to packed out audiences all over Australia..so much for Pachauri’s comment, that he is only getting small numbers.
What was surprising was the contempt being expressed for the MSM and its failure to report properly with the ABC being singled out for its obvious political biases and manipulations … as one would expect, and rightly so.
Monckton rightly pointed out most people were there not because of anything in the MSM but because of the Internet ..and similarly for the material presented.
Moncktons view is that Railway Man Pachauri is a goner..cant last.
The other comment I would make is that there is clearly a different mood afoot ..people are fed up with the crap being foisted on them..and Monckton was breath of fresh air.
Neville – seriously – listen – I am utterly amazed at your level of sheer stupidity and lack of knowledge on climate and forcing. You’re simply a drip. You DO NOT understand forcing. Tip – give up arguing on any factual basis – simply say “I don’t like it”. It’s more honest and less embarrassing.
Are you actually saying that from here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png there is no forcing in 1940 !!
Note I did not say 100% – read precisely what I said.
Like Schiller your refutation is a lot of off-topic arm waving. How much it costs to solve the problem (OR NOT) is simply IRRELEVANT to the topic of our discussion. Don’t try diversions and irrelevancies.
I probably agree with Malcolm – chairman can’t last – and it doesn’t really matter. It’s simply all politics – science will still prevail.
And for SCchiller that’s not fabricated truth from think tanks tainted with funny money.
And yes I encourage all sceptics to line up solidly behind Monky – put all your trust in Monky – hang off every word – coz dudes it’s just a matter of time. “tick tick tick”
“people are fed up with the crap being foisted on them..and Monckton was breath of fresh air.”
Just look at the poll on the front page of the online Australian – Rudd’s ETS V Abbott’s – 70.1% for Abbott!
People,
This is somewhere between weird and wrong.
Search Google News for ‘Pachauri tobacco asbestos’ (without quote marks) and you get:
‘Your search – pachauri tobacco asbestos – did not match any documents.’
Search blogs with the same string, and you get:
‘Why is this hysteric still head of the IPCC?’ Andrew Bolt (blog),
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_is_this_clown_still_head_of_the_ipcc/
Which cites:
‘UN climate scientist defends record’, Financial Times,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9f86ef0-10cb-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
Where is found this statement by Pachauri:
“They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer,” he said. “They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – and I hope they put it on their faces every day.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f9f86ef0-10cb-11df-975e-00144feab49a.html?nclick_check=1
Okay, okay. We all know, if you don’t want to do the Hitler/Nazi thing, you do tobacco or Big Oil. And Pachauri can’t do Big Oil, because he’s in bed with them. (Oops, did I say ‘in bed’ in connection with the steamy ‘romance [hack, cough sputter] novelist’?)
Google can’t find this news article, but Andrew Bolt can?
Luke will accuse a ‘conspiracy’, but it’s likely a ‘bug in the system’. Either way, Pachauri did the corollary of Godwin’s Law I mentioned earlier. If they don’t want to do Hitler, they’ll do tobacco or Big Oil.
Although, I gotta admit, asbestos facial treatments is a new one.
Luke will likely spring to the defense and demand a sociological/economic dialogue about cosmetics and so forth.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
My father tried to get tickets for the canberra presentation by monkton but was unable to attend because they were sold out!…he tried to book 4 days in advance.
so much for comments of only 200 people attending. yet another example of the lies being spread by people with their own agenda?
Lukey, Lukeyloo, you still don’t understand us, or try to.
We don’t ‘put all [_]our trust in Monky – hang off every word’. I’m sure ‘hanging off every word’ is common in your religion, but we’re doubters. We want to see evidence and cogent evaluation.
I suppose I should apologize for ‘off-topic arm-waving’ with my reference to the Hockey Stick Fabrication’.
Luke, I would apologize, except I didn’t invent the hockey stick. It was invented by a completely innocent computer. Sheesh.
Luke, we’re narrowing down on the ‘think tank’ that funds your sad efforts.
You said: “tick tick tick”
Popular theme amongst your paymasters.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUVT_Z5oDs
and
http://tcktcktck.org/pt-br/stories/climate-news/tick-tick-tick
Luke, you’re on your last legs. Give it up.
Luke, do not surrender to the Dark Side, not while you still have a chance!
” I probably agree with Malcolm – chairman can’t last – and it doesn’t really matter. It’s simply all politics – science will still prevail”
Two things Luke
1. I was reporting what Monckton had said regarding Pachauri. Personally I will be surprised if he does go within the next 6-9 months.. he has too many people in his pocket, all rattling the same till.
2. Yes I am sure the science will prevail ..I hope it does.
But it wont be the version that is corrupted by the ” Gate” scandals and the over 260 references to WWF,Greenpeace Friends of the Earth Climate Institute etc ..all being cited within the AR4 as quotable references from glossy magazines etc and deemed to be the equivalent of peer reviewed science…what a joke
The people running the IPCC are operating on double standards..Pacahuri’s going should be the catalyst for a clean up and review as to how it operates.
Further it wont happen until there is separation of roles. The temp record and data bases should not be in the hands of the scientists doing the analysis at all..and any that are.. should be excluded.
Any responsible policy maker and auditer worth his salt would have sorted this out long ago.
It was set up so that the result could be fiddled from the start …the greenoids involved made sure of that.
Malcolm,
Do you have a cite for ‘over 260 references to WWF,Greenpeace Friends of the Earth Climate Institute etc .’? I’d like to do some data mining on that.
Meanwhile, it seems that maybe the ‘liberator’ of the Hadley CRU emails has been identified, more news to come:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100025094/climategate-leaker-finally-revealed/
And now it looks like NASA is taking two years to respond to FOI requests about climate data. http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWE1NGQ0MThjOWZhYjViY2IxMDE3MDc5OTQ5NWQ2NjY=
Doubtless Luke will point out the importance of sociological and economic concerns regarding the release of data!
Can’t let the people look at the data and methodology… they might ‘doubt the confirmed consensus’.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Luke, you are going down, very hard, unless you repent and join the rest of us in the pending rebirth of true science.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=wwf+ar4&as_sitesearch=www.ipcc.ch
Schiller
Just do the Google as above
replace the wwf bit with your favourite green ygroup and repeat
add up all the hits ..I stopped at 260
Malcolm,
I’m an old hand at data mining. Google counts on ‘hits’ is unreliable. It’s worse than the double, triple, and quadruple-counting that the AGWers are prone to do in their scurrilous methodologies.
The current count of citations to WWF, Greenpeace, and their presence as ‘Expert Reviewers’ is already bad enough:
Here’s some reviewers for WGIII: Mitigation
B. Hare, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
K. Jardine, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
K. Mallon, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
T. Gulowwsen, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
N Mabey, World Wide Fund for Nature (UK)
F. MacGuire, Friends of the Earth (UK)
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/453.htm
and more reviewers for AR4 WGIII: Mitigation
G. Von Goerne, Greenpeace (Germany)
S. Sawyer, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
S. Teske, Greenpeace International (Netherlands)
D. Pols, Friends of the Earth (Netherlands)
C. Pearce, Friends of the Earth (UK)
G. Volpl, WWF International (Brazil)
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-annex4.pdf
This whole sordid incident is the Greenies taking in each others’ laundry. Dirty laundry.
Bolt has a good reference to the latest Swedish research on the LIA and the MWP, both show up clearly in cave stalagmites and the MWP was warmer than our present NATURAL warm period, sorry lukey.
Seems the Dutch and Indian govts are very upset with the numbskulls at lukey’s bible or ipcc, they are sick of all the kindergarten mistakes riddled throughout the 4th report.
Gee they’re a bit harsh lukey, just think they want this bible for idiots to actually contain some facts and some truth, WOW.
Schiller
If you can refine this to get some better metrics on the extent of the greenoid involvement and corruption of the process and outcome ..you go for it
Love to see what you come up with
Just having the names though only gives part of the story
They are/were/will be certainly more involved than just being expert reveiwers..they were providing input at the asessment and writing stages
Luke
Sweden recently found their MWP and LIA, plus their voice.
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a85fc0ef970b-pi
This flies in the face of the cabal who did their best to hide the incline and decline.
Malcolm,
I’m on it.
Progress so far: WWF writes the ‘research’, and Greenpeace approves it. At least in the majority of items.
But there are other items, such as:
‘The great IPCC scam: now it quotes a how-to-clean-boots guide’, Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia), February 2, 2010,
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_great_ipcc_scam_now_it_quotes_a_how_to_clean_boots_guide/
As is there noted:
“So the IPCC cites a boot and clothing cleaning guide as evidence that the “multiple stresses of climate change…have necessitated the implementation of stringent clothing decontamination guidelines”.
This means, sorting out the Greenpeace, WWF, IUCN, UCS, et. al. references won’t answer the whole question of crock citations and shoddy review.
These people are so completely busted, it’s appalling.
What’s more appalling is, nobody’s actually read the IPCC reports until now. I’m guilty as hell on that point as well, I confess.
This is all so awful.
Luke your Wiki reference shows forcing by GHG’s from about 1910 to 1940 to be about 0.1C , solar seems to be about 0.15C over the same period so what’s your point?
Explain how this combined 0.25C of forcing was a factor in the 1940’s drought but we had such wet periods in the 1950’s and 1970’s, with solar forcing and supposed much higher GHG forcing?
Phillip Adams accepts Abbott’s soil sequestration idea
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2809236.htm
Well he would because he’s a bio-dynamic farmer in the Hunter Valley, well his partner Patrice Newell is.
In fact we could sequester all the world’s carbon in our soils.
janama,
Thanks for the links.
Finally the Unspeakable Adams redeems himself.
But it’s a great idea. Who knows? Maybe some sense will come out of all this craziness yet!
Andrew Bolt is calling for a full inquiry into the fraudulent ipcc report before we spend one more dollar on this bogus nonsense.
Even garnaut fell for the Himalayan glacier fraud backed up by the pearman idiot, geez what a bloody farce.
A very good speech by Cory Bernardi ( lib SA) in the senate listing all the frauds in the ipcc report and how the dinosaurs in the labor party are still repeating these same frauds when speaking in the senate.
What are these idiots, lying fraudsters or just plain dumb and how can such low life be representing the Aussie voters in the senate?
The address by Monckton in Canberra will be on foxtel and austar tonight on the A pac channel, 648 on Austar.
Repeated tomorrow in the morning and afternoon.
Neville – so how much wrong in how many pages. Bloody little. But keep trying to pump up the volume.
But I think a full inquiry that Bolt suggests is a WONDERFUL inquiry. Let’s make it ever so FULL.
Sceptics may not like what they’ll hear if scientists are let off the political leash. The message indeed may be even more severe !! And sceptics won’t get off lightly. BRING IT ON !
In terms of your question above on 1950s and 70s – simple – not the only factors PDO/IPO a major influence.
However you will find it very difficult to attribute why drought persists in southern Australia in such long sequences – not why all droughts occur. So some very good detective work has unravelled that AGW is adding to and reinforcing drought sequences in southern Australia. The message is perhaps a little too subtle for you.
And as much as you rant Neville – we question whether you are also just plain dumb, an idiot or a lying fraudster. Helpful style isn’t it?
Soil carbon may be a dodgy idea – easy to rort in claiming what is sequestered – and will you lose the lot when the temperature goes up??
” Sceptics may not like what they’ll hear if scientists are let off the political leash. The message indeed may be even more severe !! And sceptics won’t get off lightly. BRING IT ON !”
Ooooohahhhh …I’m quivering in my boots, stupid idle threats Walker… just idle threats ..let off the leash ..whose leash is that then. Is this what ” they” are saying to you.
They have a very priviledged position of being paid out of the pubic purse with absolute buckets of money and have the ear of all the key decision and policy makers… able to manipulate research outcomes, in bed with green groups and industry when and where it suits.
Have a priviledged/biased relationship with the Govt owned media to an extent that has become nauseating to watch
If they have been put on a leash, thats because they have been providing advice that is not soundly based and almost certainly contradictory, naive and undefendable, as well as being the product of processes that dont even conform to best practice standards.
If they have been put on a leash thats because their own management doesnt trust them either
Bring it on buddy…
It wil be good to really expose this rubbish once and for all.
We might start with at the top and question why the IPCC is chaired by a porn promoter and follow it all the way down that slippery slope and look at the origins and management of data sets, role of greeny groups, over blown use of computer models by the seriously delusional, failure to consider all other views, publically supporting Al Gore AIT, making outlandish/exagerated statements to media purely aimed at beating it up just to ensure that they get more funding
..and on..and on it goes.
yeah bring it on Walker…. bring it on.
Can you guys explain given we’re heading for an ice age (you’ve assured me it’ll be a Maunder minimess or worse) and the world is cooling etc etc.
How come January ? How come?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Well Hillsy – I think you’ll find that most IPCC reports are actually watered down towards conservatism by the vested interests.
BRING IT ON ! Put Monky and all the sceptic know-it-alls in the box too. We’ll see …
Piss weak Walker ..is that all you can say to defend your idiotic threat .
Personally I really hope that it does happen because this incompetent shemozzle and its moronic processes should not ever be allowed to happen again. There are plenty of obvious ways of doing this better
The shonkademic industry wont like it though…and thats why it wont happen
ooooooooooooooooo – what a ranter ! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“Soil carbon may be a dodgy idea – easy to rort in claiming what is sequestered – and will you lose the lot when the temperature goes up??”
Probably, but they’ll just apply for drought relief. [Bastards!]
Alright luke why then is the csiro belatedly saying that there may not be an anthropogenic signal in the Tasmanian drought and our more recent drought in southern Australia, in fact it may be just an example of our variable climate?
I’m certainly sure that the message may be a little too subtle for me to accept, particularly when I can look at a state like S.A. and wonder why it’s rainfall has increased over the last 100 years, or why has Victoria remained unchanged over 100 years, or why SE Australia has slightly increased rainfall over 100 years.
You made/proposed the threat Walker..BRING IT ON is the boast… and you call me a ranter.
Hypocrite …typical of your type
BTW Walker, if the IPCC is watered down, does that include the way they determined the 90 probability factor by a show of hands …thats a sophisticated example of the scientific method being demonstrated.
All that work ..all that science on display… and when it gets boiled down to the last main element they do a show of hands.
God help us all.
Well there you go Neville – golly me – it was some hydrologist from CSIRO’s opinion versus some serious attribution studies by serious climate scientists – come on. One press grab and you’re anyone’s aren’t you. Led around by the nose.
And there you go again – THE WHOLE STATE OF SA – the issue is a band across the bottom of the continent. Tell me Neville – have you read the relevant science on the issue. Nuh – it’s easier to keep hand waving isn’t it.
You’re so pretentious Hill – don’t verbal me matey. I’m not making threats – you are. You’re the one pumping up the volume on “an inquiry”. Well bring it on !! Don’t bluff. Make it happen Mal. Will be great to see some serious examination of the septic sceptic scum position. No soap boxes – no hand waving political rants – but some serious science inquiry. You should be very afraid of the answers.
Who says the IPCC is being watered down. You are? – some chardonnay swilling crow eating wingbag – pullease – hohohohoho . Tell me Mal – how would you come up with an expression of certainty yourself? How would you? Sound of crickets ….
Thanks for that confirmation luke and what about Vic and SE Aust?
By the way I’m sorry to hear that hydrologists don’t count at the csiro, thanks for clearing that up.
BTW I’ll clear up that SA rainfall history south of say Renmark latitude over the last 100 years and get back with what I’ve found.
Well Walker there you go again I wasnt verballing anyone..I was quoting you.
” I think you’ll find that most IPCC reports are actually watered down towards conservatism by the vested interests.”
You are so stupid you cant even remember what you said only 4 hours ago.
Bring it on is also the threat from you..knowing full well there is nothing a wind bag from Queensland could do about it..despite what his mates in the various CC departments say.
As for estimates of certainty perhaps it is so uncertain that no rational estimate could be made…but they had to fill the hole by a show of hands. How hopeless and dishonest is that.
Sure lets have a inquiry and audit into the science and processes of the science and the IPCC.
Did you put your application into ” The Australian Government CC Regulatory Authority”.
You would be a monty for an Executive Role surrounded by a complete army of Canutian Delusionalists decked in their new brown cardigans … all supplied by the tax payer.
..”think you’ll find that most IPCC reports are actually watered down towards conservatism by the vested interests.””says Luke.
I wasnt verballing anyone… I was quoting him
You are so stupid Walker you cant remember what you wrote only 4 hours ago
As for my expression of certainty, perhaps it is the case that it is so uncertain that no rational person would, or could, make an estimate, but the darlings in the IPCC got around that by a show of hands ..what a hoot
Climate science at its best.
Folks,
Following on my promise to Malcolm, I’m slowly making my way through the AR4, starting at the beginning — Summary for policymakers.
Now, bear with me here. It’s a fundamental in all natural sciences, and, indeed, in cybernetics, which is a branch of philosophy, that you cannot draw a conclusion that’s more robust than the evidence.
So, first off, I found:
“Difficulties remain in reliably simulating and attributing observed temperature changes at smaller scales. On these scales, natural climate variability is relatively larger, making it harder to distinguish changes expected due to external forcings.” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-understanding-and.html
OK, so the IPCC is asking us to draw robust conclusions based on data gathered ‘at smaller scales’, i.e., surface stations, which the IPCC itself says is, essentially, ‘noisy’ data.
Let’s move on.
Here we have the IPCC making another fundamental mistake which is glaringly obvious to anyone familiar with cybernetics: the map is not the territory. All models are, by necessity, less complete than the phenomena which are being modeled.
Yet we have the IPCC touting models as though they were actual experiments. Check this out:
“A major advance … is the large number of simulations available from a broader range of models.”
“Model experiments show”
“Based on current model simulations, it is very likely…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html
Now, let’s think of basic science. Causality is, of course, what science is all about. Well, physical science, at least. You know, the stuff about, ‘if you do A, B happens in the real world.’
Let’s see what the IPCC does with causality. The best they can come up with is “Virtually certain > 99% probability” http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2.html
So, they don’t dabble in specious, suspect, ‘skeptical’ notions like causality. And a search on ‘virtually certain’ on the IPCC’s website — the hardest scientific claim the IPCC offers, yields TWO results (count them):
“It is important to articulate that WG1’s contributions to the understanding required to inform future policy decisions are virtually certain to grow in the future” http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session28/inf1.pdf
and
“The combined aerosol direct and cloud albedo effect exert an RF that is virtually certain to be negative, with a median RF of -1.3 W m-2 and a -2.2 to -0.5 W m-2 90% confi dence range.” http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
Conclusion:
The IPCC and their hot-headed cheerleaders believe (1) that models are the environment, and (2) they eschew notions of causality. I’ve never before seen such a breathtaking breach of what all scientists know to be the fundamentals of science.
Egads, this is so awful.
Further reports to come. Thus far, all the IPCC report does is cite itself.
Schiller,
If it helps here is a list prepared by someone else, the dubious and non peer reviewed citations by the IPCC crowd.
http://climatequotes.com/scientists/the-ipccs-questionable-citations/
It gives the lie to the comments by those senior people in the IPCC hierarchy ( interviewed bythe ABC of course) who say publically and brazenly that the Himalayan incident was but one error in a 3000 page document.
The probability that there are a lot more errors to be unearthed is very high and that doesnt need a show of hand,s as it seems is the current method of note.
Susequent events aso support this.
Malcolm,
I’ve been to that link, and while it’s quite instructive about the IPCC’s tendency to engage in crusty hijinks, it’s far from complete.
I’ve conclusively identified two catastrophically flawed assumptions made by the IPCC at the mere beginning of its latest report, assumptions which could easily be identified by the least student of the scientific method as tragically stupid.
From the fundamentally ignorant belief that computer models are what climate scientists ‘are about’, pure balderdash is sure to result. But — being a skeptic — I will have to read on. Perhaps these people redeem themselves, in spite of their impossible assumptions, later in the document.
In the mean time, I am heartened to discover that the IPCC claims only two things to be ‘virtually certain’. One of which is a political outcome. The other of which is vastly disputable, and neither of which dabbles in the ‘ghastly’ notion of causality.
It’s hilarious watching Mally and Scillsbo shit on – having a SERIOUS discussion. What a bunch of monkeys.
I loved this Schiller complains about this simple sentence: “Model experiments show”
“The probability that there are a lot more errors to be unearthed is very high” Mal assures us hand on the heart – barf ! If you weren’t so utterly dishonest you’d have advised us that the Amazon assertion is substantiated after all –
LEAKGATE !
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_scandal_grows.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate.php
Denialists spinning away making webs to trap the unwary … immoral and disgusting.
This little beauty shows what a pinhead Schiller is ” You know, the stuff about, ‘if you do A, B happens in the real world.’” Well no actually – it’s a bit of an issue when you have A, B, C, D and E combining to give X !
zzzzzzzz
And still cricket white noise on Mal showing how he’d express uncertainty …. dum de dum de dum….
“bring it on” isn’t a threat – it’s an expression of hope for your wish to come true ….
anyway better let Mal get back to his chardonnay
Lukebaby,
I would like to comment on Jan’s figure of +0.72deg. C from the NOAA sattelite data you pointed out.
This figure for January is almost up in the El Nino territory of 1998. I’m finding this hard to believe. I don’t think anyone up in the Nthern. Hemisphere experienced those mild winter temps. you’d expect from that data. Here in NZ Jan. didn’t seem overly hot,in fact quite the opposite. It seems Australia is the only place in the world that cooked in January. (We had Gavin sitting in his loincloth to testify to this)
You may be unaware, but the eyes of the climate science world is firmly fixed on Australia,( 4 letters supporting Monckton in our local rag last night) . Our chief sceptic, (unfortunately experiencing a reverse “Gore effect”) is visiting your country and whatsmore talking to your powerful opposition leader. Your greenhouse theory and its ramifications are under the most intense pressure ever.
If upholders of the greenhouse theory including NOAA are fiddling satellite data to maintain an upward trend then who can we trust Lukebaby?
The whole premise of science is that we have to trust the scientists.
I’m certainly having doubts about this and believe I’m not just being paranoid.
Not interested in a revolution Lukebaby?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrkwgTBrW78
Lukeyloo,
“Model experiments show” isn’t a sentence. It’s a phrase, and in this context, it’s also an oxymoron. You can run ‘experiments’ inside of computer ‘models’ all day long, and all they’ll do is ‘show’ you what your software can do. Surely that’s simple enough for you to grasp.
And as far as ‘Leakegate’ goes, I pointed out earlier, I agree with you completely — the IPCC actually omitted lots of citations. With so many thousands of scientists and so forth it was easy to not have all the footnotes they wanted.
HAHAHAHA
Sea level drastically wrong in the Netherlands. Arctic disaster based on boot-cleaning recommendations. Amazonian climate destruction based on goofy forest-fire claims. Fake heating of Australia, New Zealand and Russia. The hockey stick for the whole globe. The glaciers disappearing by 2035.
You ridicule the statement that ‘The probability that there are a lot more errors to be unearthed is very high’? With the mistaken assumptions and the degree of sloppiness which has been disclosed, Malcolm is being generous.
The revelation of a lot more errors can be guaranteed. You see, there’s lots of FOI requests that Hadley hasn’t responded to, and you and your buddies will be swept away when the rest is exposed.
Meanwhile, we’ll just keep looking at the IPCC report, exposing its atrocious errors patiently, and you can continue being poster-boy with your foul language. Untold thousands have learned how uncouth the advocates of AGW tend to be, as a result of your crude expressions.
Mack,
Nice points, all. Though, pointing them out to Luke is pointless. He has faith, and it is his job to withstand these tests of faith to prove that his belief is stalwart, and impervious to all contradiction.
Even if we descend into an Ice Age, Luke will want to be remembered as a ‘true believer’, who was faithful to AGW unto his last breath.
Of course, mocking him is fun, as he’s as incompetent and blindered as the rest of them, so it makes for good sport.
http://www.climatedepot.com/
Here of course are a heap of leads to add to the list.
Can there be any doubt about the integrity of it all.?
..and there is more to come.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/06/2812195.htm
and all in the same week we start debating an ETS…..
Mack Mack Mack – dear deluded and uninformed Mack – sigh – your satellite data belongs to your beloved Spencer (an arch sceptic).
He’s even showing it !
So funny.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Not wanting to put the mocker on you guys but hey – just say – you know – just say – the temperature went up and a record was broken. You know – just say. The press would desert the sceptics in droves. Would be a stampede.
So boys when you say your prayers before beddy byes – clasp those little white fingers (no Darkies for Schiller) oh so so so hard and pray ever so hard. Goes like this – “Dear {insert deity of choice} please let those warmers be wrong – pls pls pls – we hate them so much and they say shit and fuck a lot too. Pls give them a horrible disease. Pls turn them to the extreme right if you can. Pls pls pls.”
hahahahahahaha
And sorry boys
Michael Mann exonerated – sceptics pissed off.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/michael-mann-exonerated.html
“Remind everyone that on three of the four charges McIntyre, Morano, Myron Ebell and Co were shown to be pond scum.” say Eli !!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BUT BUT BUT I did enjoy the piece on mock concern by cryptic-denialists – “concern trolls” – the new sub-species.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/ “Concern trolls”
At least we don’t have concern trolls here – you guys are just plain full-on assault.
Hardly a credible inquiry ..A University investigating one of its own, whi jst happens to bring in big dollars that they can all slosh it around with.
Its no dam different to police internal inquiry investigating one of its own.
The public would not have confidence in the outcome of either..and doesnt.
Fancy that, Mann exonerated on 3/4 charges; shall we place bets on the 4th?
Schiller
Here is a news report translated from the German and quoting German Ministers of State
Not new but additive
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=9685251
I bet that Mann gets 4/4……he always was going to get 4/4 .. its got nothing to do with rights and wrongs
you’d reckon blogsphere rules by now but I see only a clown show here that just goes on and on
google “warmest ever 2010” > lots of links to Nasa. google “coldest ever” and we get fiction
Lukebaby,
I think the record Jan. temps. on the sattelite data is probably as a result of the El Nino effect.
We had unusually severe southerly winds all through December here in NZ.,(typical of El Nino)
You havn’t got me clasping my hands and praying yet Lukebaby.
Ahahahaha.
Malcolm, Cohenite
You know the fix is in on the University investigation of Mann when they look for fraud and find none. According to their standards, the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ apparently qualifies for the ‘interpretation of data’ exemption. Since climatology is nothing more than playing with statistics, fraud in the field literally cannot be committed.
Here’s something to bet on, though: Will Paul Dennis be prosecuted? Police are questioning him in connection with the ‘liberation’ of emails and data from Hadely CRU. They’ve established that he has ‘links’ to skeptics, and is himself a skeptic. Thus far it doesn’t appear he’s the whistleblower/hacker/international master spy. But he’s a skeptic with ties and links.
Surely they’ll find something to charge him with.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/ids-out/#comment-20281
and
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_climategate_whistleblower/
Folks,
I went looking for a comprehensive list of all the ‘-gates’ which together form what’s generally referred to as ‘Climategate’, and found none. So I compiled one myself, which is below. There are so many that they’re hard to keep track of. If I’ve missed one, please tell me.
I tried to post the below with a link for each, but the filter on the site doesn’t like a post with so many links.
Enjoy!
Stationgate: NASA GISS disappearing temperature station data (many stations are still there) generates warming trend
Codegate: NASA GISS running different code from what it says it runs
Boliviagate: NASA GISS finds heat island on the snow-capped peaks of Bolivia
Madagascargate: GHCN says data unavailable in electronic form — but anyone can easily find it
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/mysterious-madagascar-muse/
New Zealandgate: Climatologists ‘adjust’ data which turn out to have actually disappeared
Hockeygate: Penn State climatologist Michael Mann invents a computer program that will generate a warming trend from random data
Hollandgate: Wild exaggeration of amount of the Netherlands below sea level
Bootsgate: IPCC uses boot-cleaning guide to ‘prove’ Antarctic climate ‘clear vulnerability’
Glaciergate: Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035
Citegate: Greenpeace, WWF, et. al. provide ‘research’ to IPCC, which is then ‘reviewed’ by Greenpeace, WWF et. al. IPCC ‘expert editors’
Amazongate: IPCC says global warming could deforest nearly half of the Amazon – based on WWF speculations regarding forest fire
Disastergate: IPCC cites unpublished research about global warming causing increase in disasters. When published, the research denies the connection.
FOIAgate: Hadley scientists broke UK FOI laws to avoid peer review of their work
Yamalgate: Russian heating trend based on rings of only one tree
Russiagate: British Meteorological Office caught tampering with Russian climate data by cherry-picking station data
Darwingate: US GHCN ‘adjusts’ data from Australia’s Darwin Airport to turn cooling trend into warming trend
Of course, more are on the way…
The biggest gate of them all is the IEA’s ratio of 15/25 it wrecks every possible argument for the next twenty years (2030 ) and beyond.
The IEA tells us that the OECD countries will be producing less than 15 Giga tonnes pa of GHG’s by 2030, but non OECD countries will be producing more than 25 Giga tonnes pa of GHG’s.
Simple maths that seems to be beyond some of the planet’s scientists & politicians etc just proves that if you believe the AGW theory then you should be urging a big total spend on new technology to produce our energy.
Trying to reduce co2 is a ludicrous solution because even if we spend countless trillions by 2100 we will only offset the enevitable by perhaps 5 years, or 2095 instead of 2100 and of course the temp decrease would be zero.
Schiller,
Here is another list to check off against
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-end-is-not-near#more-974
Soon we will be able to legitamately add Penngate to the list
… you can see it coming a mile off.
Neville,
There’s some cruel ironies running all through this sordid, hypocritical mess.
Try to make sense of this one by the IEA:
“In the Reference Scenario, 1.3 billion people still lack access to electricity in 2030 compared with 1.5 billion people today. Universal electricity access could be achieved with additional power-sector investment of $35 billion per year in 2008-2030 and with only a modest increase in primary energy demand and related CO2 emissions. ” [1]
Then compare that to this by the OECD:
“Traditional fuels or biomass’ – defined to include fuelwood, bagasse (the cellulosic residue left after sugar is extracted from sugar cane), charcoal, and animal and vegetal wastes – play an important part in satisfying energy demand in developing countries. But the exact importance of these fuels is difficult to measure since many of them are collected informally, and the available statistics therefore tend severely to underestimate their consumption.” [2]
On the one hand, you have the people in mud huts, etc. ‘generating energy’ with ‘biomass’, which all the warmists agree is ‘environmentally friendly’. While releasing CO2, of course. This generation (for cooking, heating, light) could be provided by power stations. Which, if not nuclear, solar, wind, etc. release CO2. But it’s politically incorrect CO2.
Throw into the mix the fact that Greenies oppose nuclear, solar, wind, tidal, etc. generation, you’re left with the conclusion that the least fortunate of us must rely on burning ‘biomass’ ‘for the good of the planet’.
And throw this into the mix as well: there is a ‘consensus’ that coal is not biomass. I guess coal was merely put in the planet’s crust ‘to ‘fool the unbelievers’, much as dino skeletons were cleverly devised to entice the wicked into notions of evolution.
————
1. http://www.iea.org/weo/docs/weo2009/fact_sheets_WEO_2009.pdf
2. http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LtjFx48tJhm4lnQmr4hRTP8r10K2N5xk057HRvPPmFsplG1hcm2P!2064974013!2144018255?docId=98559838
Malcolm,
That’s a good link you offered, but all the ‘-gates’ in that article are included in those I’ve listed.
Maybe I should add a ‘Lukegate’, where Luke alleges the IPCC’s failure is ‘failure to cite’.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=55#comment-167945
Well, we all know that sort of failure is so comprehensively rife that the IPCC reports are partisanly, one-sidedly, corruptedly useless.
Just to show what idiotic nonsense we’ve been told about reducing our emissions try this on for size.
On abc’s Inside Business one of the heads of our power generation in the Latrobe valley explains to Kohler that they could replace the entire brown coal generation with gas for a cost of about 2 to 2.5 billion dollars.
The GHG’s saved would be about 75% and the increased cost to customers would be about 20% to cover the change.
This could be accomplished over a 10 year period, but I wonder how this cost stacks up to the CC and storage that’s yet to be proved as a viable technology, I bet it’s a lot cheaper.
Meanwhile the krudd idiot will spend 45 billion on new fibre to the home internet connections when everyone seems to want to go the wireless route, particularly young people.
Schiller – a new one has just been revealed – africa-gate
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/06/ipccs-latest-blunder-africagate-as-told-by-dr-richard-north/#more-16128
Neville,
Here in the US, we bailed out crooked investment banks because they were ‘too big to fail’.
Government learned that lesson. They want to be ‘too big to fail’, too. But first, they have to set things up to be totally screwed if they’re out of power.
Sort of like the Maldives Cabinet holding an underwater meeting in scuba gear to highlight how global warming shows they need Copenhagen money.
http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/372.1
Hilarious, if the greed wasn’t so transparent.
Just think guys – all your little bleats – It’s not working. Why ? coz your position is bullshit and you know it.
You have so many alleged gates – you could be in the fencing business.
Oh but I forgot – you already are in the fencing business – you’re trying to corral the debate with a denial campaign.
Hurry on the big inquiry.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Such bravado lukey, I’ll bet if you were put under the spotlight at a real enquiry you’d need a permanent supply of fresh undies.
Resorting to your usual line of foul langauge and BS wouldn’t be allowed and honestly without the F word you’d be just about be tongue tied.
On Landline the south Australian farmers a reaping record wheat crop of up to 4 tonne and acre with patches of 5 tonne – amounts never achieved before. 7.5 million tonnes all up – second highest crop for Sth Australia.
could this be because of additional CO2 and a warmer climate?
Luke – bring on the inquiry – I hope they get Dr Spencer to testify as he says this on his website
““Global warming” refers to the global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.”
Janama,
That’s an excellent find!
“referenced only to a report produced by a Canadian advocacy group, written by an obscure Moroccan academic who specialises in carbon trading, citing references which do not support his claims.”
and
“this “50 percent by 2020″ claim forms part of the key Synthesis Report, the production of which was the personal responsibility of the chair of the IPCC, Dr R K Pachauri.”
This richly deserves to join the list of ‘-gates’. Should be near the top of the list.
Lukeylooooooo… ‘Hurry on the big inquiry’? Yeah. The big inquiry is on already. You know. That awful thing skeptics do, like… hmmm… what’s the word? Inquire.
Too late, Lukeyloo. The joke’s on yoooo. The big inquiry started last year and it’s already February.
Dude.
Over at The Abc’s Drum Unleashed (now there’s a mixed metaphor!), that avuncular Deep Green David Horton has a chortle-fest about the scorn these days being heaped on his co-religionists. I have posted a comment to his piece, which the ABC appears disinclined to publish, so I thought I might take the liberty of posting it here, where it will at least see the light of day.
Here’s my comment. Should Luke bother to reply, I will ignore him.
However, the views of Green Davey — who knows a thing or two about brown rings on grasstrees — would be appreciated.
Horton’s piece is here: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2803662.htm
And my (unpublished) response:
If David wants to know why greens are held increasingly in such low esteem, he need look no further than the mirror.
Horton champions the notion that Aborigines firestick practices exerted no discernible impact on the bush. Indeed, he categorically rejects the very idea that they burned as a matter of course. Pioneer testimonies, forensic evidence, contemporary anthropological confirmation — all are rejected because David prefers to believe that fire must come to the bush only when ordained by Nature, never by the hand of man.
This would make Aborigines a genuine rarity, by the way, as I can think of no nomadic culture which did not set pockets of its environment aflame.
But David demands that we take his word for it — and, sadly, those in government pursuing invaluable inner-city green preferences do just that. The result is forests that are littered with debris, which burn far more intensely when they do catch aflame, and which leave vast tracts of forest inalterably changed, and always for the worse.
And that is why greens are increasingly held up to ridicule, their stereotyped dreadlocks and vegan evangelism notwithstanding.
The moment their smug, self-righteous, world-as-it-should-be absolutism strays off the university campus, real-world problems ensue. And sometimes — quite often, actually — people die.
It is not a charge to be laid lightly, but Horton is one of the reasons Black Saturday’s toll was so high. His insistence on viewing forest management through an ideological prism encouraged fools, like those on Nillumbik Council, to reject any and all suggestions of fuel reduction, even to the extent of making sure that local roads were turned into death traps.
On this weekend of all weekends, Black Saturday’s first anniversary, he really should shut his mouth.
A bunch more ‘-gates’ have just been revealed. I believe the number of them now stands at 22.
‘Only 22’, some might say. Except that all these IPCC claims are now busted: the deforestation of the Amazon, the devastation of African agriculture, the rise of destructive weather events, the disappearance of glaciers, the inundation of the Netherlands, and the authoritativeness of conclusions drawn from data from weather stations. Hard to call this a ‘minor problem’.
New errors in IPCC climate change report
Telegraph (UK)
February 7, 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html
Excerpts:
a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power has been found to contain numerous errors.
The source of information for the diagram was cited as the website of UK-based wave-energy company Wavegen. Wavegen insisted that it was not the original source of the data.
The diagram is widely cited in other literature as having come from a paper on wave energy produced by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering in 1991 along with data from the European Directory of Renewable Energy.
It can also be revealed that claims made by the IPCC about the effects of global warming, and suggestions about ways it could be avoided, were partly based on information from ten dissertations by Masters students.
One unpublished dissertation was used to support the claim that sea-level rise could impact on people living in the Nile delta and other African coastal areas, although the main focus of the thesis, by a student at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, appears to have been the impact of computer software on environmental development.
The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.
Estimates of carbon-dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations and claims that suggested they were cheaper than coal or gas power stations were also taken from the website of the World Nuclear Association, rather than using independent scientific calculations.
Folks,
It looks like Australia ‘leads the world’ in investing retirement funds in ‘Green’ initiatives, including Al Gore’s project…
http://twawki.com/2010/02/04/super-green-putting-your-retirement-in-al-gores-hands/
Someone should demand an investigation by, i.e., financial/brokerage regulators. Investing in ideology, as Climategate has shown, is highly speculative. Pun, pun.
Schiller,
There is also this compendium of articles (50) critical of the way the IPCC has gone about its business produced by John McLean and going back a few years
http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm
Cue Queenslands notorious Village Idiot to come back on this.
Malcolm and Schiller enjoying a private moment assuring each other that they have denialist source criticising IPCC source. You are actually complaining about the IPCC not checking facts and you are doing the same. A number of the gates have been rebutted and replaced with denialist bullshit-gate. Clowns who can’t see their own hypocrisy
Luke,
Cite the rebuttals of the clowns. And I don’t mean like Deltoid, who — like you — says it’s a problem of ‘missing citations’.
I mean, the real stuff. Not IPCC crapola. You must have another font of veracity somewhere.
HAHAHA you don’t have it!
You’ll have to do your ‘research’ all over again. You can probably get some kids from elementary school to evaluate Al Gore’s videos and supply some footnotes.
HAHAHA
In drama, there’s a real difference between being a tragic hero and an idiot.
Choose your drama, Luke. Scientific acumen is not your forte.
Schiller
You will note of cooruse that the village idiot can only come up with possible rebuttals to some not all.
Meanwhile every passing day is revealing more and more that is wrong with the IPCC crapola and its processes.
Whatever gates there are, still leaves the failure of the IPCC to comply with normal standards of forecasting principles to the extent that the 90% confidence limit was arrived at by a show of hands
So much for the science.
Malcolm,
To be sure, the ‘show of hands’ test is shabby science, but even so, ‘Virtually certain’ (> 99% probability) is the IPCC’s most robust claim — which it/they apply to two worthless ‘findings’.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=56#comment-168478
If Isaac Newton had claimed ‘Virtually certain’ like that for his proposed laws on the motions of planets, that would have put him in the same range as the epicyclists who drew up the ephemerae old-style.
But it appears we’re supposed to adhere to Medieval standards. Without the Warm Period, of course.
Do you folks ‘Down Under’ have ‘Medieval Fairs’ where the public can show up (with money, of course) and watch Medievalists re-enact Medievalism? We have them, up here, and they’re great fun.
If you have such public fairs, it may be that Luke has accidentally missed his true calling.
The Challenge has been met!
Lord Monckton has accepted Lecturer Tim Lambert’s Challenge to
Debate Anthropogenic Global Warming
In attempting to avoid having to turn people away as we had to previously. We ask you to please REGISTER NOW to attend this lecture and pay a $30 cash donation at registration validation on arrival at the venue
Details follow:.
Please register Name:
by providing: Address:
Phone & email:
email to: cool@exemail.com.au
or FAX: (02) 4861 2029
Special enquiries ring 0419 703 465…
The Moderator and MC will be
Australia’s leading Broadcaster, 2GB’s
Alan Jones AO
Friday 12 February 2010 – 12:30pm
at
HILTON HOTEL SYDNEY, Grand Ballroom.
I wonder if Luke will show up for this.
He’ll be the one shouting ‘f**k’ and ‘s**t’ and ‘tobacco’ and so forth.
Hello All,
including luke et al, a study says those who blame recent drought in MDB have it backwards .Also, that shister Karoly is quoted as the source in the AR4 report. See Andrew Bolts blog for more detail.
At least karoly only attributed this latest drought to AGW ( mad as that is ) , but luke found some attribution of AGW in the 1940’s drought nearly 70 years ago, with little forcing by GHGs but more forcing by solar?
Bunyip, I’m no Green Davey but I do know that the Nullabor plain use to be heavily forested (due to finds of tree kangaroo fossils) and there is strong evidence that the flora was not able to survive indigenous fire stick farming practices.
There is also at least anecdotal evidence that prior to European settlement, feeding habits of local marsupials coupled with native flora meant that fuel loads were significantly less than the modern era.
Most introduced grasses are high density annuals compared to native perennials, which have a much smaller fire hazard. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that the only way to get back to pre settlement conditions is through c ontrolled burning regimes.
Bunyip,
Thanks for the David Horton post. I certainly find his view that Aborigines did not deliberately use fire puzzling. Nobody seems to have told the Aborigines, at least not the southwest Nyoongars I have spoken to. In his book (I forget the title) he compared himself to Martin Luther, pinning his 95 theses to the door of Wittenberg church, in 1517. I have been unable to discover any evidence of a resulting widespread ‘reformation’ in bushfire beliefs. Not, at least, among those who have some real bushfire experience and knowledge. We’ll have to classify Dr. Horton as a prescribed burning sceptic. Good luck to him, say I. I only hope he does not have a house amongst the gumtrees.
jnw – a minor paper on drought severity not mechanisms for lack of rainfall. Yawn. All above Neville’s head of course.
Luke, someone needs to say it, and since I am only an occasional visitor here, allow me: GET A JOB.
(Do it now, before the dole queues are full of Assistant Climate Change Officers and Acting Carbon Abatement Managers.)
Monckton had a good run on our ABC. Their effort was summed up on Media Watch tonight
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/201002/programs/FA0935H001D2010-02-08T212000.htm
of much greater interest though was the bushfire program “Inside the firestorm” last night
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/geo/documentaries/interactive/firestorm/
for me this climate change horror thing starts here
“Remembering the 1967 bushfires in southern Tasmania” ‘Black Tuesday’, 7 February, 1967: the day Hobart was on fire
http://www.abc.net.au/local/photos/2008/10/08/2385051.htm
there is an irony re Feb 7 and bushfire frequency caught by ABC interviews that are reflected in the observations of other keen observers
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1748465.htm
I guess Jimmock rhymes with pillock.
From
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/08/ipcc-gate-du-jour-aussie-droughtgate/#more-16206
IPCC Gate Du Jour: Aussie Droughtgate
And this comment!
Zorro (03:09:48) :
You’ll know that AGW is really true when KRudd goes to the IMF to raise money to put the Sydney harbour Opera House on stilts.
Drum roll,
Com’on, someone do a cartoon, – please.
Ah yes lukey it’s all in that massive 0.1C of GHG forcing brought on by that incredible 300ppm of co2 by 1930’s, YERRR that’s what helped make the 1940’s drought such a disaster.
Funny,Dick Condon calls the near half century from 1900 to 1945 ” the horror years” in the Western Division of NSW not just 4 or 5 five years in the 1940s.
So what AGW forcings caused that record dry period?
As I’ve tried to explain before ( thick cranium I think) when he finished his book on that 41% of NSW in 2002 he considered that later period to be some of the best years for higher rainfall and lower wind speed etc and he gives references.
In other words a much easier existence and it’s exactly the opposite to your silly arguments dummy.
Neville,
You are absolutely correct regarding the last 100 years of weather in western NSW.
However you should be aware by now that trying to reason with a Galah is impossible.
Somebody give him a biscuit to shut him up for a while.
I am presently in USA where it is freezing cold and most people are awake to the IPCC fraud and are starting to get annoyed at the Obarma admin. and its support of AGW.
However Congress is not going to have a bar of any legislation to tax CO2.
Pikey.
A recent paper by Solomon et al. offers a convincing argument that too much water vapor in the stratosphere caused the warming of the 1990’s and the dry spell over the past decade has seen temperatures go flat.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/01/what’s-happened-to-global-warming/
People,
You are being too hard on Luke.
He’s a poet, so gentle, tender and perceptive as to notice that ‘Jimmock rhymes with pillock’.
Next thing we know, he’ll discover rhymes for f**k and s**t, which will be similarly gentle, tender and perceptive.
As properly befits a p**t such as he.
I just kacked – Bolt & Wattsup utter horseshit beatup with Lockart et al will be rebutted into the Stone Age in an upcoming GRL. They have stuffed their analysis.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You scum will NEVER live this down. Oh happy day.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ……….
Neville – whatever – but study this http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf
Maybe one day you might ask an intelligent question.
And as I said at Wattzy
“What denialist twaddle. All the usual nonsense.
Issue should be what causes or prolongs droughts – not drought severity. SO deceptively Bolt in his usual bulldusting style fogs an entire issue.
(1) Not on the pace – and as usual it’s what denialists don’t tell you – not what they tell you as they fail miserably in their duty of care
What is not told is that there is very good research (Indian Ocean Climate Initiative (IOCI -CSIRO & BoM) and the South East Australian Climate Initiative (SEACI – CSIRO & BoM)) that documents changes in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and the intensification of the subtropical ridge (STR) which adds to, reinforces, prolongs drought caused by natural factors ENSO and Indian Ocean Dipole. Perhaps even AGW changes in the IOD itself. Maybe even Walker circulation.
The SEACI research shows that circulation changes in the south-east region are likely to have been influenced by AGW. (greenhouse and stratospheric ozone decline forcings). This work is very detailed and very specific.
(2) It’s about agri-business risk management which those sitting in air conditioned offices know little about – is it your agribusiness dollars, your investment or your family property
(3) confounding the ETS with the climate science i.e. if you don’t like the ETS – therefore the climate science MUST be wrong – illogical
(4) that suddenly AGW theory demands all natural drought influences must disappear – who said ?
(5) fail to quote the last line of the Lockart et al GRL paper which says “It is stressed that the results of the analyses presented here in no way negate genuine concerns over anthropogenic climate change” – as they says in Aussie – this is having two bob each way? pretty weak … as they know what they’ve left out
(6) nothing on the changes in wind run which reflect in changes in pan evaporation – more atmospheric AGW circulation changes
(7) and yawn Lockart et al have missed http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL031524.shtml –
But of course who would come to Wattsup to get a serious education?
P.S. Usual ruses here – (1) present rainfall stats for the whole Murray Darling Basin (MDB) – issue is lower MDB – i.e. Murray itself. Better still present rainfall stats for the whole of Australia. (NW has become wetter – while east, SE, and SW drier – average that and learn nothing !!)
Ruse 2 – “there have been droughts before” – duh !
Ruse 3 – pretend AGW science doesn’t know/care about natural variability”
Hah I see that the bloggers over at WUWT are onto the village idiot as well,rebutting the same crappy and desparate arguments he raises here..yet again
Like the man said ” Get a life”.
May be one day you will gvie an intelligent answer instead of this faux bristling because some one has called the shonkademics out..
or
Found another piece of unacceptable behaviour by the UN heavies starting with the SG
http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/un-climate-cronies/
Is there no end ..and all the while the shonka demics remained silent
luke, that McIlpine paper deals with changing vegetation cover through land-use and that impact on climate; as a concept that may have some legs whereas AGW has the legs of a dead snake; of course if you are going to deal with clearing of vegetation as a contributor to changing climate than you had better read what your mate Flannels has to say;
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12150.abstract
And perhaps some reading up on ‘firestick farming’ would be useful.
Just a little off topic, take a look at this negative AO. The UK will get another blizzard very soon.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
“there have been droughts before” – duh !
Luke,
This argument of land cover change is well accepted and combined with NV is more than capable of being responsible for what’s happening.
But you should stop kidding yourself that you are “across” it any more than anyone else.
PS: you know we love your opinions but that’s all they are.
cohers,
Probably one of the few times when Flummers was anywhere near the truth. But it would not take too much working out. The same thing is happening here now on a smaller scale. The feral wildlife are killing much bigger native fauna by killing the young and preventing breeding and it would be easy for feral man to have done this back then as he did it everywhere at some stage.
Do you know if native man in Africa ever wiped out any megafauna or has it only happened with ferals?
Outstanding rebuttals guys. Don’t think I can recover from that intellectual onslaught.
Sound of crickets …
Luke,
I just received a reply from the principal scientist, coastal div. WRT to the HAT of the 31/1/10 and my obs that in spite of it being a HAT it did not reach within 20cms of the usual king tides for the past 47 years.
“To assist, I have attached a plot of the tide information that I obtained from Queensland Transport’s tide gauge located at Southport for the period 29 January to 2 February. This plot clearly shows that the actual tide recorded by the tide gauge exceeded the HAT value for this region. It also indicates that the actual tide was higher than was predicted to occur.”
To me this indicates that SLR is not only not occurring in my NOTW, it is considerably less than it was almost half a century ago.
It’s hard to imagine that el nino is responsible for that much anomaly.
I sent Dr Church from CSIRO an email as well as you suggested but no reply as yet.
I have been trying to make a point about possible doubt in SLR over at doltoid but those jokers are really in serious denial.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/andrew_bolt_in_one_graph.php#comments
I probably just don’t explain myself very well.
Spangles,
Actually EL Nino isn’t a cause of anthing – it’s actually weather itself, and has an external cause.
And don’t worry about Doltoid, they are impervious to reason and the blindingly obvious, so it’s not you but they who have the problem.
Louis, good to hear from you again, is it possible that El Ninos may be caused by submarine volcanic activity or at least hot spots in the sea crust?
El Nino; here is the latest paper re: El Nino, which is argued to be an expression of a subharmonic reasonant pattern, solar related, of climate. I’m still trying to wade through it after David Stockwell sent it, so you guys might as well suffer as well;
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.1024
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_drives_longer.html
Spangles note the figure – not all regions behave uniformly !
Here’s Luke with the old ‘failure to quote’ argument, this time turned the other way around:
fail to quote the last line of the Lockart et al GRL paper which says “It is stressed that the results of the analyses presented here in no way negate genuine concerns over anthropogenic climate change”
Is it really an important scientific datum to note that some people are truly hysterical and nothing will change their minds?
Actually, it probably is.
Schiller – Lockart et al will be soon rebutted into the Stone Age in an upcoming GRL. i.e. it’s rubbish a.k.a they’ve cocked it up. ROTFL
So eat shit and die (as they say – rhetorically of course).
Moving on to something much more interesting than denialist waffle …
“It is important not to make the mistake made by Lord Kelvin and argue that there can be no influence of solar variability on climate: indeed, its study is of scientific interest and may well further our understanding of climate behaviour. However, the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists.”
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/466/2114/303.full#F8
LOLZ !
The Royal Society has become captive to the Greens, in both climatology and genetic engineering. They’re not the credible bunch they used to be.
Meanwhile, in an announcement on Feb. 8, 2010, the US Department of Commerce and NOAA proposed establishing a NOAA Climate Service — and its website is already up and running!
Here’s how NOAA ‘proves’ AGW: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
And here’s the Climate Service website: http://www.climate.gov/
Obviously they haven’t heard of Glaciergate. And does NOAA actually need to fund another misinformation project? Of course. After Climategate, the need is greater than ever!
Brace yourselves — the warmers have more money to spend than anyone else, and more money at stake as well. All those lovely tax dollars for windmills.
The only interesting question left is whether those who claimed to be ‘scientific’ were duped, or were they willingly going along, with hyping AGW?
Luke shrieking irrelevance leaves the question open in his case.
Schiller,
The true sign a partisan is on the losing side of an issue is when, like NOAA, they kid themselves into believing that if they can just talk a little bit louder, everyone will finally understand.
If anyone at all on the AGW believer side actually thinks they have not gotten their message out at this point, they are only kidding themselves.
Their message, to their dismay, is becoming more and more well understood. That is why it is losing credibility by the day.
Reflect on this: The AGW social movement has always been a perversion of science and government. Their answer to any challenge is to toss more money at the problem.
When you look at AGW which is the biggest fraud of the last one hundred years, you must apply the proper questioning as to its cause and ongoing momentum.
First of all you must follow the money whether the supporters come from the left or the right, whether green groups or business or wealthy businessmen/ women.
Look at the vulnerable super funds invested by the BBC or ABC etc for example that require the setting up of a carbon economy with a price on carbon to bolster those same funds.
Look at the merchant bankers and banking houses that have a vested interest in this PRICE ON CARBON mantra that they all require to make this the next trillion $ product.
Hunter,
By latest count, over $70 billion, with a ‘B’ has been funneled into ‘climate research’ as a result of the global warming scare.
You would not fool yourself for that kind of money, but would you fool others for that kind of money, with the promise of more to come, if you fooled a few more?
Untold riches beckon, and the lure of being a ‘rock star’ in the field of Saving The Planet… all you have to do is tell some clever lies.
You could be like Bill Gates, except that people actually like you. Maybe even worship you.
Imagine the corruptible turning aside such opportunities. No way.
The other night I was doing the washing up, but half heard a climate expert (?) on TV. I think he said that low rain in southwestern Australia over the past few decades is due to more snow falling in Antarctica. Has more snow fallen in Antarctica? All over, or only in the peninsula?
I remember a Belgian professor of climatology, who had worked in the antarctic, telling me, decades ago, that a slight rise in temperature there would lead to more snow. The models at that time were predicting a 12 degree rise at both poles, but, as he pointed out, even if that came true, the temperature would still be well below freezing. Also, would not more snow in the Antarctic lock up more water there, so leading, if anything, to a fall in sea level? I am looking for truth through consilience.
Interesting link on the bolt site indicating that one of hansen’s colleagues is highly sceptical of the IPCC. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_scientific_merit_to_ipcc_document_says_hansen_colleague/
While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking…
Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:
There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.
game set and match?
Davey shows you never read anything I have ever said here. I have quoted a number of papers showing changes in the Antarctic vortex which keeps Antarctic colder. And modelling of stratospheric ozone depletion with greenhouse forcing reproduces these changes in the southern annular mode SAM). And the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative in your fair state attributed changes in SAM and natural variability to be causes of WA rainfall decline. i.e. rainfall bands miss SW WA …. Sigh … but why would believe that ? It’s just a bad patch Davey. She’ll be right mate.
Toby in a world of 6 billion people many people will have issue with the IPCC report. This dude has probably had a falling out and now knows better. Or sour grapes? i.e. really who cares?
Toby don’t you find it strange that 2009 is still warm despite the quiet Sun. We’re all amused. Indeed a “pulversing ice age” about to hit according to the pundits here. And why with all this cold going on has the satellite Jan temp almost spiked to record levels. I know it’s because we’re heading for an ice age. Wake up !
Furthermore the Lockart et al paper will be shredded in next GRL.
The guys here should be in the fencing business. They’re into “-Gate” manufacture.
And reproduced from Deltoid. (what Bolt crap – more denialist utter bunkum)
Andrew Bolt doesn’t know or care what a draft is
Category: Bolt
Andrew Bolt has written a post where he pretends that comments made by Andrew Lacis about the first order draft of the summary of chapter 9 of AR4 WG1 are actually aboout the published report.
Andrew Revkin asked Lacis what he thought about the published report:
“The revised chapter was much improved,” he said. “That’s different than saying everything in there is nailed down, but I think it’s a big improvement.”
Overall, he said, “I commend the authors for doing as good a job as they did. That’s the way the science process ought to work. You get inputs from everybody, find any bugs, crank through and the science moves forward.”
And from Gabriele Hegerl, one of the lead authors:
We felt Andrew Lacis’ comment reflected that he couldn’t clearly see where statements came from, which is why we strengthened the pointers from the technical sections to the executive summary.
The heading ‘Human Induced warming ..widespread’ is exactly as strong as we felt the finding summarized under it reflects: ‘Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface, in the troposphere and in the oceans.’ We felt that the term ‘widespread’ well reflected the fact that we have detection and attribution results that show that recent warming is inconsistent with internal climate variability and other external influences alone in surface temperature (see Section 9.4.2), tropospheric temperature (see section 9.4.4.), and in ocean temperature data (see section 9.5.1).
Luke, given the world has been warming for a few hundrd years, wouldn t you expect temperatures to be high? Yes the sun has been less active, would you expect it to cause a sudden cooling given the additional heat in the system? That said I must say I was very surpised to see january being so warm. However, given that I am sceptical of global average temperatures I do not place much faith in the veracity of this data. The fact that we know how cold it has been in the northern hemisphere would suggest it must have been much hotter in the southern hemisphere. Has it been?
Personally I think the science is irrelevant ( ie for or against) because without new technology, emissions can not be cut. Nothing we do here matters in any way unless we find the new technology. All we will get is more greenwashing and wasted money just like the 360,000 homes who have received greenhouse assessments and the 10,000 assessors who paid $1000-2000 for training on the basis they would have employment for at least 3 years…… all the funding will be gone within 9 mnths with little if anything to show for the 250 million spent. Look at the fraud with emissions trading in Europe and it is abundantly clear that the theory of global warming is being used to line peoples pockets. And there is no doubt many scientists are also guilty of this. It s human nature.
When we can cut emissions effectively then maybe its worth trying to lower co2. However that said whilst I do believe in co2 being a green house gas, I am far from convinced that it will cause dramatic increases in temperature. I find the reliance on positive feedback highly suspect….but as i said the science of climate change actually does not matter because the world is kidding itself if it thinks emissions will be cut without a new cheap energy source. Dont you think?
Well Toby how do you know the Earth is warming then? No confidence in the data you say?
Whether a solution if difficult or political has nothing to do with the science.
And I doubt many scientists are making their fortune from climate research. They should have done law, medicine or accounting if they wanted dollars. BTW if you do a research grant you do have to actually do some considerable work in return or you won’t get another.
As for the northern hemisphere – how warm is the Olympics? Any snow yet?
Yes Vancouver is unusually warm, the east coast unusually cold. I have no issues with believing the trend in temp has been up since the LIA. I am just sceptical of the veracity of any “global temperature average” and how it is created.
The reason i say the science is irrelevant is because even if its right in its dramatic projections, there is nothing we can do about it without doing things that we all know will not happen ( ie culling people and making us stop burning fossil fuels).
When we find a new technology, then we can have a debate about the science. Until then, right or wrong, humans can do ntg. This is not defeatist, just reality. Currently, adaptation not mitigation is the only way to reduce hardship if there is a problem.
Its not a question of making a fortune, its a question of making a living. Yes some could have the skills and ability to be lawyers or bankers, but there are only so many of those jobs around. Science is relatively easy to do at Uni, Law is not. Once you become a trained scientist that is your career, so you rely on govt grants etc for your living to support yourself and your family. Im sure most believe they are acting in mankinds interests. Self interest has a funny way of distorting thinking.
Given the obvious exagerations and distortions being disclosed on an almost daily basis surrounding teh IPCC, I have little doubt that it is the sceptics that have won the recent battles and the war will not be over for many years one way or the other.
I would just like somebody to stand up and acknowledge the futility of trying to cut emissions and be honest that we are really discussing “moral” gestures given current technology. moral gestures are fine for the rich like al gore, but not for people struggling to pay their bills…myself included. I would also like acknowledgment that an ETS is incapable of changing australian or global temperatures and will cause large price increases year in year out. To me the science is far from settled and the politics is a complete wank.
Heaps of snow for the Olympics Lukebaby,
It ain’t that warm.
Aahahahahahaha.
” Science is relatively easy to do at Uni” – Gee – yep those science PhDs just pop out no worries …
“Once you become a trained scientist that is your career, so you rely on govt grants etc for your living to support yourself and your family” – gee mustn’t be any scientists in business. Must tell Monsanto, Shell, Bayer ….
Somehow Toby I think you haven’t got a clue about lowly funded competitive science ….
Luke, just like you have no idea about the real world. The people you refer to as climate scientists are invariably attached to universities or environmental and lobby groups and do without doubt rely a huge way on the gravy train that has become “climate change”. The scientists that work for companies like shell, bayer, monsanto get paid better because they actually produce a “good or service” with a market value.
As you usual you twist statements to support your own paradigm. I never said science degrees “just pop out” im sure they work hard for them, but once youve got one you need a job don t you??!! how many
You also as usual ignore the majority of what i say and the questions because of their inconvenient truth.
Do you actually think you need higher grades to do science than law/ business law??
If you do a degree in science, how many jobs are there for you in the business world where you actually produce anything?
the new gravy train is a way of securing your future. Would you want to be the scientist that blows up that train of money?
Serious science is heaps harder than law. (not that law is trivial) Stream popularity is a social issue.
And Toby – you’re the one making sweeping generalisations – not me !
Indeed some scientists are disappointed and don’t get to use their skills. i.e. just no jobs.
Your mere thought about gravy trains means you have no idea what most scientist endure….
Mate making money is NOT why most people do it. Stop swallowing all the denialist bunk like the complete sucker you are..
“Climate scientists are invariably attached to environmental lobby groups” – pullease !!!!
Are you such a tosser that you think young people will do climate science – one of the hardest of hard disciplines (maths, physics galore) to “get on the gravy train”. Mate you have come down in the last shower.
Admit it Toby – you have signed onto the denialist mantra which asserts in this one field of science there is a world-wide multi-institutional conspiracy to corrupt all science results to form a new world govt (that’s by the UN who can’t organise a chook raffle i.e. see Rwanda).
Luke says; “Are you such a tosser that you think young people will do climate science – one of the hardest of hard disciplines (maths, physics galore) to “get on the gravy train”. Mate you have come down in the last shower.”
Your naivety demonstrates that you are the tosser. You may set out to save the world by doing climate science. Once you have your degree do you need a job? Having found your job do you need to keep it? If your job relies on climate change, is there any self interest in producing science that cuts off that money.
Whilst you may consider 70 billion dollars and rising an insignificant sum of money, those of us in the real world recognise it as a lot of money. Sure the scientists dont do climate science to get rich, but they do have needs that can only be met by having a job. No climate change equates to many fewer jobs and an incapacity to meet those needs. join the dots…….if you are smart enough…..
As usual you have ignored my main point. The science is irrelevant until we find a new form of energy. Nothing humans do until then will help even if the science is correct.
I would just like to see the truth being spoken rather than the never ending lies that we are fed.
Your words over the last 5 years make it abundantly clear who the tosser is
I see that lead authors from the Ipcc’s AR4 report think that it’s time there was a change to the basic structure and inputs into future reports.
This of course is the direct result of all the GATES that have wrecked the so called science from the previous reports.
The report in Nature even suggests a type of open wiki structure that any QUALIFIED scientist could contribute to may be a good idea.
Scientists from Britain, USA, Swiss and Germany (all lead authors ) all agree with a fundamental change away from UN control, about bloody time.
Even Barry Brook seems to agree, wonders will never cease.
Toby,
You’re right to notice that ‘the trend in temp has been up since the LIA’. A beneficial trend, by all historical accounts.
Then these people come and say it’s all due to ‘car-farts’ and ‘cattle-farts’ and ‘sheep-farts’ (haven’t heard anything about swine-farts, but that’s likely coming soon), and you wonder: when is Greenland going to be ‘green’ (with a small g) again?
Those stinking Vikings were all such liars, of course, and the archaeological evidence of their presence as thriving communities was put there by The Devil, to lure The Faithful.
Right.
Comment from: Luke February 11th, 2010 at 8:51 am
“Serious science is heaps harder than law. (not that law is trivial) Stream popularity is a social issue.
And Toby – you’re the one making sweeping generalisations – not me !”
Just had to put it up again
Dear Luke,
I must protest that I have, for many years, carefully read your stuff, with the exception of the obscene adolescent outbursts, which I rapidly scroll over. Too embarrassing. Plainly, you have not followed my prescription of more cucumber sandwiches. They have a brain cooling effect, and reduce pimples, especially when the crusts are cut off.
The question is, do you read my questions? What I want to know is:
1. Is it snowing more in Antarctica of late, as claimed by the alleged TV climate expert? If so, is this true all over the continent, or confined to the peninsular?
2. If it is snowing more, isn’t that a sign of slight warming? My understanding is that over most of Antarctica it is currently too cold to snow, and getting colder. I believe the ice dome was laid down a long time ago, when it was warmer. The peninsula does appear to be warming, possibly due to volcanic activity, as happened around South Georgia some years ago. Unlike some AGM botanists, I intend to keep well away from Heard Island.
3. Would not increased snow in Antarctica lead to lower sea levels? What does the Maldives president have to say on this? Has he published in Nature?
4. If, on the other hand, most of Antarctica is getting colder, will south-western Australia be increasingly plagued by the smell of methane and ammonia laden penguin-poo, carried on the southerly breezes? What effect will this increased methane have on global warming? Will penguin culls be needed? Can the crew of the Sea Shepherd help? What is their methane and ammonia footprint? What do Peter Garrett, Penny Wong, WWF, and Greenpeace say? Have they published in Nature?
Can you help me with these trifling matters? I trust you are already writing Fortran code to incorporate them in your GCM.
Your affectionate uncle,
Davey
P.S. Ahem … that’s AGW, not AGM (Annual General Meeting).
Schiller, its funny isnt it how the hundreds of peer reviewed papers prior to the 1990’s supported the MWP, but now we are being told it was just local! And yes i doubt few would like the temperatures of the LIA! thnk goodness the trend has been up.
Davey, i do enjoy your humour!
Toby,
What do you mean, ‘humour’? I am terribly serious about Anthropogenic Global Warming, just as I am about Annual General Meetings. Luke is the only one who can help us, and the penguins.
Schiller being a farming type you must spend lotsa time inside. Cows and sheep belch the methane – something about a rumen – oh never mind.
Vikings eh? How Eurocentric. And Vikings probably were liars – would go with all that raping and pillaging? Like denialist scum do daily with science. You forgot the MWP mega-droughts – would your little farm more interesting. And you’d be happy that the Darkies in Africa would also have been similarly affected.
Can’t help you with trifling matters Davey – but perhaps you might need to do a thing called a mass balance – i.e. subtracting the accelerating Antarctic glaciers like PIG from any increased deposition. Oh that’s right we discussed all that. …. zzzz
Undersea volcanoes causing Peninsula warming – yes dream on ….
Neville – yes open Wiki is great. Let’s do medicine the same way. Everyone gets a turn. LOL
And dear dear Toby – hmmm – ” You may set out to save the world by doing climate science. ” well now – alternatively you might have been interested in weather, aviation forecasting, instrumentation – you may end up on climate change if you show higher intelligence and research skills. Pullease Toby – use the other hand for a while ….
And again Toby – wait till we have a new form of energy?? Don’t think so matey boy. There are investment decisions involving climate every day by individuals, business, and government (e.g. whether to invest or sell the family farm, whether to invest in a new industry like peanuts in the NT or domestic/irrigation water supply strategy that requires climate advice. We know what your advice would be – dunno … and let’s even try to find out.
Q: How many climate sceptics does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Seventeen to complain about how crummy and dangerous the swirly new lightbulbs are; forty-three to explain that lightbulbs have natural cycles so if we do nothing the light bulb will eventually get back into its warm light cycle; and three hundred and fourteen to blame Al Gore for inventing the science of lightbulbs to make money and to impose socialist government controls over life in general.
How many climate skeptics does it take to change a light bulb?
First off, the light bulb is not burned out, and even if it was, it is not MY fault so why should I change it? Besides, it is far too expensive for me to change a light blub. Why are light Nazis always trying to get me to change my bulb? Also, we are not taking into account all of the wonderful benefits of living in the dark! In fact, after I did all these really complicated calculations, I find that it would take half a million skeptics spending a billion dollars each to change that light bulb. Oh, and you don’t see the Chinese changing THEIR light bulbs do you? Well do you?
Green Davey, I didn’t realise that cutting the crust off pimples had a beneficial effect, thanks that’ll come in handy.
Toby, not to agree with Luke but I tend to instinctively put greater trust in the impartiality and integrity of university scientists and even our own CSIRO than those working for BIG Corporations like monsanto or pharmaceutical companies.
They probably get paid better because of the huge profits involved.
Recently of course, my instincts have been betrayed by the shameful behaviour by SOME at CSIRO, plus the fact that some of our esteemed friends at this site have and do do work for mining and oil companies etc and I have no call to question their integrity, has moderated my thoughts on that issue.
Just because Hansen is a fruit cake, doesn’t mean everyone that works with him is crook.
Luke, your last post about light bulbs was actually quite entertaining.
On a serious note, a question with no traps or sneekiness intended. What is your position on the way the Greens ang Wong keep labelling the power companies as “the big polluters” as if they deliberately and maliciously set out decades ago to destroy the atmosphere? Do you agree with them or do you think as I do that the consumers are responsible and the power generators are simply providing a service?
PS, this question does not imply anything about AGW or not.
Cheers.
so you luke my little naive friend would rather lie to the farmers that we can fix the climate and cut emissions. So how exactly do you expect to reduce emissions without a new source of energy?
so how many jobs rely on climate change for their funding little luke?
the only scientists you and your ilk consider to be “qualified” to hold an opinion on climate are “climate scientists”. The thousands of others who dispute the science get swept under the carpet as being in the pay of big oil etc
Derek, i never said i place greater trust in scientists working for corporations ( i don t trust them much at all and certainly less than many in the csiro). I am merely trying to point out to our naive little friend that without climate change most of them would be without a job. Having chosen to study science at uni, they need a job eventually. Even the smart ones run out of masters and phd funding and need to get a real job one day. Without climate change many would struggle. Of course scientists in corporations who are producing a product rather than a service get paid better…if they are any good. If they arent they get sacked….and probably look for a uni job……..
The point i have also tried to make is with a world with a growing population and more than half living in poverty and striving for higher living standards, ntg anybody does is actually going to lower global emissions levels. It may slow the growth marginally but that is it. No new technology ( or improvements to currently available, including a means of storing this energy) means we are merely wasting money. better to save it and spend it on adaptation if the world does keep warming, and maybe ensure their are enough insentives for research and development of new technology, or innovation of old technology, including a massive prize for an invention or innovation of significance….that might get old codgers like gavin to have a go as well. I ve got a lot of faith in human ingenuity, but not in their lack of gullibility and certainly not in the IPCC or politicians!
But dear luke would apparently rather lie to people. If i was a farmer i would of course be trying to look at trends and predictions, and i d be bloody cross with the exagerations and lies being pushed by many. I would also not be stupid enough to think the models can predict what will happen long term….would you?
By the way luke , how is the snow at the olympics? East coast? mmmmlovely and warm, not. ( yes i know its weather, but you brought it up)
“and maybe ensure their are enough insentives for research and development of new technology”, apologies their should obviously be there.
I know a number of people who have dealt with the IPCC and United nations, and none of them hold them in high esteem…infact they have mentioned how fraudulent they often are……anyone that places any faith in them is a fool.
Ken Stewart believes GISS have manipulated climate data in Mackay, a very good appraisal.
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/
This is the thin edge of the wedge and may prove to be James Hansen’s crime against humanity.
“What is your position on the way the Greens ang Wong keep labelling the power companies as “the big polluters” as if they deliberately and maliciously set out decades ago to destroy the atmosphere?” Derek – pretty stupid by them. Doesn’t help. It’s nobody’s “fault”. Simply our energy generation has a side effect despite our best intentions. We should aim for better technology. How to do that and maintain living standards is a major challenge.
OK Toby – this piece of work http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/PDF/Timbal_UNSW2009.pdf do you think the author did it for political reasons? Did he do it to “get rich”. Do you think the work tells you anything about his political views? If you lived on the south-east eastern Australia should you be interested in the findings?
Toby do you actually think as El Gordo writes above that Hansen wants to “commit crimes against humanity”? “James Hansen’s crime against humanity.” rants El Gordo !
Luke, totally agree. In light of this, I find it a bit confusing that both the state (QLD) an federal Labor governments are so happy about the new deals with China re; coal and gas. This is just more of the same “old” technology and it appears that they are putting profits before principle. I’m yet to be convinced by “clean coal” and have little faith in carbon capture and storage.
I tend to side with Toby and Neville as far as developing new technologies regardless of whether AGW is true or not. I like running my house on solar and wind power, I like being independent of the grid. I also think that some oil companies have done a lot of damage both to the environment and to societies in third world countries and i look forward to the day when we don’t need them any more.
How many AGWers does it take to change a light bulb? A complicated matter.
First, someone has to invent the ‘compact fluorescent light’. Then, someone has to manufacture and sell it. By this time, tens of thousands are involved — the bulk of them being consumers.
Then, someone has to discover that the CFLs aren’t selling near fast enough.
Then, someone has to have the bright idea that ‘there ought to be a law’. And another person gets the bright idea that ‘they will save us from climate chaos’. And they get together with some AGW lobbyists/NGOs, and get lawmakers who want the ‘green’ vote to pass a law mandating CFLs.
Due to the mercury content, these bulbs cannot be manufactured in the US. Thus, they are made in China for the US market.
By this point, the number involved is pretty huge.
Now, here’s a question for Luke, or for anyone else who wants to handle it. It’s not a simple question.
How often does the climate trend change?
Re compact fluorescent globes; when I moved into my newly built house 3 years ago it had over 1000 watts of standard light globes fitted. Now this may not seem like much for all you 10+Kw households but we are on solar power and it was too much of a drain, especially in winter. we changed to CFL’s even before we actually moved in, cutting total power from lights by 80%. Not leaving lights on when not in the room means that at any given time, the 4 of us are only using about 50 watts.
We have a very comfortable lifestyle with most things that the average household would have and can do it most of the time without generator backup.
All of this would have been significantly harder without CFL’s.
As far as Cfl’s being non-disposable and environmentally hazardous, so are disposable nappies! I used to frquent a computer wreckers back in the old days when big businesses all had mainframes, lots of cool stuff like big 12V DC motors etc. Anyway, they could extract all sorts of stuff from that gear and I once saw 16 old fashioned milk bottles full of mercury in one of those old milkey’s cradles. I couldn’t lift it at the time, it probably weighed about 130Kg.
The point is, I’m not sure that Mercury is that hard to recycle so if there is the will (and money involved) there should be a way.
I’m also hoping that within the next 5 years there will be LED “globes” on the market at a reasonable price and we will just switch to them.
I’ve contacted the SMH Online dept andThe Sydney Morning Herald will be streaming the Monckton/Lambert debate live at 12.30 sydney time.
You can see it on their main page http://www.smh.com.au/ it will appear in the main picture top left currently joyce/abbott.
for overseas viewers you can sync your time here.
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/
Blast from the past:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming … would fit the bill.”
– The Club of Rome, 1999, http://mickysmuses.blogspot.com/2010/02/hills-are-alive.html
And sudden fast-forward to today, with ‘Bill Nye, the Science Guy’, whose forte is communicating science to children:
It’s “unpatriotic” to think that being cold makes you doubt global warming, and doubting global warming is a problem associated with being a member of the “older people” crowd.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2010/20100211063234.aspx
You know, that crowd that’s seen enough media ordure to supply organic farms from now until the Sun goes dark.
But, due to an accidental concatenation of self-aggrandizing efforts, we have…
… drum roll…
–the Green Police! Enjoy this short video, it’s squarely on the mark, and the profit motive is not difficult to discern, when you reach the end. Remember, it’s advertising!.
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-green-police-audi-super-bowl-commercial/
I’d say it’s too good to be true, but Luke’s ideal vision of the Club of Rome’s fondest wishes is very effectively portrayed in that video.
Luke will doubtless defend this video as ‘an inspired vision of the ideal society’. Go, dude!
“Toby do you actually think as El Gordo writes above that Hansen wants to “commit crimes against humanity”? “James Hansen’s crime against humanity.” rants El Gordo !”
No I would be surprised if he was motivated by anything other than good intentions. But to set out to exagerate as we know he has done is not something to be condoned at all. To actually manipulate data and cheat is something that should be prosecuted if for no other reason than to prevent others from doing the same. Dont you think?
Your link is an intersting one and i have no problems with scientists looking to monitor what has happened and look for reasons why. If I was a farmer would I be interested, you bet.
That does not change the fact that the govt has funded an enormous amount of research that has been linked tenuosly to “climate change” to attract those funds. Just like if you didnt want a factory built near you or your favorite spot you would automatically claim there was some endagered species there and would cause environmental damage etc…….its human nature to see things through a prism that is most likely to support your own bias.
Derek,
I didn’t mean cut the crust off pimples – er, what I said was – like, umm. Enlarging the historical perspective, cutting the crusts off CUCUMBER SANDWICHES was a well kept secret for hundreds of years, since the MWP in fact. That’s how the Plantagenets (I am one, but, alas, twice illegitimate) kept such cool heads in times of insurrection and global warming. Even the current German imposters in Buckingham Palace follow the practice, just in case. Do try to keep up with social trends.
Luke,
At some unpredictable time in the future (could be tomorrow, next year etc.) you will hear, on the ABC, of a vast volcanic eruption on Heard Island, or thereabouts. Hundreds of botanists will be killed, and the sea shall boil, and great monsters crawl upon the land etc. The price of pumice stone will plummet (sell now). Professor Marty Feldman told me this, just before the solar wind blew his telephone box into the Antarctic vortex. Do try to keep up with the science.
Schiller’s got a point. Everyone MUST SEE this American commercial which ran during the latest Superbowl seen by the biggest TV audience in US history. It represents perhaps the most stunning proof that the climate wars are virtually over but for clearing a few caves of climate-jihadi extremists.
http://www.breitbart.tv/the-green-police-audi-super-bowl-commercial/
It’s a well-documented sociological rule that when a sacred cow (in this case authoritarian/collectivist environmentalism) is employed on a prime time TV commercial as comedic trope to sell a consumer item, said sacred cow is well on its way to the slaughter.
Where’s Baghdad Luke?
Fire in the hole!!!!!
Toby – “That does not change the fact that the govt has funded an enormous amount of research that has been linked tenuosly to “climate change” to attract those funds.” – hardly – Work was funded by SEACI as agriculture was concerned about 13 years of ongoing drought – a period in southern Australia of worst on record. Research program wasn’t “made up” for something to do. And a very hard problem.
Green Davos – they dragged a probe across the submerged volcano in the Antarctic Sound – hardly registered a temperature blip. And yes sub-Antarctic volcanoes may or may not erupt – ho hum…
Anyway science wise Tim Lambert whopped Monky’s butt – so happy day.
Still plugging the STR variation as a barometer of AGW luke; the solar connection looks more promising:
http://eprints.usq.edu.au/4710/4/Williams_Stone_IJC_2009_SV.pdf
Anyway science wise Tim Lambert whopped Monky’s butt – so happy day.
dream on Luke!
actually he only got him on the Pinker paper but the Monck slayed him on everything else including the wrap up.
I bet there’s a phone call tonight between the Monck and Ms Pinker 🙂
janama: I don’t think Tim did score with the Pinker paper except to the extent that LM thought she was a he; here is what I posted at Deltoid at 269:
“The reference to Pinker at al by Lord Monckton was the basis of his point that CS to AGW is much lower than IPCC estimates. Tim’s rebuttal was forensic to the extent that he obtained an opinion from the horse’s mouth, as it were, to state that the Pinker paper found nothing inconsistent with the IPCC estimates of 2-4.5C for 2XCO2. Unfortunately I feel Tim undermined his point by putting up an image depicting incoming SW blockage by cloud albedo and outgoing LW blockage by low level cloud. To impugn LM’s estimate of reduced CS relies on an equivalence between the reduced forcing from cloud albedo and increased forcing from cloud LW blockage; this is not the case:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/243/4887/57
Ramanathan et al found negative SW forcing from cloud albedo to be 4 times forcing through SW/2XCO2; 4 times is not as much as LM’s 7-8 reduction of CS from 2XCO2 but well on its way. “
Cohenite,
I missed the debate and am trying to make sense of the Pinker issue.
Could you update me privately please?
Thanks
Louis, the e-mail I have for you is not working; can you send me one?
A J Strata has a post up claiming that Europe’s temperature data is a mess and an outlier. He says if you take Europe out then temperatures fall by 1.5 degrees C. (AJ has been looking at E M Smith ‘Chiefio’)
A lot of this goes over my head, but perhaps it may be of some interest.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12736
Well Cohenite – that’s why you’re called DENIALISTS.
Just sit back now and wait for the backlash after the sheer blatant dishonesty of the faux sceptic campaign starts to sink in.
Janama – don’t confuse showmanship and razamattaz with science. It’s usually the nerd who looks uncomfortable wearing the tie that really knows.
Brilliant El Gordo – that explains all those papers showing species responding to warming conditions, why two SST analyses show warming, why all 4 commonly quoted data sets have similar patterns. I know let’s just make up some fanciful shit and quote it like source. I read on the internet that denialists are actually from Jupiter – is that true? More like the planet Penis.
Louis – the summary is here on the letters page of the SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/national/letters
Luke – I never confuse showmanship with science which is why I don’t bother with your posts.
Monckton in his summary clearly refuted Lambert’s claims about Pinker by his statement that he’d sent the paper to various mathematicians who had all confirmed his interpretation of Pinker. That’s the trouble with science today in a nutshell, Pinker was obviously too scared to criticise the IPCC and support a sceptic.
Louis – there’s an mp3 of the debate available here.
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3F3kbD-1xCDZWE3YTBmYzktZWIxOS00MGIyLTk1ODMtNmRiMjU5ZGJkNWVj&hl=en
G’day Green Davey,
Next weeks hearing schedule, for the Bushfires Royal Commission, shows 2 witnesses coming from your way, Lachie McCaw and Rick Sneeuwjagt , Dept. of Environment and Conservation, WA . Topic is land and fuel management.
Any comment from you re these two. Do you think they will provide any useful insight into this matter, notwithstanding different forest types, etc?
The commissioners will be present as per usual but will be sitting to one side. An expert panel will sit in their place at the head of the room. Could be very interesting. Maybe dissappointing. Don’t know who the panel is.
Last week, we had the revelation that, legislatively speaking, it was shown that native vegetation laws override human safety issues, when it comes to bushfire management. Who’d have guessed, eh.
Cheers,
Stewie.
janama; I had to leave before the summaries [and in fact some of the audience questions were straying from any meaningful path] so that SMH presentation is good; I honestly believe that LM has his heart in the right place and speaks great sense and with conviction. The Pinker issue really is a dead duck as my 2nd comment at Deltoid at 297 shows; that is the point; Pinker shows that insolation and solar forcing increased from 1983; how can that be in accord with IPCC reporting which says solar forcing declined and was dominated by AGW in that period; combined with the LACK of equivalent forcing between reflected LW [a negative forcing] and blocked LW [ a positive forcing] as shown by the Ramanthan paper it is clear that AGW forcing is negligible as LM asserts. Time to concentrate on real environmental issues.
http://sppiblog.org/videos/lord-monckton-on-climate-change-melbourne-highlights-clip-parts-i-ii
Having trouble with the mp3 reference above. If anyone else in the same boat there are other records of Moncktons presentations given in Australia.
No wonder Lambert came off second best
All good stuff
Cohenite – Dr Pinker is not as scathing about Monckton’s interpretation of her work as Lambert suggests. Yes the IPCC interpreted her work correctly but it appears she has sympathy with Monckton’s interpretation also.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2010/02/debate_australia_tim_lambert.pdf
Two extracts:
5. While our work dealt only with the variability of solar radiation reaching the
ground at a global scale, it is legitimate to interpret the results in a new direction, as was
attempted by Mr. Monckton. The question raised by you is related to this interpretation.
I will try my best to understand the comments of all sides and clarify the concept of
“cloud forcing” used by Christopher Monckton.
I believe that one of the issues pointed
out in your communication is related to the use of the “cloud forcing” concept. Indeed,
this is not the official definition of “cloud forcing”; however, if we give Christopher
Monckton the benefit of doubt and assume that he meant “the impact of clouds on the
surface shortwave radiation” than it can pass.
I note with interest that Luke did not respond to my question about how frequently there occurs a change in the trend of global temperatures.
Face it guys – Monckton is finished !
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/moncktons_mcluhan_moment.php
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH – read it and weep
And off the denialists BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT …….
Say what Schiller – you mean the upward trend !
Luke, any trend at all. Up, down, whatever. What is your answer?
Anyway I hear there’s going to be a Barry Brooks/Tim Lambert national tour to counter the disinformation campaign of the usual spruikers and dropping of the ball by government on the climate issue. LOLZ !
Luke is still dodging… how frequently is there a change in the trend of global temperatures, Luke?
” Anyway I hear there’s going to be a Barry Brooks/Tim Lambert national tour to counter the disinformation campaign of the usual …”
Thats what they the alarmists have been doing all along, so what is the difference Baghdad Luke.
Lambert and Brooks will in effect be doing so out of the public purse yet again…and what has that been but disinformation….if it was based upon the current IPCC reports then it would come close to being gross misrepresentation.
..and what has Al Gore been doing allalong but drumming up business via his AIT Prospectus…even has trained monkeys doing the rounds as well.
Anyway both of them should be good for another $1m out of the Labor Govts state and Federal for their road show.
If they time it right with the election cycle like Rann did for Brooks previously, it would be no brainer. Tax payer funded to the hilt ..unlike Moncktons tour heh!
..and what has CSIRO been doing with that chap Torok previously doing his rounds of local and state govt ..again tax payer funded..peddling the message according to Al and the IPCC(Nobel Prize winners ..what an absolute farce that is )
..and you talk about dis-information campaigns.
..as for Monckton being finished ..dream on Flukey old son.
And Luke is still dodging the question: how frequent is there a change in the trend of global temperatures?
OK Darkies Schiller – what is your stupid question?
Minister for UNtruth, Astroturf and Sceptic Bunk – whingy whingy grizzle piddle in the corner Who funds Carter & Plimer – can I help it if all your spruikers are second rate ?
As for “..and what has CSIRO been doing with that chap Torok previously doing his rounds of local and state govt ..again tax payer funded..peddling the message according to Al and the IPCC(Nobel Prize winners ..what an absolute farce that is”
are you some sort of goober – CSIRO is supposed to advise governments on THEIR research. Perhaps they were even INVITED. Would you like them to tell lies like the denialists do?
Moving on, I enjoyed this comment on Deltoid – WHAT A CLASSIC !
“You can spin it all you like but the fact is the good ship Monckton was powered by his argument on climate sensitivity. Tim launched a torpedo that hit amidships. Monckton is still looking for survivors but it is clear that it sank with all hands lost”
HOHOHOHOHOHOHO
Stewie,
Good to hear from you. I have known Rick and Lachie for a long time, and they are good men. They have both theoretical and practical experience of bushfire. Both have fought many wildfires, and carried out many experimental fires. Rick has a Master’s from Washington, and Lachie a PhD from Melbourne. The Royal Commissioners should listen carefully to their evidence, as I’m sure they will.
The Commissioners might also ask other witnesses how many bushfires they have actually attended, over what period. I get the impression that some academics, with strange theories on fire ecology and behaviour, may never have actually attended one, relying on ‘desk research’ to publish many papers. The Commissioners might examine those papers very carefully, especially the statistics, calling on expert help if needed.
I can’t remember the exact words of Jim and Aled Hoggett, after the 2003 fires – something like ‘environmental theory met ecological reality’.
Luke, come on, that was not even an attempt at being clever. Please tell me, how frequently do we have a change in the trend of global temperatures?
Well Flukey old son, advising Govt one thing but peddling porkies around town as policy isnt.
They werent invited… they suggested it to the lefties in LG and States and it went from there.
Monckton isnt finished by a long way ..you are only wishful thinking like all the other frebile unaccomplished air heads that pass themselves of as climate scientists in this country.
You people are really getting desparate.
In the meantime the greatest manifestation of all their work the IPCC AR4 is sinking further into the heap of crap it came from. What is a it now 20 years of work at a cost of over $50bn, for 3500 nongs and all they produce is giant dud full of lies and crooked analysis
If thats all the donkeydemics can poduce… then they are done for anyway… and nothing Lambert and Brooks can do will save it, even if they do score a bucket of money at election time.
Have another go Flukey…
I watched most of the Monckton/Lambert debate and noticed a number of things. Lambert was not totally at ease from the start which got me bored very quickly even though I was prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, despite his blog site showing him to be a pretentious prick.
He put all his eggs in the one “climate sensitivity” basket, stating that the entire debate rests on whether his calculations are correct or not.
He also thought he was being clever by using quotes from Monckton to make him look foolish to the audience.
Question; if the whole argument rested on the reported figure for climate sensitivity as he says, why are we all still arguing? Why does the IPCC feel the need to use spurious sources to promote exaggerated claims? Why do the CRU and GISS crowd feel the need to fudge the data? Why is there still ongoing research into other climate forcings?
On the surface, Lambert’s argument seems to be a “slam dunk” for the AGW team, as all but one of the commentators over at Deltoid seem to think. But yet again, empirical evidence and “equations” don’t agree.
It is clear that for the past 600K years there has been a correlation between CO2 levels and Temp but it is also clear that these correlations disappear over a much larger timescale.
I made a suggestion once before that perhaps when the CO2 concentrations get really low, the “signal” becomes linked to fluctuations in climate and then shows up as a correlation. But when CO2 concentrations are orders of magnitude higher, that link disappears. Kind of like the signal to noise ratio for old fashioned cassette tapes, the lower the volume, the more you can hear the background hiss.
Could it be that CO2 concentrations have a sensitivity to climate and not the other way around?
Another thing, there is a misguided belief that a change in air temp will cause a similar change in SST. (How does that explain the 1C jump in SST in 76?) Seeing as how the oceans have about 2000 times the thermal inertia as the atmosphere, it is more likely the other way around. It would seem that a cooling atmosphere would take a long time to have any real effect on ocean temps whereas a rising SST would have a more immediate effect on lower atmospheric temps. All of this leads to quite complex interactions with air/ocean/CO2 which suggests to me at least that Lambert’s arguments are quite naive.
Also, most people don’t know that the oceans get some of their heat from the mantle. I wonder how Milankovic cycles affect the Earth’s inner workings?
Good point Derek; you are no doubt aware of the logarithmic absorption and emission aspect of CO2; the simple fact is that CO2 at very low levels has an incremental temperature effect which is proportionately higher than incremental increases from a high base; the argument put by AGW supporters is that heating from CO2 is nonetheless linear because thresholds occur whereby the absorption frequency of CO2 is expanded or broadened into the wings frequencies; eli has an interesting description of it here;
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/07/temperature-anonymice-gave-eli-new.html
But this pressure broadening only occurs at temperatures and pressures which are not present on Earth and much higher concentrations of CO2 in themselves cannot produce these higher temperatures and pressures, and if they do occur as possibly in the PETM than homeostatic processes from the immense water reserves of the Earth mitigate the CO2 effect.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2010m1d12-Hungarian-Physicist-Dr-Ferenc-Miskolczi-proves-CO2-emissions-irrelevant-in-Earths-Climate
The theory of GW is bull dust anyway so who cares who won between Monckton and Lambert.
These two gentlemen sound good Green Davey.
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday are looking at land and fuel management. Unless, there are any prearranged outcomes, this could be a very interesting week. I’d imagine there could be some very worried ‘experts’ in some departments. As they should be.
I don’t know about you Gdavey but I find it quite surreal, listening to those that advocate AGW and the enormous effort they go to. The sky is falling. The sky is falling!!!!!
Meanwhile, in their own country, right under their noses, there is an enormous problem with wildfire, which is having
catastrophic results. Nowhere near as much concern from these environmental saviours. Intriguing.
Academic says, the sky is falling?
Man replies, no it’s not mate but your arse is on fire.
Derek Smith
“Also, most people don’t know that the oceans get some of their heat from the mantle. I wonder how Milankovic cycles affect the Earth’s inner workings?”
In terms of the Plasma model the earth accumulates electrical energy internally but leaks it out via volcanic activity and/or earthquakes which seem to be the subterranean equivalent of lightning bolts in the atmosphere.
We do know just prior to a volcanic eruption that the geomagnetic field around the voclano has massive disruptions a couple of days before the eruption, and in terms of the plasma model suggests a surge in some electric current whose escape path is the volcanic eruption itself.
As for the PDO – notice that it’s in the Pacific Ocean, which is an electrically conductive medium, and the source of that weather would be the energy coming in from the Van Allen Belts that form a plasma toroid around the earth.
It becomes more complex with the earth’s axial tilt as well.
And these plasma phenomena take decades to operate over.
But restrict the scientific analysis to Victorian era gas light physics then Milankovitch cycles and other obscure effects need to be invoked to explain the anomalous thermal behaviour. Use the Plasma Model and it becomes more tractable.
(I also note Tim Lambert admitted to some creative audio for the Monckton debate – though Lucia and a few others thought it was Pinker herself commenting. In any case Monckton (pers.comm) indicated he won it).
What fanciful bunkum Sinkers. Just drop a few buzzwords…..
Malcolm – not even Niche believes Mizwottzy….
Luke Walker
Re Miskolczi’s Theory
Niche Modelling has 5 authors.
I cant find any comments by any of the 5 that says they dont believe.
They discuss it at length, but do not as far as I can tell come out with the statement that is is not believable..
Seem like more make believe by Luke.
Louis, good to hear from you. Re; Milankovic, I was thinking about how electric and magnetic fields change with 1/r2 so as one of the cycles has something to do with the distance from Earth to the Sun, the change in distance would have significant increase in electromagnetic interaction with the Sun. I was thinking what if this interacts with the core in some way which would have a flow on effect with the mantle? Like the way Jupiter interacts with Io.
I know I’m just dribbling here but I thought if I put it out there, people who know a lot more than me could say if it was nonsense or not.
BTW, have vulcanologists tried using electric field strength to predict eruptions yet?
Cheers.
Stewie,
I agree. By any rational analysis, Australia’s Number 1 environmental problem is extreme bushfire. The main cause is not ‘global warming’, but neglect of fuel management. I wonder who the ‘expert panel’ will be? If I knew the names, I could predict the outcome. If they have actual experience of bushfire, they will favour more prescribed burning. If they are only theorists, they will say prescribed burning is impossible, ineffectual, and harms ‘biodiversity’.
I also wonder if Dr Christian Kull, of Melbourne University, has been invited. He did his PhD on the political ecology of fire in Madagascar, and wrote an excellent book, based on direct experience. He attacked the ‘received wisdom’, amongst French academics, and Malagasy politicians, that fire is totally evil and destructive.
There’s a lot of political ecology around bushfire in Australia, and it gets in the way of reality. As with ‘anthropogenic global warming’, there is a need for some clear thinking, and leadership, in the political arena. For those who are worried about that dreadful pollutant, carbon (eh?), then the best way to sequester it is to burn the bush often, and so mildly, so creating plenty of charcoal – umm – biochar.
LOL Michael Mann is now defending himself:
“The major datasets mostly agree,” [Mann] said. “If some of our critics spent less time criticising us and prepared a dataset of their own, that would be much more constructive.”
– ‘Climate data ‘not well organised’ ‘, BBC News, Feb 12, 2010,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm
That’s rich.
Luke, it’s OK. You can just say that you don’t know, or that nobody knows.
Unassailable insights on AGW by one of the High Priests of the Temple of Global Doom, Phil Jones himself!
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
BBC News
February 12, 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
[excerpted]
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.
Q: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
A: So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
Q:Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
A: Yes, but only just.
Q: There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not.
A: Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. [Apparently he’s unaware of the data at
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php%5D
Q: If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?
A: The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D. [The answer to D: “This area is slightly outside my area of expertise.” hehe. Meanwhile, the argument ‘since we don’t know, we can be confident that…’ doesn’t work in *any* context. A conclusion is only as robust as the evidence it relies upon, and ‘the fact we can’t explain’ isn’t much to go on.]
Lukeyloo, seems like your faith is stronger than Phil’s! HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Schiller – you don’t even understand what you’ve read. And certainly present no additional context. zzzzzzzzzzz
Luke,
Let me explain it to you. Phil is saying that the latest warming trend is not, statistically speaking, significantly different from previous warmings, if its currently not as warm as the MWP, the warmness now is not unprecedented, and he’s “convinced” that the current warming is anthropogenic because “we can’t explain” it.
Here’s the context: Phil is talking like a skeptic.
And by the way: if you don’t know how often the global temperature trend changes, you can just be honest and say you don’t know. And maybe say something like, ‘Phil knows the answer, he just hasn’t told us yet.’
Schiller you’re asking luke to think for himself and counter to his fundamental religion, he hasn’t got the sense or the guts to do it.
Remember this pea brain thinks that co2 at a level of 300ppm may have contributed to the 1940’s drought. ( whopping forcing of .1c )
Phil Jones has blown the AGW fraud wide open from the inside out, we now know there is nothing unusual in four trend lines following the natural warming after the END of the LIA.
It’s an entirely NATURAL recovery from the LIA over the last 150 years, surprise, surprise.
Neville,
Now that Phil Jones has abandoned the Doomsday Cult, I have to wonder if others will follow, and if it will become a stampede.
Some will do the blame-game finger-pointing, others too numerous to mention are already busy ‘revanching’ history, but the smart ones, like Phil, will simply redact their opinions and hope that their cosy careers aren’t completely down the toilet.
We’ll always have those like Lukeyloo amongst us, credulous fools who search amongst ‘the literature’ like Bible-thumpers desperate to find authority for a fashionable claim within the Gospels, but the world will move on without these poor benighted souls.
Likely they will find good employment stuffing shopping bags at grocery stores if they can restrain themselves from shouting f**k and s**t at the customers.
It may be that the AGW legislation we most need is to assist those suffering from the AGW delusion. Counseling and medication as needed.
I don’t think there’s a med for coprolalia, though. Might be, people like Luke will simply sit on street corners, beg for money (common in the AGW ilk), and wander about exhibiting random offensive behaviors until they get arrested, which means a warm bed for the night, and breakfast.
I had to laugh at this mornings “Have you Say” episode on Insiders on the ABC – they interviewed 3 members of the Sceptics Society!
On guy claimed he wasn’t sceptical about AGW because there was overwhelming evidence to support it.
Derek Smith
Last question first – no, volcanlogists don’t use the magnetic field fluctuations to predict earth quakes because they don’t understand how those fields are linked into erupting magma. Basically thinking with the wrong ideas.
First question – you have to think of the earth as part of a homopolar motor mechanism, the solar system itself, rather than an isolated sphere behaving in a mechanical fashion.
I asked Peratt some years back about a particular aspect of the Earth’s rotational instability, (it speeds up and slows down based on solar plasma eruptions etc, as well as due to electric charge distribution on its surface), and his advice was to think bigger than what I had been doing until then. This puzzled me for a while until I realised that we are not dealing with a sun-earth objective relationship, but an earth – solar system link that is meshed in with a larger galaxy system. Hence the electric currents coming into the earth come not only from the sun, which is a plasma z pinch effect, but also from the space environment around it.
It’s crucial to not forget the scale of the planets wrt each other, and DOn Scott’s example of a dust particle etc should put things into perspective, so when you think about it in this way, then the electric plasma model becomes easier to understand. We have to get out of the habit of thinking in terms of isolated bodies moving in a Newtonian space.
As Schiller pointed out above, Phil Jones’ belief that the recent warming “has to be due to us” because they can’t think of any other explanation for it, is quite correct – and why I have always assumed that they weren’t falsifying the data, but because they ignore the role of electric plasma in the solar system, and hence the earth, then that is the only conclusion possible in the model they are using.
But this is only part of the reason, the other is the way they think, and you can recognise them as “intellectuals” in the Thomas Sowell sense. They know what to think, and are very good at it, but it’s partly restricted to what they have learnt and partly by being mainly an abstraction, and most of their research is devoted to “proving” the abstraction that humanity is, by default, the cause of the observed warming.
It also explains the Lukes of this world, and the abuse they heap on sceptics is part and parcel of the progressive mind set, a mind set that knows what to think but not how to think, and hence the visceral dislike of individuals like Monckton, who does know how to think, apart from the sceptics here who are probably sceptical because they are still connected to physical reality which the intellectuals are global warmers are not, and hence as a result of serious cognitive dissonance. You only need to read the comments on Tim Lambert’s or John Quiggin’s blogs to get a feeling for the visceral hatred they have for sceptics and conservatives. It’s basically them in their imaginary world, and we, the tragicians, in our world where shit often happens.
Remember that the whole issue is well into the future, not in the here are now which, quite plainly, is not the issue for them.
I’m not sure we will ever convince them that the reason they have decided that humanity has to be cause of the observed temperature is because the science is incomplete. Heaven’s knows how hard it is to get the astronomical community to change their existing paradigm, and climate science is part of this paradigm as well.
Louis,
To your comments I would add: it’s up to the skeptics and conservatives to provide technological progress, and up to people like Luke to complain about it.
Folks,
There’s something in this ‘Climategate’ mess that deserves to make the skeptics abashed.
All along, the skeptics have pointed to independent research that showed ‘climate chaos’ etc. was not imminent.
Yet, all along, the IPCC reports were littered with junk science. Reports which no-one apparently bothered to read with any degree of scrutiny, for years. It’s one thing to clamor for the raw data, and quite another thing to have thrust upon you the scores of citations to bogus science, foisted upon us by ‘green commentators’ and approved by green ‘expert reviewers’.
This ludicrous crap was hidden in plain sight, for years.
Pachauri says that he should be excused from this monstrous fraud because the document is ‘too big’, or some such folderol.
The skeptics should have been all over this ‘too big’ document the moment it was delivered.
‘Climategate’ could have happened well before the release of the emails etc., and all for a failure of scrutiny. This should be a wake-up call for everyone in the scientific community:
look more closely at the crap spewing out, and you’ll observe crap.
Schiller,spot on, if there ever is an AR 5 report ( surely not) it will be a fraction of the size of the present fraudulent mess and every sceptic and his dog will be all over it with a fine tooth comb.
If we see outright lies and fraud plus climbers and students reports as a source then it will be exposed in days, same goes for the extreme green groups etc.
But surely by 2013 the fraud will be well and truly exposed in all the msm before that date?
Professor Jones has told the UK Mail Online that there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming for the past 15 years. He also accepts the MWP may have been global.
Amazing comedown and it’s all happening in my lifetime.
You mean this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
This will get Lukes nickers in a right old tangle.
Exactly what Monckton has been saying in all his his speeches, good to see Jones concede on lack of warming for 15 years and MWP being an historical reality.
After you’ve scrapped off all those eggs luke you’ll be able to sit down and tackle that meal of boiled crow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OjPJnEtfUE
If Jones’s office such a mess then how was he going to reproduce his work at anytime for anyone.
Now know why ..its all fiddled up anyway.
What does it say about the BOM’s methodologies.?
Gust of Hot Air chap has been saying the same thing for ages.
Malcolm Hill
I read the article, and while some may and I’m sure will argue, that he made only small concessions,
what matters is where the concessions come from?
To hear it from such a powerful and distinguished supporter of AGW is very significant.
You lot are clueless morons. You really are. You don’t even understand what he’s saying. Significant at what level?
Hill have you considered the at least 10 lines of separate evidence of global temperature rise – of course not – you’re a poncey cherry-plucking no-science no-data ranter.
Spin it any way you can nancy boys – the Lambert debate win is the end of Sceptic FraudGate.
Boofhead Neville uses a global number to substantiate a regional argument. Even more moronic.
As you’d expect from the denialist filth:
The revelation http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/02/journalism.html
As I said – you guys are such rope-a-dopes – can’t even understand what you’re reading or when you’re having your chains tugged.
Since Phil’s not a warmist anymore, he’s out of a job. Obviously Luke wants that job for himself!
Phil Jones has made February 14, 2010, the the world’s most memorable Valentine’s Day ever! His BBC interview was truly a gift to humanity, and people everywhere are celebrating! Here’s a selection of headlines, and more keep coming, too fast to keep up! They ought to revoke Al Gore’s Nobel and hand it to Phil instead. The spirit of the European Enlightenment lives on!
Headlines:
ClimateGate Grifter Does The Kansas City Shuffle
Climategate’s Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud
Climategate star Phil Jones digs his own hole
Global warming confession
The professor’s amazing climate change retreat
Professor: Data Used for ClimateGate Not Organized
About Global Warming: Never Mind!
Now who’s a denier?
Is this the Whimper ?
Top Global Warming Warming Scientist Admits Errors
Climategate: Ingen statistisk betydelig oppvarming siden 1995
ClimateGate’s Phil ‘Hide the Decline’ Jones Admits Manipulating Data
Get Rich or Die Warming: Climategate Scientist Admits the UN’s Global Warming Alarmism Is a Fraud and There is No Consensus
Climategate’s Phil Jones publicly admits: No statistically significant warming for past 15 years
La pregunta del millón: qué buscan realmente estos climatólogos?
So, can we have our incandescent light bulbs back now?
Virage à 180 degrés : les scientifiques du ClimateGate admettent que le réchauffement climatique est une arnaque
Confirmed: Glo-BULL Warming is Real(ly A Lie)
Phil Jones momentous Q&A with BBC reopens the “science is settled” issues
Phil Jones’ Partial Redemption
Decline and Phil
The end of the Hockey stick graph?
Meanwhile, people wondering how the folks at Deltoid, RealClimate and algore.com are reacting to Phil Jones’ BBC interview are all getting the same message:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2k22z8vH128/S3g6YOYj3iI/AAAAAAAAHWQ/DvbGyI9JgPQ/s1600-h/made_at_www.txt2pic.com.jpg
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. ”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece#comment-have-your-say
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf
As they say… its all just policy driven deception, by a morally bankrupt elitist group..either that or they are just plain incompetent.
Not bad heh.. $80bn spent by 4000 scientists, in bed with NGO’s and greeny groups, to produce an outcome that is not worth a crumpet because they cant even get the base line data right..and truthful
..and the village idiot spray his obnoxious bilge at others seemingly as a shield against the reality of their culpability
Poor old flukey hasn’t got a clue, I see in one of the recent interviews Jones notes that attribution of AGW for CC only occured after the 1950’s, certainly not the 1930’s but still a ridiculous statement to make.
Let’s concede that this is the biggest con/ fraud of the last 100 years and immediately stop the funding until a proper enquiry can be set up, hopefully after completion all guilty parties should be named and charges laid.
In the meantime let’s resort to the tried and tested method of ADAPTATION to whatever the weather/climate throws at us. Focusing on a target is by far the best and cheapest way to tackle any climate emergency and broad brush GHG reduction is hopelessly expensive and will never work.
But given time we will invent new technology that will make carbon based energy less convenient, in the interim if we can change say latrobe valley coal to Gippsland basin gas for a few billion $ and reduce GHG’s by 75% I’d say that’s a lot cheaper/better than trying make CC and storage work anytime soon, at an horrendous cost.
Neville by now it has become apparent that you’re as scientifically illiterate and philosophically bankrupt as your fellow denialist scum bags. You have NO IDEA what you’re even reading.
Darkies Schiller thinks listing a bunch of newspapers that have repeated a line of bullshit (remember WMD) somehow legitimises the story. You rope-a-dope. You don’t even understand what you’ve just read.
What denialist filth.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
Neville,
Your suggestion that we should “immediately stop the funding until a proper enquiry can be set up, hopefully after completion all guilty parties should be named and charges laid” is quite interesting, because it is completely fraught.
Political careers and financial empires hang upon the outcome(s) of Climategate. These careers and empires are artificial constructs, and therefore fragile and vulnerable. The vested interests in both are nonetheless influential and well-financed, within, and outside, of government.
Stopping funding, and conducting enquiries, endangers all of this. So, unfortunately, scientific skepticism/climate ‘realism’, whatever you want to call it, actually poses a challenge to governments which will be loathe to prosecute the scientists who have for decades functioned as government-paid lobbyists. What is becoming known as PGOs.
In contrast to NGOs (non-governmental organizations), PGOs are para-governmental organizations. This can be understood by contrasting ‘military’ with ‘paramilitary’.
Will governments unleash their prosecutors, hired by the government to bring criminals to judgment, when those governments are complicit in the criminal behavior alleged? There are few in the system who are motivated to contravene the fundamental motivations of their governments.
Those in the private sector who built largesse upon global warming will of course also want to avoid ‘the heat’ resulting from credible enquiries. Shareholders/stockholders of Big Oil will question the donations East Anglia, whilst investors in Carbon Credits will face a scandal easily comparable to the collapse of Enron.
In the terms of one pundit — perhaps Barack Obama — Global Warming has become “too big to fail”.
But, on the other hand, Climategate poses a fundamental challenge to a government/corporate hegemony that urgently needs to be decoupled and destroyed.
There’s no way that governments and corporations invested in global warming/climate change/climate chaos/AGW will want to do anything like that. They have other motivations, and none of them involve skepticism (except in the financial/political sense of the term).
It will be difficult to cure ‘institutional autism’, and accomplishing that will require quite a bit, from many. The electorate, actually.
It is so awful that humanity has been led into a situation that presents such dire straits.
Realclimate spin luke!
You carefully avoided discussing Gavin’s mate who is throwing them all, with their spurious theories, under a bus!
Closing down all the university departments with the words Climate Change in their titles will be a start! Plus the web sites spouting the disinformation like Realclimate.
New paper on mathematical analysis of GHG
14 02 2010
Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming
Michael Beenstock and Yaniv Reingewertz – Department of Economics, The Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, Israel.
Abstract:
We use statistical methods designed for nonstationary time series to test the anthropogenic theory of global warming (AGW). This theory predicts that an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations increases global temperature permanently. Specifically, the methodology of polynomial cointegration is used to test AGW when global temperature and solar irradiance are stationary in 1st differences, whereas greenhouse gas forcings (CO2, CH4 and N2O) are stationary in 2nd differences.
We show that although greenhouse gas forcings share a common stochastic trend, this trend is empirically independent of the stochastic trend in temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, greenhouse gas forcings, global temperature and solar irradiance are not polynomially cointegrated, and AGW is refuted. Although we reject AGW, we find that greenhouse gas forcings have a temporary effect on global temperature. Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.
http://economics.huji.ac.il/facultye/beenstock/Nature_Paper091209.pdf
Folks,
It’s now official.
Luke has determined, with his usual perspicacity and back-alley argot, that what Phil Jones says is a “line of bulls**t”.
When Luke offers that description of claims made by a High Priest of the Church of Planetary Pyrotechnic Doom, you can be assured that the hard-liners will be launching a severe denialist assault.
Uncle Phil was smart to get out early. As time goes on, he will eventually retrieve his credibility. As for the rest, it’s all in the wind.
RealClimate has finally decided on its new ‘spin’.
IPCC errors: facts and spin
RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/
Check out these lovely quotes:
“The IPCC is not, as many people seem to think, a large organization. In fact, it has only 10 full-time staff in its secretariat at the World Meteorological Organization in Geneva, plus a few staff in four technical support units that help the chairs of the three IPCC working groups and the national greenhouse gas inventories group.”
WOW! Gone are the between 2,000 and 3,000 scientists! Maybe they all jumped ship like Phil Jones.
“The actual work of the IPCC is done by unpaid volunteers – thousands of scientists at universities and research institutes around the world”
WOW! What happened to the $72 billion paid to ‘study the climate’?
“Its [the IPCC’s] three volumes are almost a thousand pages each, in small print.”
WOW! That’s like the Bible, but with lots more pages!
Errors in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4): RealClimate counts them.
Total: two: Himalayan glaciers, and Sea level in the Netherlands.
RealClimate admits there exist “Some other issues”, which are few, and everything after that is “Media distortions”, such as:
“TV teams coming to film a report on the IPCC reports’ errors, who were astonished when they held one of the heavy volumes in hand, having never even seen it.” Astounding.
WOW! That’s like actually holding the word of God in your hands, but with lots more pages!
“And there are well-organized lobby forces with proper PR skills”. Who would those be? The ones who forecast Planetary Doom so well that ten$ of billion$ were paid to $tudy the problem?
I won’t belabor you with more from this lame tirade, which is sure to be lapped up as Gospel by the true believers, but remember — we were all warned that Climategate did not herald a return to sanity.
Lukeyloo will love and defend it all, of course.
But, guess what? There’s no mention of Phil Jones in the bombastic screed.
HAHAHAHA! Luke, not even your best friends are on your side any more! HAHAHAHA!
Climategate: Viscount Monckton Takes a Victory Lap
February 14, 2010
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-viscount-monckton-takes-a-victory-lap/?singlepage=true
“Now, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia has admitted publicly, and — as far as I know — for the first time, that there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years. He has also admitted that his Climatic Research Unit has lost much of the data behind the “hockey-stick” graph, via which Michael Mann and other Climategate conspirators had falsely attempted to demonstrate that the Medieval Warm Period was not warmer than the present.”
All this time, people have been debating over who should be awarded ‘debating points’ in ‘the debate’.
When the other side concedes, well,
it’s like when you turn the lights on in a roach hotel. It’s easy to see what runs for cover, and what they are.
The RC defence of the IPCC includes this gem: “As lucidly analysed by Tim Holmes”; anyone who can say that can say anything.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/coi/bi-coi_form-1.pdf
Conflict of Interest …this is from Pielkes site.
By this standard Pachauri would fail and demonstrably so.
The IPCC doesnt have any of these basic standards and policies in place so people like Pachauri can run amok.
Absolutely shameful..cretins and crooks like him and Gore can do so well at everyones elses expence..and they gave these shonks Nobels.
Hey Luke, I personally have no problem with global temp rising, It’s supposed to be rising due to rebound from the LIA. I have no problem with melting polar ice, permanent ice is NOT the geological norm and is THE key indicator that we are still in an ICE AGE! Rising sea levels? Oh I forgot, THAT’S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE AHHHHHHHH!
But seriously Luke, I think I can speak for most here when I say that the problem isn’t what should be happening, it’s the lying, falsification of data, scare mongering and manipulation of people and governments for financial and/or ideological gain.
What do you think, we are going to sit back and say “well the data contradicts what these guys are claiming but it doesn’t matter so what the heck”? That way leads to tyranny.
Yes we know that tribalism is rampant in this debate but there are a good many “skeptics” who challenge the orthodoxy because they believe that it is wrong.
There HAS to be dissent, even if that dissent turns out to be wrong. It keeps the bastards honest!
Schiller, I think you’re on the money there. If you look at what is happening with the 2 Japanese Greenpeace activists and the black market whale meat saga, There are obvious parallels to how governments might react to what’s happening with climate change.
Janama, unfortunately I am not as confident in mathematical models to prove or disprove AGW anymore. I think the climate has too much of a mind of it’s own.
Folks,
Here’s two utter gems:
“The climate crisis could be solved by courteous communication”, The Guardian (UK), 15 February 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/15/science-conflict-resolution
Makes a bit of sense, in an awkward way. How many tons of CO2 are emitted annually by AGWers shouting ‘f**k’ and ‘s**t’? Or ‘denialist retard’? Etc.
The second gem: “A complete list of things caused by global warming”, NumberWatch (UK), 15 February 2010, http://numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
This is a list of 690 things that will be caused by global warming. Obviously, the IPCC suffers more grievously from the ‘failure to cite’ problem, which Luke conclusively identified, than anyone’s heretofore thought.
Everyone will have their favorites, but here are mine: Earth spinning out of control, Earth wobbling, Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, Earth upside down, and… cannibalism!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/climategate-is-just-the-tip-of-the-iceberg/story-e6frgd0x-1225830658086
An excellent article by David Henderson in today’s Australian.
Right on the mark.
Rudd/Wong/Combet et al would do well to heed the clear and well enunciated message… and particularly the last paragraph..or at least I hope they do.
But being the clunkers that they are, they almost certainly wont.
Malcolm,
I have to wonder about Henderson’s claim regarding government officials’ “uncritical acceptance of the results of a process of inquiry so obviously biased and flawed”.
I think he’s wrong.
First off, the IPCC (intergovernmental panel) is itself composed of government officials. In spite of the appealingness of the notion, the reports were not written by monkeys with typewriters. The content of the reports is not accidental.
When it comes to other government officials around the world, the number of officials involved in ‘climate change’ etc. outnumber the number of pages in the IPCC reports. This means that at least some of the defects currently in the media were known for a long time, and were either (a) privately applauded; or (b) ignored, because to mention them out loud would mean ostracism from ‘the consensus’.
Now for some good news. Glenn Beck, on US’ Fox News has this afternoon brought the Climategate scandal to the attention of the US public. This means that US Bulk Media, which has thus far mostly ignored Climategate, will have to say at least a little bit about it.
Glenn Beck: No consensus? February 15, 2010 – 14:13 ET (Transcript, audio available)
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/36336/
Malcolm the govt really should pay particularly close attention to the last paragraph.
Did you notice that google has today announced a super fast wireless that operates 10 times faster than the Nationla broad band scehme teh govt wants to give us for 43 billion…..and i m sure google will creat ethe infrastructure themselves………this govt is actually negligent if it goes ahead with the uncosted NBN…a disgrace.
The Henderson article points out that nobody seemed to apply any critical analysis to the hysteria surrounding AGW other than bloggers. I doubt any of us here on this blog have any interest other than ensuring the right thing is done by our society, i doubt anybody here is in the pay of “oil shills” etc….and yet we are accused of an industry bias etc. The fact that so many of us have been pointing out the holes in the theory for years, does not say very much about the competence of govt and govt departments.
From my perspective, fighting against the mass ignorance induced by the green pill, this is a non-violent revolution. Let there be no regrets, victory is within sight.
Here’s two more fun bits:
Prison Planet is, as far as I can tell, the first blog that’s tried to do a complete list of all the ‘-gates’. See “Guide To The Climate Scandals”, February 15th, 2010,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/guide-to-the-climate-scandals.html
Then there’s the issue of ‘how often is there a change in the trend in global temperatures’.
Luke refused to even think about it, but there’s a webpage that proposes to answer the question, at http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/
The author says that the trend could change every three days or so, but statistically, it takes at least 15 years to establish a climate trend.
Hmmm… Phil Jones says there’s no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years, so that answers that one.
Poor, sad, Lukeyloo. He could have offered an answer himself and done a spin on it. The best he could do with the question was instead to say offensive language. Increasingly apparent as a common response amongst his ilk.
At least Phil Jones was polite enough to recant in a gentlemanly way.
Darkies Schiller – you’re just a quote mining denialist turd. Jones didn’t say that at all.
There only 2 acknowledged errors in the IPCC report – the rest is simply JournalismGate – the shonkiest journalism ever seen in a long while. Probably all ghost written by Morano and just wrong wrong wrong.
“Jones didn’t say that at all.”
Yes he did, read the article again!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/
The village idiot of course had his fingers crossed, fervently hoping that there were only two errors… but alas and alack
..and yet there is more to come in the pipeline.
It ‘s getting hard to reach this website lately with the denial-of-service attacks. That’s what the AGWers have been reduced to.
Luke, can you tell me what two IPCC ‘errors’ you consider ‘errors’?
I can hardly wait for Luke’s response. He’s probably consulting bird entrails (extispicy or haruspicy) to tell him what the ‘true errors’ are. (1)
But, it’s absolutely amazing how often divination figures in AGW predictions of the future.
There’s aeromancy or acromancy (divination by examining what the air does to certain things).
There’s arithmancy (divination by numbers). Also botanomancy (divination by herbs), hydromancy (divination by examining what certain things do in water), kapnomancy (looking at smoke), and ornithomancy or orniscopy (interpreting the flights of birds).
All of these ‘scrying’ mechanisms can be found at work in the IPCC reports. Someone needs to add ‘dendromancy’ (divination by tree rings), though.
I suspect Luke of using two more: oinomancy (divination by wine), and gyromancy (divination by walking around a circle of letters until dizzy and one falls down on the letters or in the direction to take).
Luke, you really have to tell us which two errors were ‘errors’!
———-
1. http://www.skepdic.com/divinati.html
From http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jones_comes_clean_kind_of_on_his_dodgy_data/
One of the greatest scandals behind the IPCC’s fourth report was its use of seemingly fraudulent data in a paper co-authored by Climategate ringmaster Phil Jones which purported to use data from weather stations in rapidly urbanising China to claim the urban heat island effect was no big deal.
Jones now finally admits to Nature that his Chinese data was actually dodgy, if not worthless when he and the IPCC used it to claim that the inevitable heating of newly concreted, asphalted and machines-installed cities hasn’t in fact caused much of the rise in measured temperatures:
But in 2007, amateur climate-data analyst Doug Keenan alleged that this claim was false, citing evidence that many of the stations in eastern China had been moved throughout the period of study… Jones says that he did not know that the weather stations’ locations were questionable when they were included in the paper, but as the study’s lead author he acknowledges his responsibility for ensuring the quality of the data. So will he submit a correction to Nature? “I will give that some thought. It’s worthy of consideration,” he says.
Keenan, who as an amateur did what the peer-reviewers didn’t and exposed Jones’ trick, now explains why both Jones and Nature still aren’t telling the shamefull truth:
The (Nature) news report also misrepresents my allegations.
My principal allegation is that some of the data on station histories never existed. Specifically, Jones et al. (1990) claim to have sourced their data from a report that was published by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Yet for 49 of the 84 meteorological stations that Jones et al. relied upon, the DOE/CAS Report states “station histories are not currently available” and “details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times … are not known”.
Those statements imply that the quoted claim from Jones et al. is impossible: “stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times”. ..
I have also alleged that, by 2001, Jones knew there were severe problems with the Chinese research and yet he continued using that research–including allowing it to be relied on by the IPCC 2007 Assessment Report..
Read the whole thing here, where you’ll also find Keenan’s proofs. This is the scandal that not only shocked even one of the Climategate scientists, Australian Tom Wigley, but perhaps most starkly illustrates how corrupt some of the science behind the great warming scare became.
And the enquiry into his conduct is yet another example of the ethics involved in AGW.
really how could even Luke not be concerned by the blatan??!! They state they will have an enquiry with impartial reviewers, and then they stack it with believers!
( once again from bolt blog)
The impartiality of glaciologist Geoffrey Boulton has been questioned after he admitted he firmly believed that human activities were causing global warming…. In a 2005 paper Boulton penned for Edinburgh University, he wrote that the argument regarding climate change was “over”.
It has also been revealed that Boulton was one of a group of scientists and meteorologists who signed a statement in December, in the wake of the climate research scandal, pledging their continued support for the IPCC and their unwavering conviction that global warming is being caused by humans.
They thought to profit from AGW, now they’re deserting the sinking ship…
– BP, Conoco, and CAT Abandon Ship, Feb. 16, 2010, http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/02/16/bp-conoco-and-cat-abandon-ship/
N.b.: BP was one of the ‘Big Oil’ funders of Hadley CRU! Boo hoo, goodbye, gravy train!
This is like the story of the Abandoned Wind Farms that’s ‘blowing up’ everywhere:
http://webecoist.com/2009/05/04/10-abandoned-renewable-energy-plants/
and
http://hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1698/Wind-Energys-Ghosts.aspx
and
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/death_of_the_wind_farms/
Thus we confront as a global society the true cost of rubbish.
Schiller, its all finally coming out. Its a sad indictment on human gullibility, and lack of critical thinking skills, that it has taken this long for people to wake up. I never buy petrol from BP because of their “greenwashing”, if they make a stand i may reconsider!
You’re kidding yourselves dudes – just keep try to keep pumping up the volume – you’re being ignored by science. Face it – you’re just a bunch of retired whingers.
So entirely pathetic that you can’t even report the Jones interview properly.
The latest denialist turd tactic is quote mining. Only rednecks are convinced.
yawn ….
Luke,
You disappoint me. You were going to identify the two ‘errors’ by the IPCC. Too bad, so sad. I guess you are guilty of ‘failure to cite’, too. Seems to be a common malaise amongst you all.
Surely you could have managed some clever remarks about the IPCC’s use of aeromancy, arithmancy, botanomancy, hydromancy, kapnomancy, and ornithomancy to perform its supreme and arcane occult divinations.
At least you’re not dealing in f**k and s**t this time around!
(You know they know they’re losing when they’re not yelling f**k and s**t all the time — it’s like they almost want to be civil or something.)
fortunately the world is starting to pump it up for us, because they have finally awakened. It amazes me that you think all of the revelations are unimportant, talk about blinded by your religion.
Given that FLuke’s Desk favourite words are turd and s**t, shouldnt copromancy be added the list
….Divining insight from the shape of turds..dogs and his own.
It also seems that the need to yawn all the time stems from the fact that the Qld public service places no value on what he does, so gives him nothing to do. Dont blame them really do you?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/
Oh dear this is getting so cruel ..someone should put them out of their misery.
eg
Sack Pahauri
Shut down the IPCC secretariat.
Make a fresh start using a different approach and let the science drop where it may.
Well can I help it if you are quote mining denialist turds. I learnt the term from Mottsa actually – at his school of personal diplomacy and deportment. Your guy guys.
Whatever.
And speaking of whatever
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/whatevergate/
So whatever dudes … nobody is listening except your fellow geriatric redneck mates.
Pump up the volume …. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGPhUr-T6UM
yawn – back to sleep. So boring.
The answer to quote mining denialist filth
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/guardianstatement
And now for the backlash
RoseGate becomes DailyMailGate: Error-riddled articles and false statements destroy Daily Mail’s credibilty
Two top climate scientists and the NSIDC accuse Daily Mail of misquoting and misrepresenting them or their work.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/15/rosegate-dailymail-error-riddled-articles-misquote-credibility-science/
Luke, cast your mind back to the NH summer of 2008 and you will find other journalists publishing ‘error riddled articles’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3345666/North-Pole-ice-may-disappear-by-September.html
Tim Lambert is going hard on journalists and I suspect his strategy is to morph his space into a political science blog.
Journalists deserve a kick up the bum for dropping the global warming ball, when the blogosphere has been screaming for years about this scam.
Something the IPCC can cite in its next report:
“Suicide Penguins” arouse global warming awareness
February 14, 2010
http://english.sina.com/life/p/2010/0213/304313.html
Arizona and Texas are resisting moves to impose AGW inspired policy demands regarding CO2.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521142
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2….n_of_carbo.html
Bob Watson, former head of the IPCC, says:
““The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying.””
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece
Now AGW true believers, immune to facts, can do the Baghdad Bob all they want, but pretending that no one is paying attention is entertaining, in a rather pathetic way.
The attempt to blame the journalists who are no longer lap dogs for AGW promoters is not going to work out so well, either.
Interesting info this morning on Bolt’s blog, re how much did krudd know about the problems of insulation and safety procedures and did he press garrett to get on with the mad scheme anyhow just to get the money spent?
How much of this money went straight to China and how much of this dangerous useless material is out there just waiting for fires and more electrocutions to make matters worse?
WUWT has another Gate, this time in the under reporting of sea ice increase around Antarctica by about 50%, so we can now add Antarticagate to the list.
I find it interesting that the village idiot uses the phrase pump up the volume,when that is exactly what the bed wetters and over excitable wacademics (being conned by their various media arms)… have been doing for the last 20 years.
Now that they have been called to account, and it is all falling in a heap, the frenetic energy being expended in trying to defend what was from the beginning very poorly organised is amazing.
I still reckon David Henderson’s article in the Australian earlier this week was the best analysis and a sensible way forward that has been written.
More ‘homogenization’ uncovered by E M Smith. ‘Czechgate’ will now join the other gates. LOL
http://www.climategate.com/czechgate-climate-scientists-dump-worlds-second-oldest-cold-climate-record
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli turned up the heat on global warming yesterday.
On behalf of the state, Cuccinelli filed a petition asking the federal Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its December finding that global warming poses a threat to people.
Cuccinelli also filed a petition with the federal appeals court in Washington seeking a court review of the EPA finding.
It can be found here:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/state_regional/article/CUCC17_20100216-222005/324766/
Phil Done, “quote mining” seems to be the new warmist meme to try and dismiss the damaging Phil Jones Q&A.
It’s supposedly taking a persons words out of context and using them to “refute” that persons stated position, or to ridicule them.
No warmist has ever used that tactic, especially not against Christopher Monckton.
John Quiggin accused me of it when he banned me the other day, apparently poor Phil made the mistake of answering honestly, so therefore to quote him is “quote mining”. I guess you have to be an academic to understand that logic.
Luke… You might wanna read this about NASA Giss and their unprofessionalism and bias.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/
Well J Hansford (and must we be so formal) you should read about more ….
More drivel from the denialist filth conspiracy exposed –
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/dropouts/
How much more quote mining by shoddy journalists and even shoddier pseudo-sceptics must we endure?
Monkey twaddle exposed
http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2010/02/snowballs-snowjobs-and-lambert-monckton.html
Snow job – yea right !
Do you believe in anthropogenic global warming? Or catastrophic carbon-driven climate chaos? Do you have difficulty defending your faith, much less, remembering all of your climate catechism? Well, your worries are now over, if you have an iPhone!
-“Defeat climate change sceptics with iPhone app”, TechWatch, Feb. 18, 2010,
http://www.techwatch.co.uk/2010/02/18/defeat-climate-change-sceptics-with-iphone-app/
You can browse through the ten most common anti-climate change arguments – such as “it’s the sun”, or “we’re heading into an ice age” – and then view the science behind their rebuttal.
Or you can explore general themes, such as “it’s not happening”, or “it’s nothing to do with us”, and the counter-arguments.
This handy application will help make sure that you don’t accidentally say something factual, like Phil Jones did recently, and become an outcast from the doomsday cult!
Likely the iPhone app includes instructions to chant “denialist hurl scumbag barf twaddle f**k s**t babble twit filth turd puke slime” over and over again, if the challenge to your faith is not found on the handy, user-friendly menu.
Hey everyone,
Climate summary update here: http://www.climate4you.com/
And nice ‘response’ to the Minister here: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915
… AUSTRALIA’S most iconic beaches, including Bondi, Bells and those on the Sunshine Coast, could erode away or recede by hundreds of metres over the coming century, according to Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.
But locals aren’t so sure.
Bondi veteran Lee Boman has swum at the beach for more than 30 years and was adamant he had seen “no change” to the coastline over that period. “Nothing too drastic that indicates it is going to be changed in the future,” said Mr Boman, 53.
Bob Carter, a geologist and environmental scientist with James Cook University in Queensland, said Senator Wong’s comments appeared to be an attempt to panic the public.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/penny-wong-signals-doom-for-iconic-beaches/story-e6frg6n6-1225831970915
16 cm rise = ca 6.3 inches. If that’s less than wave/tidal surges, which supply the mechanical force necessary to induce erosion, there’s hardly a cause for concern for the beaches.
If you hypothesize a beach shallow enough, of course, a rise of even one cm would engulf hundreds of thousands of square miles. There are few such beaches so shallow, as they are mostly known as tidal flats, etc.
Regardless, if you reward persons for saying certain things, some persons will count the reward as more important than the truth of what they say.
The sea level trend is going down according to the Argo Buoys
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S3xTTpWSGjI/AAAAAAAAAyk/lWAqvOnb72Q/s1600/Fullscreen%2Bcapture%2B2172010%2B122234%2BPM.jpg
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/02/global-sea-level-decrease-2004-2009.html
Wrong says “”It is possible that with climate change and without large and expensive nourishment programs, Bondi Beach, (Queensland’s) Sunshine Coast and (Victoria’s) Bells Beach may no longer be the beaches we know today.”
Of course it could, its just not very likely. The alarmists have learnt nothing from being caught with their pants down.
“Stupid is as stupid does”, and the AGW industry just gets sillier by the day as it gets more and more desperate.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/18/2824113.htm
Yves de Boer boss of the UNFCCC resigns. Paid the price for not being able to make a silk purse out of sows ear
Does this also mean that there may be a chance that Pachauri might follow and that there might be a chance that this thing can be put on a sensible and professional basis, and that Hendersons model for the IPCC part might get up?
Not if Wong and the brain dead bozos in Canberra have anything to do with it.
Who is advising her? They are the ones that should be brought to account!
Folks,
More good news! The crooks at NASA, after two years of ignoring FOIA requests, finally coughed up their own batch of emails. You can find them at:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/business/foia/GISS.html
There’s four links, each to a .pdf The first one is 73 pp. long.
You can search the files, *sort of*. That’s because a lot of the pages have been scanned crookedly. (Oops, was that a pun?)
Even so, it’s fun to read about them scoffing at Steve McIntyre’s inability to get station data to match records, while they themselves complain of the same problem! There’s lots of fun stuff in there, even better than the East Anglia stuff.
Enjoy!
Janama – your links are statistically laughable ! Come on mate are you that much of an utter shonk to post dogshit like that ….
Darkies Schiller does some more libeling. What a denialist creep.
Folks,
Still more good news. There’s a searchable version of the NASA FOIA emails at:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25395671/Searchable-PDF-created-for-NASA-GISS-FOIA-documents
You know it’s terrifically good when Luke gets obfuscatory and coprolalic!
what’s the shonk Luke – the blogger downloaded the Pacific Marine Atlas program that executes the download of data from the Argo center. Any one can do it, even you.
ftp://kakapo.ucsd.edu/pub/argo/Pacific_Marine_Atlas/Pacific_Marine_Atlas_setup_v1.2.2.exe
I won’t be doing it as the program is 564meg but that’s all he did and the data produces the chart posted.
Now would you care to repeat what he did and prove him wrong?
Still going through the NASA emails… you know, those folks who made Australia smoking hot with their ‘adjustments’ and ‘smoothing’.
On August 10, 2007, Reto Ruedy is talking about “the [unnamed] person” who “still had the old map series saved”.
NASA doesn’t have the data, but “the person” has it? This is ‘the dog ate my data’ all over again.
Visit http://www.scribd.com/doc/25395671/Searchable-PDF-created-for-NASA-GISS-FOIA-documents
and have fun!
Unfortunately, the documents display in flash, so you’ll have to use an OCR to move text around.
The remarkable thing is, NASA could have disclosed the emails in a standard format, but instead, printed them, and scanned them crookedly.
Yet more evidence of crookedness.
Still, read the stuff. Luke will assail you for reading it, which means, it’s bad on his religion.
Pielke, Jr. also points out that your Ms. Wong is dedicated and deliberate in misrepresenting the science on storm losses and hazards. There is no way she is getting this so wrong by accident.
She could be an american political hack, by her ability to fib sincerely.
Perhaps Luke is writing her boilerplate?
Hunter,
The writing’s on the wall. Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The warmists are overwhelmed, all over the ‘net. Problem is, the big money is on the side of junk science, and junk politics.
The basic problem is, you can’t make really big lots of money, or get big lots of votes, unless you really scare big lots of people.
If there’s a way to make really big lots of money or votes from the message, ‘Don’t worry, it’s natural’, I’d like to hear of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE
….apropos De Boers resignation this is right on the button …specially for Lukey boyo.
The ship was rat infested to start with and the sooner its cleaned out the better.
janama,
Thanks for the Argo link.
Jen,
In SEQ there is no indication of SLR and my “backyard” shows a fall of 20 cms over the last 47 years based on king tide readings over that time.
This is very interesting
http://comments.americanthinker.com/read/42323/540020/page-1.html
The smoking Gun
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html
Spangled Drongo: I see you are having strife on this point from Bernard J over at Deltoid (where I am banned) – perhaps you could try explaining to him that there is something called the lunar year, which is quite different from ours, and means that say January 2009 is not quite the same as January 2010. You will of course also have to explain that the moon has something to do with tides – but that is surely over his head and that of his equally cretinous mates in Queensland.
In reading Janama’s link, I once again got stuck on this concept;
“It is well-known that IR radiation causes CO2 molecules to vibrate, but only at very specific wavelengths (wavelengths are the distances between peaks of each wave), and that wavelength is 15µm. (Fifteen µm means that each wavelength crests at a distance of 15 millionths of a meter.) As was discussed above, this vibration of the molecule causes it to heat and then radiate IR radiation back toward the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth. If the solar activity is taken to remain constant, more CO2 in the atmosphere will trap more of the OLR, and thus cause a net heating of the planet.”
I remember this stuff from 2nd year chem @ uni but I also recall (perhaps through rose coloured brain waves) that if said CO2 molecule interacts with another molecule, thus transferring some of its kinetic energy, then it can no longer re-emit in the IR. This means that CO2 would, in many cases, transfer heat kinetically to its immediate vicinity rather than radiating IR back down to the surface. So the whole re-radiating back to the surface thing has never made sense to me.
I should mention that I don’t know if CO2’s energised state is metastable or not or even how long on average a CO2 molecule will hold it’s energy before re-radiating.
It appears that what Gary Thompson ( I wish American Thinker would at least state who the hell he is and his qualifications !!!!!! before publishing such an article) has done is find data in previous papers that all link together and relate on to the Lindzen-Choi paper.
Tim,
Thanks for that.
What’s your thoughts on janama’s link re neg SLR from the Argo data. Is that calculated only from falling temperatures?
We have some strange media behavior going on. European media have covered Hadley’s Climategate extensively. Only now are US mainstream media picking up on it — one CBS (TV) news spot, and some second-tier newspapers finally today:
Climate turning against kooky alarmists
Chicago Sun-Times
The crackup of the climate ‘consensus’
New York Post
Global warming not a threat
Halifax-Plympton Reporter
Global doubting: Why the cloudy outlook?
Houston Chronicle
The global warming swindle has imploded
Tampa Tribune
Climate change claims are bunk
Idaho Mountain Express and Guide
Meanwhile, European media are ignoring NASA’s Climategate entirely, even though US-bashing is a continental spectator sport and the NASA emails are publicly available. And the US media are completely ignoring the NASA story.
Janama’s smoking gun says:
” So the results of three different peer-reviewed papers show that over a period of 36 years, there is no reduction of OLR emissions in wavelengths that CO2 absorb. Therefore, the AGW hypothesis is disproven”
So if AGW hypothesis is completely disproven at the evidence level, by showing the physical basis is not what they thought , then what does this say about all the other lines of so called evidence that the bed wetters and shonks rave on about.
There must be something else that is causing whatever legitamate warming there is.
Conversely if we are heading into a Dalton Minimum as seems to almost certainly be the case then we cant rely upon Co2 to keeps us warm.
Thats a bugger.
Malcolm,
Two things about global warming have bothered me for a decade and a half, including blithe assumptions, or perhaps, poorly-formed elisions, at the link cited by Janama.
One is that CO2 somehow ‘absorbs and stores’ heat. Fact is, there is no element, nor any molecule, anywhere in the known universe. Such a thing would violate thermodynamics.
The other is that CO2 molecules somehow ” radiate IR radiation back toward the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth”.
This, too, violates thermodynamics. To be sure, ‘Maxwell’s Demons’, a theoretical construct, could accomplish this feat, but that theory has been debunked. What is more, there is no evidence that CO2 molecules somehow orient themselves to selectively direct their ‘stored’ heat energy towards, rather than away from, a gravity well.
Couple these absurdities with the fact that CO2 is ~380 ppm and near the ‘saturation point’ (where doubling its component in the atmo makes about zero difference), and you have two flights of fantasy, which — even if true — would make about zero difference.
What balderdash. If they can’t get the physics right, the rest is a waste.
Denialist filth still scratching around right wing think-tanks for the “word”. As “evidence”. Hohohohohoho…. You guys could make money from quote mining.
Darkies Schiller and Mally-boy pretending they’re physicists and “dig it”. Schiller your last comments indicate you’re a moron. Go back to school mate.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
BTW denialists you can now get anti-sceptic info on your IPhone – apparently Piers is pissed.
That’s as in “off”. http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptical-science-iphone-app.html
So if you’re stuck a social function with Mal or Schiller (probably a cross burning you went to by mistake) you can counter each one of their slimey denialist filth claims in situ. Even a child can do it.
Reckon the comments will get to 3,000 ?
Janama – are you that stoopid that you think a trend that long proves anything (even assuming it’s right which it won’t be). Just go and look at the history on sea level rise.
Sigh – why do we bother ….. yawn ….
Luke,
Thank you very much. Your explanation of AGW and thermodynamics was quite persuasive.
HAHAHAHA… Not!
Luke, why do you even bother?
Dont be too harsh Schiller. He is after all a product of the same education system and Public Service that has given us the worst PM in Australias histroy.
He has all the same traits:
Foul language and abuse
Bad tempered
Irrationality
Inabiilty to separate spin from bull dust
Quite delusional and egotistical
etc
As for the twitty GG he appointed ….same again.
“Just go and look at the history on sea level rise.”
Luke,
Ya mean this!?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1066712/Uncovered-lost-beach-Romans-got-toehold-Britain.html
And if you check out some caves in Spain you’ll find where it was a metre higher than at present as far back as 81,000 years ago.
So Luke – I suppose I should reference the guy who has spent a lifetime studying sea level rise
this guy, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf
Schiller, Atoms and molecules can in fact absorb heat via collisions or EM radiation. As you probably know, this causes either their electrons to jump to higher energy levels or an increase in vibrational and/or rotational frequencies of their bonds. Excited electrons will lose their energy by emitting photons, bonds can either re-emit the same energy photon as they absorbed or transfer their energy kinetically to neighboring molecules.
Excited states are not stable and will rapidly return to the ground state by one of those mechanisms, the question for CO2 is; how long does it maintain its excited state before re-emitting IR? If it is long enough for a collision to occur, then very little energy will be redirected as IR but if it is virtually instantaneous, then much of it may be.
As gasses have a mean velocity at STP of approx. 600 m/sec, I find it hard to believe that most CO2 molecules wouldn’t pass on their energy kinetically, which is why I’m so confused by the “theory”.
BTW Luke, “Darkies Schiller and Mally-boy pretending they’re physicists and “dig it”. Schiller your last comments indicate you’re a moron. Go back to school mate.”
You keep dismissing peoples arguments and/or questions with these childish statements but don’t back it up with arguments that show why they are wrong. I think it’s time you put up or shut up! Mate!
Excellent article in todays Australian ( Sat 20th Feb) entitled ” Science’s Peer Reveiw system needs a review” .
by Frank Furedi Professor of Sociology at University of Kent.
Piece is quite damming about Peer Reveiw, which is what many bloggers and other people covered in ” denialist filth” have been saying for yonks.
Pity that the Prime Minister didnt do some proper homework instead of listening to one eyed fools and frauds of the academic alarmist brigades.
janama; your “Smoking Gun” link has links to 3 papers; I can’t get the final paper to load; can you post a seperate link to the 3rd one?
Derek; according to AGW after CO2 absorbs an IR photon, it rapidly returns to the ground state as a result of collisions; it will require many such collisions to lose a quantum of vibrational energy [ie the absorbed energy of the IR photon] BUT even so the rate of excitation and rise above the ground state due to absorption is many orders of magnitude slower than the rate of collisional deexcitation; the point is CO2 loses the energy through collision much quicker than it gains it through absorption therefore CO2 can never be saturated [according to AGW]. As you can work out there are a number of problems with this; collisional deexcitation, as you have noted, means the CO2 cannot back radiate; all it can do is reabsorb; this unlimited capacity supposedly stopping saturation, however, is simply defeated by LTEs which are thermally equalibrised parcels of air near the surface which feature no internal transfer of energy [ie no gradient]; the LTE is convectively transferred to an atmospheric level where the internal temperature matches the surrounding air and reemission can then occur which must be upward because the air below is opague to the CO2 wavelengths; energy is not transferred from within the LTE to the surrounding air at the surface because the speed of convective upwards transfer is at many metres per second whereas heat transfer by collision or diffusion does not exceed several cm/s.
The fundamental mechanism of further greenhouse warming by extra CO2 is simply contradicted by empirical and measureable physical processes.
here’s the Link Cohenite – it works for me.
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
Thanks janama; I see that American Thinker has reinterpreted the Harries papers to show that the TOA radiative flux do not agree with the AGW orthodoxy; Harries along with Philipona and back-radiation are one of the mainstays of AGW; here is what Steve Short had to say about Harries;
Comment from: Steve Short July 21st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
AB: In Harries (2001) he said:
“A recent comparison between data taken by two different satellite instruments, the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) that flew in 1997 and the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) that flew in 1970, showed evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations between those years.”
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=016&issue=22&page=3820&ct=1&SESSID=c77dfc4874e5f3592aa7131cffb3b4f5
The phrase “evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing” is a much weaker claim than the previous “experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. After all, they did not perform an experiment in the usually understood sense, nor did they directly measure the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which relates to radiation across the whole infrared spectrum, from the surface to top of atmosphere.
However, by 2004, in Griggs and Harries (2004) Harries had considerably watered-down his message and said this:
“The results suggest that while the sampling pattern of the IRIS instrument is sufficiently well distributed and dense to generate monthly regional mean brightness temperatures that are within 1.5 K of the true all-sky values, the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K. Under cloud-free conditions the agreement with the true field for both instruments improves to within a few tenths of a kelvin. Comparisons with the observed IMG–IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes.”
http://www.ggy.bris.ac.uk/staff/personal/JennyGriggs/paper_3.pdf
In addition, in this latter paper comparing three satellites spectra, an increase in methane was found even between observations when methane was not increasing. They also highlight an inaccuracy in the MODTRAN spectroscopic model.
This suggests the only really significant result of Harries et al. 2001 at all, the deepened methane line, could have been an artifact.”
That is from here;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/07/four-reasons-why-carbon-dioxide-is-not-driving-global-warming/#comments
Was that the Mörner who makes up stories about Aussie students moving mangroves in the Maldives. Oh pullease.
Well Derek old boy – isn’t it strange that the back radiation measured by Philipona is about what you’d expect. Pretty good for something that doesn’t exist. So why don’t you shut up.
Cohers bluffs some more – “Harries along with Philipona and back-radiation are one of the mainstays of AGW” – not really … they’re just interesting and Harries not really useful as evidence.
Yes Malcolm – the GG is dreadful. And of course Rudd and Wong don’t know what they’re doing on AGW.
But hey do I say you are:
Into every conspiracy theory you can find
Ignorant of any serious science literature
Indiscriminant
Abusive
Bad tempered
Irrational
Inabiilty to separate denialist spin from bull dust
Up yourself
And from South Australia
Of course I don’t ….
But I do admire your resolve.
Jeepers – who’s Frank – what’s Sourcewatch reckon –
“Frank Furedi is professor of sociology at the University of Kent at Canterbury, UK. He was, while using pseudonym Frank Richards, the founder and chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) of Great Britain. The RCP has traversed one of the longest ideological journeys in British politics, moving from the hard-left through several incarnations into a broad collection of organisations on the libertarian right wing, including Spiked Online and the Institute of Ideas. Furedi continues to be a leading figure in this network of organisations, characterised by a vigorous anti-environmentalist, pro-GM stance, known as the LM group.
Aside from his academic work, he is freqently quoted in the media as an expert on how our society has become obsessed with risk. He writes regularly for Spiked online, and has written several books on the subject, with titles such as Paranoid Parenting, Therapy Culture, and Culture of Fear. He wrote an article about risk culture post September 11, one of only two papers published by Global Futures.
Furedi has also written under the name of Linda Ryan [1]. He was born in Hungary in 1948. His family emigrated to Canada after the failed 1956 uprising and has lived in Britain since the 1970s”
hhmmmmm – probably objective would we think ?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frank_Furedi
so let’s F**k climate change hey Lukey – we are all justa a naive youngster
The US mainstream media aren’t covering Climategate, but that doesn’t mean nothing will be done about it here.
The Green Machine has consistently wielded vastly more money and power than the AGW ‘skeptics’, but that situation has suddenly changed, drastically. Now, skeptics with money and power are stepping up to the plate all over. Some foolishly (or cleverly) complain that this means ‘science is under attack’, when in point of fact, the Green Machine is under attack. This means that the ‘environmental movement’ faces a catastrophic, collective defeat on nearly every front. And it may well be that some day soon, ‘warmist’ will be a pejorative synonymous with ‘flat-earther’.
US Senator Lisa Murkowski is preparing a resolution to veto the US EPA’s finding that CO2 emissions endanger public health and welfare. US Rep. Joe Barton is planning to introduce a companion House resolution.
The state of Texas and a coalition that includes 17 associations and businesses – including the National Association of Manufacturers – and 12 Republican congressmen have asked for a court review of the EPA’s finding.
The groups that filed petitions are the Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, the state of Texas and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, along with a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association.
Other petitions have been filed by , the American Iron and Steel Institute, Gerdau Ameristeel, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Southeastern Legal Foundation.
The states of Texas, Alabama and Virginia have filed petitions against the EPA finding, and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour is asking members of the National Governors Association’s natural resource committee to urge Congress to block the EPA from regulating CO2.
On the other side of the court battles, and intervening on behalf of the EPA, are the US states Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.
Representing the $600 billion global protest industry and the wind, solar, etc. industries in the case are the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation.
Schiller properly differentiates between climate science and the AGW social movement.
How much money has the AGW social movement squandered on CO2, that could have actually solved real problems in the environment?
From the numbers in the article, huge amounts.
And the other distinction is between AGW theory- that CO2 is going to cause/is already causing a climate apocalypse, is another that people need to see more clearly.
The list that Schiller shows is already out of date- Arizona is no longer participating in a western states alliance of AGW promotion.
More will follow.
Luke,
Everyone knows that ‘Sourcewatch’ is partisan and worthless.
Check out its entry on Norman Borlaug, whose crop development efforts saved about 1 billion persons from starvation:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Norman_E._Borlaug
Luke, you can’t hardly think that dredging up things like this is informative or useful when your High Priests are either recanting, or in hiding.
Luke – Morner was the scientist who actually went to the Maldives and actually studied the sea level via the geology and showed clearly that the sea level has actually dropped.
His detractors were computer jockeys who worked out the seal level was rising from their offices.
Who are you going to believe?
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_many_more_before_rudd_winds_back_his_reforms/
Yet another example of the Rudd Governments duplicitous and incompetent behaviour.
Why should CC be any different.
Never thought I’d see Schiller supporting commies – strange bedfellows eh?
Schiller do you like communists now….. woo hooo …. Darkies Commo Schiller !!!!! Comrade ! Mate !
I never thought I would see that day !!!!
yawn …..we’ve been over Morner’s denialism and bunk before…. like most denialists you just recycle the same old same old ….
Morner has been rebutted comprehensively by 4 EXPERT studies from different groups
He’s goofed on his TOPEX data analysis – errr what analysis
Instead of staying professional he’s been let go out of INQUA but has still been running round pretending to represent people he does not – says heaps in itself
Check Warwick Hughes blog – implications he made up his video presentation on the tree nonsense – even Louis was taken aback
Korgano 30/4/2007 at http://www.climatebrains.com has summarised the early papers before Church et al. (2006) – added below.
Korgano STARTS:
I have thoroughly checked Morner’s work as well as the work of all nine who cited his work (including Kench – who does not support Morner) and several others, and now I am completely unconvinced that the sea level is falling at Maldives. It is either rising, or one could say as Kench et al. said “ The region’s sea level history remains uncertain”. None of the papers I read (other than Morner’s) support Morner’s conclusion that the sea level is falling. Woodworth directly address the evaporation explanation and rejects it. Here are some statements, but one has to read the whole paper to get the complete picture. It is very difficult for me to believe that the sea level is falling after reading these reviewed journal publications combined with all the other current news reports.
Woodworth PL
Have there been large recent sea level changes in the Maldive Islands?
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 1-18 NOV 2005
“…..A number of met-ocean data sets and regional climate indices have been examined, at least one of which would have been expected to reflect a large sea level fall, without any supporting evidence being found. In particular, a suggestion that an increase in evaporation could have caused the fall has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Without any real evidence for a hitherto-unrecognised process which could lead to a sea level change as significant as that proposed by the fieldwork team, one concludes that a rise in sea level of approximately half a metre during the 21st century, as suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…”
Woodroffe CD
Late Quaternary sea-level highstands in the central and eastern Indian Ocean: A review
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 49 (1-2): 121-138 NOV 2005
“…Regardless of minor past fluctuations, most reef islands in the Maldives are particularly low-lying and appear vulnerable to inundation, and extracting a more detailed sea-level history remains an important challenge….”
“…Mörner et al. (2004) appear to base much of their narrative of past sea-level change upon their interpretation of the morphology of reef islands. They postulate a series of levels shown schematically in their Fig. 2, representing, they claim, stepwise coastal evolution, including a higher storm level, a sub-recent level now vegetated, and an older and higher island surface….”
“…implied, by Mörner (2004). If there had been such a sea-level fall, then those microatolls that had grown up to the limit of coral growth prior to the fall, would have shown a ‘top hat’ morphology with continued growth during post-fall years constrained at a lower level….”
Kench PS, Nichol SL, McLean RF
Comment on “New perspectives for the future of the Maldives” by Morner, N.A., et al. [Global Planet. Change 40 (2004), 177-182]
GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE 47 (1): 67-69 MAY 2005
“Here we raise a number of concerns with arguments and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) that are central to the interpretations and conclusions presented in their paper….”
“…We conclude that the sea level history and data presented by Mörner et al. (2004) is less than compelling and can be readily explained via an understanding of contemporary coastal processes. The region’s sea level history remains uncertain. Consequently, we believe that this work does little to inform the international community on new perspectives of the future of the Maldives…”
The short reply to this by Morner is hardly convincing.
There are other papers, but they all take the same tone.
Kench’s article in Geology that you provided (stating that “The islands have existed for more than 5000 years and are morphologically resilient rather than fragile systems, and are expected to persist under current scenarios of future climate change and sea-level rise.”) does take into account sea level rise as current prediction, but he says that the island is resilient. The conclusion that the island is resilient is entirely different than saying the sea level is falling
Janama – good retro – but wouldn’t you lot be playing Cool World
In fact we warmist alarmists just want break into your Cool World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3BoxPNggew&feature=related
Your world is as cold as ice, your world is so nice
But you don’t want me arou-ound
Your world is a barren place, that look upon your face
Says you don’t want me arou-ound
I might break into your coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
In your world there are no regrets, your goals have all been set
There are no more to be fou-ound
Your world is so well controlled, you will not be told
You know you don’t hear a sou-ound
It might break into your coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool world
Break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
Somewhere way down deep inside, passion burned so bright
And walls are shakin’
In the tunnel deep and wide our two worlds will collide
If I am no-ot mista-aken
Cool and calm your world may be, but why do you believe
That you don’t want me arou-ound
Well, I can touch you in a way, that you’ll cease to say
That you don’t want me arou-ound
I will break into your coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
I will break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
‘Cause your so-o, your so-so coo-ool
It’s such a cool-cool wor-orld
Break in, break in, aghh, coo-ool world
Break in, oh-ho-ho-ho, coo-ool world
I’ll break into your-our coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld
Yes I will break into your coo-ool world
Break into your-our coo-ool world
Break into your coo-ool, coo-ool, coo-ool wor-orld (fade)
Cool Hand Luke,
Oceans rise and fall and the Maldives and Tuvalu which are coral atols do likewise as Willis explains well here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/
As I’ve been known to say, they suffer from too little deckspace, not insufficient freeboard.
BTW, looks like I’ve finally been banned from the “Doltoid’s War On Sceptics”. All I finally said was that Tim’s fav CSIRO chart and SLR hockey stick contradicted its statements about old Roman SLs [by about 3 metres].
Well Luke – those papers haven’t deterred Morner – here’s his letter to the President of the Maldives in Dec 2009:
here’s a fun rave for your entertainment
George Carlin’s rant on environmentalists.
janama,
That’s a very straight forward letter which, of course, will get no recognition.
BTW do you or anyone know how much computer modelling, prediction and/or code is used in generating satellite measurements?
Was Morner right in claiming that they had to use the incorrect upward trends from poorly sited tide gauges to get pos SLR from satellites?
Again a cherry pick – Maldives isn’t the best place where you would be looking for sea level rise actually. Time to turn the argument spatial and global.
Meanwhile “climate science alive and well”.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gmrh51uyFR9RCBhi-wbw2l86QbAg
Luke…from that article.
“Instead when we have a major snowstorm on the east coast of the US, jokes are proliferating about how wrong all this global warming stuff was. And yet you turn on your television and look at the winter Olympics in Canada and you find no snow…”
Jet stream’s gone wobbly, AO/NAO negative and a weak El Nino have conspired to produce a lot more snow in the NH. Any scientist worth his salt would explain in simple detail why we are heading into a colder regime. And why there is no snow in Vancouver.
Last year the UK Met said it was the snowiest in a decade, this winter is the coldest in two decades. If next year is the coldest in 30 years will they call it climate and not weather?
Climate science has been hijacked by zealots.
“Maldives isn’t the best place where you would be looking for sea level rise actually”
While there are other factors to be considered for different locations, I would have thought that eventually
the rise in sea levels would affect all places ie. the effect would be the same everywhere.
Johnathan,
I’ve been saying that for ages but apparently I’m stupid. There are these places around the world where SLs keep rising forever and others where SLs keep falling forever and never the twain shall meet.
I know the earth is a pear-shaped geoid with flat spots and lumpy bits but I always thought water was supposed to vigorously seek equilibrium.
But apparently the satellites are telling us there is a mountain of water building up somewhere that is going to hit us sceptics like a sunami if we don’t pray to the great ALgod.
Strangely we don’t ever get to see the graphs where the SLs are going down forever.
Would three thousand posts be some sort of record?
Spanglers bruised after having the crap punched out of his argument at Deltoid still bungs it on.
Phenomena like ENSO change sea level in seasons, the PDO has decadal effects, local features cause local effects – but the long term trend is UP !
Why do you not understand that the global mean as measured by satellite is up up up !
Luke,
This is the CSIRO story on SLR. Why are the satellite SLs going up like that when the observed SLs haven’t done anything for the last 2000 years?
Have a look at those fish traps from Roman times. They’d still work today!
But have a look at the “hockey stick” graph and it shows that SLR since then is 3m.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_intro.html
Someone’s telling lies.
Thank you luke, for that little bit of humour about Morner; has anyone else noticed the difference between the CSIRO graph based on the Uni of Colorado satellite measurements;
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
And the actual TOPEX and Jason measurements:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global.jpg
Folks,
It seems that the ‘skeptics’ invented the notion of ‘scientific consensus’, and the warmers grabbed it and ran off with it.
The notion appears to have been invented in 1997, with the Leipzig Declaration. (1) Even back then, many scientists had already noticed that “These [AGW] predictions are based on nothing more than theoretical models and cannot be relied on to construct far-reaching policies. ” It had about 200 signatories.
Then came the Global Warming Petition Project, in 1998. (2) Even back then, it was known that the human release of atmospheric gases had no significant effect on climate. The petition has since been endorsed by 31,486 American scientists, including 9,029 with PhDs.
Then came the Manhattan Declaration in 2008. (3) Its endorsers note that “global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life.” Thus far, this declaration has over 700 ‘qualified endorsers’.
While this indicates there actually never was a ‘scientific consensus’, it also indicates that there have always been more skeptics than the ‘thousands of IPCC scientists’ so often mistakenly referred to — a number which includes ‘expert reviewers’ from Greenpeace et. al.
———
1. http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html
2. http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php
3. http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=1
Hunter,
I have not been able to substantiate your claim that “Arizona is no longer participating in a western states alliance of AGW promotion.”
Do you have a link?
Sorry, I’m a skeptic. So embarrassing.
Did you notice that, Lukeyloo? Skeptics, by nature, cannot form conspiracies, because they look for facts. They don’t trust anyone well enough to form a conspiracy.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Dear Jennifer,
Two bits of news that might interest:
(1) My new book, The Alternative Manifesto, is published next week, on 25 February ( http://tinyurl.com/yal5yn ). It follows my 2009 The Rotten State of Britain, which identified the problems of unbridled central power and fiscal alcoholism in Britain. This one is a workshop manual for getting a spanner round these nasty issues. So I’m hoping it will help stir up our election debate and show that our problems are larger than just left v right.
(2) My colleague Madsen Pirie and I are being given the national Free Enterprise Award on Tuesday 23 February. It’s a great honour. We’re rather chuffed.
Many thanks,
Eamonn
this url works
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Alternative-Manifesto-Government-Should-Country/dp/1906142696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260958047&sr=1-1
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-rudd-the-dud-dropped-australia-in-the-alphabet-soup-20100221-ontz.html
Rudd The Dud…the worst PM Australia has ever had. The Queensland PS has a lot to answer for..and thats not including Luke boy of course.
There is no chance these turkeys are ever going to come to their senses over AGW anytime soon…. irrespective of whether the SLR is going up or down.
Plenty Wrong will just spin more lies …Garrett will create more stuff ups…. and Combet will buy more sea front properties.
Cohenite there is an inverse barometer correction applied to the csiro graph, and not to the other, although both have the same source.
But why and to what end I’m not sure, but the basic graph sure has a flat trend over the last six or seven years.
Folks,
More good news. The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that CO2 is ‘endangering’ everything at all. (1)
This comprehensive document (2) includes damning revelations, such as:
Reliance on Inappropriate Non-Peer Reviewed Secondary Sources Material From Advocacy Groups
1. Himalayan Glaciers
2. African Agricultural Production
3. Amazon Rain Forests
4. Melting Mountain Ice
5. Netherlands Below Sea Level
6. Other Instances of Reliance on Advocacy Group Material
Beware, this is a big pdf file. It’s still worth reading. It’s the most comprehensive, well-done deconstructions of the AGW business I’ve ever seen in one place.
There’s something elegant about the collapse of the AGW hypothesis. The vindication of the scientific enterprise has never before been seen to be justified on such a scale.
———-
1. Business Week, Feb. 16, 2010, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-16/peabody-seeks-reversal-of-u-s-s-carbon-finding-update2-.html
2. Petition to EPA: Your Agencey Has No Legal Option But To Reexamine its Endangerment Finding, Feb. 11, 2010, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/no_legal_option.pdf
From the leipzeg declaration link above from schiller
http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html
there is a huge list of scientists who “wear white coats and are boring” ( at least thats what rudd thinks of scientists) that dispute AGW and the kyoto protocol.
Many of them seem to be emminently qualified to comment and hold a strong opinion
Neville, this is NOAA’s methodology for calculating sea level at different locations;
http://www.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/gdrs/geosat_handbook/docs/chap_4.htm
You can see the inverse barometer adjustment is simply deducting atmosphere pressure from the sea level height; in effect the sea level is higher than it actually is because the supressed height due to atmospheric pressure is added. Given this it is ironic that the temperature profile of the atmosphere is never adjusted for pressure affects on temperature.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/22/2826417.htm
Well well Clive Hamilton is writing a piece about cyber bullying and foul abuse from people who hide behind pseudonyms.
Good on you Clive ..go for it.
Schiller your list is pure denialist hogwash.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_how_jonathan_leake_c.php
Time to start rebuking liars !
Tony – “Many of them seem to be emminently qualified to comment and hold a strong opinion” – errr not really ….
Yeah and you would know Luke?! all those “climate” based qualifications mean they arent qualified to comment…Well given what we think of “climate scientists”
most of us would probably agree. But its reassuring to hear it from you, you are starting to engage your brain!
Unbelievably it seems that the ipcc paper on sea level changes over the next 100 years has been withdrawn, they’re now not sure what the rise will be, but mistakes were made apparently. WUWT reports on article in Guardian newspaper. GEEEZZ will these gates ever stop.
Toby – yea they can comment – but what’s it worth? Weed out their quals and fields of expertise seriously. Bit of a stunt really don’t you think?
It doesn’t matter what their qualifications are does it Luke? They are clearly all in the pay of Exxon Mobil and card carrying members of the Heartland institute!
It’s a bit like saying that only Ford mechanics know how to work on cars properly. Face it young’n, you will never admit that skeptical scientists have any credibility.
Derek – well it depends whether they are sceptics or faux sceptics (i.e. partisan activists). And it does matter how up to date they are, and whether they’re actually practicing in a field, or just opinionated like the rest of us. Many on both sides of the debate are simply ornery and outraged by perceived injustice. Very hard to achieve useful dialogue.
Over the past 30 years Antarctica has been building up ice and snow, but the IPCC underestimated this by up to 50% and pointed to ice melt in the Arctic.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/02/16/another-ipcc-error-antarctic-sea-ice-increase-underestimated-by-50/
Their strategy was simple and mindless.
Derek, Toby,
I can tell you how it works, because Luke isn’t being very clear about the methodology. First, you start with a list of scientists. Any arbitrary list will do. Then you identify those who believe in, and support, AGW. They are declared to be ‘mainstream’ and, naturally, form ‘a consensus’ without even having to ask them. The rest of those on the list can be ignored as ‘not credible’.
It’s the same process used in model/data interactions. As Trenberth explained, when your model is ‘the globe is warming’, data indicating otherwise must therefore be erroneous. Which means all the data you accept on that basis are ‘overwhelmingly consistent’. Quite elementary!
On a related noted, here’s something offered by James McCarthy of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, in the warmist rag Scientific American: (1)
“If you were to go back and map the IPCC projection for sea level rise and temperature in 1990, look at it in 1995, look at it in 2000. In retrospect you would find that they were conservative. So we talk about errors. If you were to do two ledgers—here are IPCC overestimates, here are IPCC underestimates—over the 20 or so years that these assessments have been running, the underestimate ledger would be much larger than the overestimate.”
One has to wonder what those underestimations are. The area of the Netherlands below sea level? The extent of African agriculture, or the Amazon, under threat? The warming predicted 20 years ago that turns out not to be statistically significant?
Maybe it’s sea level rise. Check out ‘Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels’, in the Feb. 21, 2010 edition of The Guardian. (2)
The study, published in 2009, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 IPCC report, and predicted that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
The paper, written by Mark Siddall, is titled ‘Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change’ and used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age. The retraction was due to two “technical errors”, and Siddall won’t predict anything at all at this point. (A recantation comparable to that of Phil Jones, perhaps?)
It appears that the main complaint against the IPCC prediction of rising sea levels was that it was “too conservative”.
Maybe it really is as James McCarthy explains it. The more doom-laden predictions you want, the more predictions fall into the “too conservative” side of “the ledger”. Likely there are some who claim the IPCC is “too conservative” because it fails to consider a scenario involving an invasion of space aliens.
See, guys? It’s the same process used to ‘settle the science’ with ‘a consensus’, the same way you make ‘the data’ agree with ‘the model’.
———-
1. ‘Despite Climategate, IPPC Mostly Underestimates Climate Change’, Feb. 22, 2010,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=despite-climategate-ippc-mostly-und-10-02-22
2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The wages of sin…
According to Fox News, (1) Thomas Karl has been put in charge of the US Commerce Department’s new climate change office. Karl has played a pivotal role in key climate decisions over the past decade, has kept a low profile as director of National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) since 1998, and he has led all of the NOAA climate services since 2009.
Also according to Fox, Roger Pielke, Sr. wrote in his resignation letter to the IPCC that he (Pielke) had completed the assessment of current knowledge for his chapter of the report, when Karl abruptly took control of the final draft. He said the chapter he had nearly completed was then rewritten to discount the importance of land use changes on temperature.
Now, according to the NASA GISS FOIA emails at p. 124 (2), station data were actually ‘fixed’ over at Karl’s National Climatic Data Center, a fact which supposedly could be used to divert the attention of “a jackass or a jester” away from NASA GISS.
So, Karl — having ‘fixed’ the data, is now going on to his just reward: another appointment to head a dubious agency. After all, you wouldn’t want a straight arrow for the job! Read on…
From: Reto Ruedy
Reply-To: rruedy@giss.nasa.gov
To: James Hansen
Cc: Gavin Schmidt , Reto Ruedy
, Maldko Sato
Subject: Re: Town Hall Story on NASA blocking McIntyre access
Date: FrL 17 Aug 2007 19:28:05 -0400
I understand, that was just meant as a suggestion to bring up on Gavin’s RealClimate site, if he needs to counter requests for our “fixing” code.
Reto
On Fri, 2007-08-17 at 19:06 -0400, James Hansen wrote: Technical arguments with a jackass or a jester, which most observers not wanting to understand the details, can appear to lower one to a comparable level. Better not argue with him about whether we fix data; we do an urban adjustment, for example. Jim
On 8/17/07, Reto Ruedy wrote: TOBS does not have the station history adjustment (SHAP} – FILIN has it and is the last stage before their urban adjustment. I can run with or without the filled-in data (filling in added .0SC/century to the US mean trend in our analysis).
Once the new USHCN data are reformatted, it’s just a question of what to do with years 2006 and 2007. Otherwise it’s simply switching an input file.
I still think, Steve (in the Town Hall interview below and when he talks to anybody but us) mixes us up with Tom Karl’s group – they ” fix ” station data, we don’t. If we get this misunderstanding out in the open, it might die down as well.
——————–
1. New Climate Agency Head Tried to Suppress Data, Critics Charge. Feb. 22, 2010. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528Text+-+SciTech%2529
2.Searchable pdf downloadable from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/18/searchable-pdf-created-for-nasa-giss-foia-documents/
Also known as doublespeak. 1984 should become compulsory reading all over again, and while they are at it, a read of animal farm would not go astray either……..
Toby,
When I said “It’s the same process used in model/data interactions. As Trenberth explained, when your model is ‘the globe is warming’, data indicating otherwise must therefore be erroneous. Which means all the data you accept on that basis are ‘overwhelmingly consistent’.” I forgot to add something — the fact that this entirely explains, in context, Phil Jones’ remark regarding the “trick” to “hide the decline”.
Mann’s explanation: “The “decline” refers to the “divergence problem”. This is where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. ”
The problem: one set of data showed declining temperatures, the other showed rising temperatures. The choice: which to “believe in”. The decision: use the one that’s showing rising temperatures. The result: ‘overwhelmingly consistent’ data. Whether you call it a ‘trick’ or not is completely beside the point. The point: the kindest, most generous interpretation of the whole fiasco is such rampant confirmation bias (1) that it counts as mass hallucination. (2)
————
1. “Tendency to filter information to retain only what conforms to one’s preferences, and to reject that does not. See also cognitive bias.” Business Dictionary,
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/confirmation-bias.html
2. “an episode of psychogenic illness affecting a large group of individuals at the same time. Examples include the witchcraft trials of the 17th century and the irrational mass reaction to the 1938 radio show based on H.G. Wells’ science-fiction novel, War of the Worlds. Also called collective hysteria, epidemic hysteria, major hysteria, mass panic, mass psychogenic illness.” Mosby’s Medical Dictionary (Elsevier, 2009) via The Free Dictionary,
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Mass+hallucination
Schiller, there is no doubt that we all have biases and we do filter using those bias. It is however of course crucial to recognise that when trying to create an argument or justification for others we need to be able to show we have been beyond fair with the opposing data, information etc. This is clearly something that the IPCC is incapable of doing. And as you point out associating with people that agree with you merely reinforces that thinking. Whats really needed is open debate from people with differing bias. Very few things are black and white.
Thats why the issue of AGW pisses me off so much, there is crap on both sides. But the biggest problem is reality doesnt seem to matter to so many of those who believe. The sceince is actually irrelevant until we have technology to allow us to move away from fossil fuels. And then of course the reality is emissions will naturally come down again. But until then trying to pick winners and subject economies to lower economic growth is entirely counter intuitive. Money and wealth will help us cope with a changing climate, poverty will not.
The political parties ( even our liberal, non believing tony abbott) are all happy to pick winners and look to reduce emissions, some by as much as 80% ( can u believe that stupidity!!).
A classic example of picking winners is our govt building a fast broadband network at a cost of 43 billion dollars. Its currently available in our major CBD’s and yet fewer than 20% of use it. Why? cost of course….but the govt wants to make it avaible to every australian wherever they live!!……last week google announced they will provide super fast wireless that is 10 times faster than the FBN our govt is building. so within 9 mnths the winner they picked at huge cost is a joke.
i m starting to believe in anarchy!
Toby,
It’s a bit early to start believing in anarchy as a political model. Anarchy is the fundamental model for well-done science, but doesn’t work well for social governance.
The perversions we see in Global Warmism result from the financial/political interests involved. The syndrome repeats itself in every branch of science. Once a controversy is monetized, enough money/power and you get critical mass, and it goes fissile.
People will go to crude extremes to get what they want, when enough of it seems within their grasp. Global Warmism is merely an example in a long and sordid list.
Be well, be skeptical, and demand intelligent democracy is the best bet.
Schiller, you are of course correct, anarchy is not the way to go. It just seems a long time since we were governed well…and certainly not intelligently!
what a shame common sense is not very common.
cheers and stay well yourself.
nice summary of last week here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2010/02/warming-since-1995-not-significant-phil-jones/
Jen – you have totally misrepresented the Jone’s interview.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/daily-mangle/
Skeptics have not been vindicated at all. All we have is an entrenched plan of deception and recycled nonsense.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/leakegate_roundup.php
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/the_lomborg_deception.php
Let’s not confuse political performance with science.
Luke,
Those who perpetrated the largest, most expensive hoax in the history of the human race can scarcely complain of poor political performance, or of being inept with the media.
As expected Luke pulls out the RealClimate article saying that 15 years is not long enough to establish a trend therefore Jones didn’t say there has been no warming over that time.
Ok – So I’ll pull out the Tamino article of December 2009 that says it is.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/how-long/
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=7db3fbd8-f1b4-4fdf-bd15-12b7df1a0b63
Who cares what Jones said or didnt say ..the simple fact is that he and his mates colluded to corrupt the process and thus became part of the the main basis for the GW scam.
What corruption Malcolm – what a load of cobblers ! You really should think before you call all the people in all IPCC panels involved “corrupt”. Do you seriously think Jones is “corrupt” or simply very pissed off with “so-called” sceptics.
Janama – you’re just quote mining, Stats 101 – significance levels are arbitrary – there is no magic dividing line. The trend is very close to significance at 95% – which is what Jones ACTUALLY said. Why are denialists quote-miners? Why can they not speak the truth?
Meanwhile Clive continues to analyse the anti-AGW mindset.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2827047.htm
And Malcolm you wouldn’t take a minority report by Goof-off as evidence that the Sun rises in the east.
Luke,
I am quite impressed that you went so far as to say that the “trend is very close to significance at 95%”. Are you, like Phil Jones, trying to rescue your reputation by saying that your absurd and inflammatory claims are five percent less than worth a statistician’s notice?
Not.
You just like to come here and say things like ‘Goof-off’, ‘cobblers’, ‘Sun rises in the east [sic]’ and other things.
At least, you didn’t say f**k and s**t and so forth. Is it possible that one result of Climategate might be that the AGWers want to suddenly act polite?
Yep. Like when they host the Winter Olympics in Hell.
Repent, Luke, your paymasters are withdrawing. Phil Jones and Tiger Woods are doing the smart thing.
” CRU EMAILS SHOW SCIENTISTS
Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science ―consensus‖; and
Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.”
Well Lukey boy this is what the very first page says.
They did collude to corrupt the process and therefore for they stand to be condemned.
BTW why dont I, and others now warrant the usual Luke expletives such as ” denialist filth” and ” turd etc “.etc
Have we gone down in your estimation or is that the Hamilton tripe over at the ABC ” The Drum” has scared you off.
” CRU EMAILS SHOW SCIENTISTS
Obstructing release of damaging data and information;
Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions;
Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science ―consensus‖; and
Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.”
This is what the document referenced said
On the basis of this they DID collude in a corrupt manner designed to deceive the international community, and at the cost of the tax payers.
Its not hard
BTW has Hamiltons turgid tripe over at The Drum resulted in your mouth being washed out..
I hope not . I miss my regular dose of denialist filth and turd etc.
Luke, one of the many significant comments Jones made was that “Further, there is no statistically significant difference among the four warming trends of 1860-1880, 1910-40, 1975-1995, and 1975-2009.”….so why are we being told to be so alarmed? why do we keep being told that the temp increase is unprecedented? infact i seem to recall you telling me that ……
Utter pretentious drivel Malcolm – pure bunkuml. Apply the same standards to your own mates like Plimer and Moncky if you want real try-ons.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/the-guardian-disappoints/
Remember Mal – I learnt my craft at the Ian Mott school of diplomacy and deportment. Your guy? Never heard you complain then ….
1. You are pathetic Walker. Pure school boyish nonsense. Please teacher that kid mott is being rude therefore I can as well…so there.
Mott is streets ahead of you ..at least he did his homework and had a solid background to underpin his judgements..as well as being humorous.
2. Please show me references to where Plimer and Monckon have been as consistently and repeatedly rude and obnoxious as you have to the extent of repeatedly referring to people are denialist turds, arseholes and full of shit etc.
3. You can’t hide the fact that Jones et al have been in a position of trust and have betrayed that trust by their collusion and manipulation whilst being paid by the tax payer, and they deserve our contempt for having done so. Along with all the other examples of less than satsifactory behaviour by the alarmanistas the public has every right to be concerned.
4. If you are also saying that a side commenary from someone like G. Schmidt at RC on an article in the Guardian some how negates a report of the USA Senate, minority or other wise, then it is you who is doing a try on.
Monckton is the epitome of diplomatic,suave and polite. He uses humour and politeness to attack, not poor or foul language. You may not like what he says but how anybody could consider him a potty mouth is very strange. Luke does cop stick and occasionally is “verballed” but it is usually retaliation for his own behaviour. It is very school boyish to suggest because someone else does something wrong that makes it ok?!!
Real climate deserves our contempt because they have continually cut and ignored people that post comments that do not suit them. Make a comment negatively about them and they whinge and comment or just delete. Now they are worthy of “scum” in IMO and they are blatant propaganda tools for the AGW industry. I gave up visiting them a long time ago.
Luke – could you think without Real climate to think for you?
When Luke posts on RC, Doltoid etc, he wouldn’t say shit for a shilling.
OK Mal
1. when in Rome – I just adopted Motty’s debating style. You say Mott did his homework – ROTFL
“a report of the USA Senate,” written by Morano for his denialist boss – pullease Malcolm ! “we’re politicians – you can trust us ” hohohohoho
Plimer – mate Deltoid had a field day – he has a whole archive
“Monckton is the epitome of diplomatic,suave and polite” – Toby – bunk is bunk. “Hitler youth !”
“It is very school boyish to suggest because someone else does something wrong that makes it ok?” LOOK IN THE MIRROR GUYS !
But yea – RC is wasting time. They’re been suckered into the pretend debate. Time to get back to the science.
First greenhouse gas animations produced using Envisat SCIAMACHY data
[methane and CO2]
20 March 2007
Available at:
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEM1DUQ08ZE_index_1.html#subhead1
Apparently the oceans are so unimportant that it’s reasonable to drop those data out.
Thats just like you being the little school boy your are Walker blame some one else for your own bad behaviour… when that person hasnt posted on this site for many months..and very infrequently before that. Not like your own frenetic hit rate.
As for going back to the science ..which science would that be walker..the cooked up crap from Jones et al ..which the Senate Report shows is a prima facie case for charges to be laid.
Or will it be the science based upon temperature records for which the view of many is that they cannot be relied upon to interpret anything with any confidence.
BTW Walker is the Hamilton Tripe Show which continues to run on their ABC an example of the ” scientists” having the shackles taken off and let lose ..then he in particular is having the opposite effect. Hamiltons nonsense is a perfect example on why you wouldnt trust these people with anything.
As for Ian Chubb’s biased and nonsensical comments that sceptic commentators are just trying to be celebrities..then I wonder what the well know promoters of the cause have been doing ..you know people like Gore,Hansen, Mann, Brooks,Hamilton, Karoly etc ad nausea.
..and he is a VC
That Senate report is laughable Hill. You would have to be kidding ! Do wank on…. redneck republican trash isn’t evidence.
OK our little South Aussie poser – Do a little intelligence test – don’t you think it’s a bit remarkable that 2 surface analyses and two independent SST analyses tell that same story. That the satellite record lines up too. That 1000s of biological records tell the same story. I wonder why ….
Hamilton’s latest essay is excellent. Shame on the denialist filth. Sums it up doesn’t it – creeps like you lot manufacturing a scandal.
But that’s the denialist agenda – deny EVERYTHING and puff yourself up with assumed righteousness and lecture us from the pulpit.
And Toby you must be bloody blind if you can’t see how obvious it is.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2829295.htm
Folks,
I agree that it’s great fun to poke fun at Luke, our residential village idiot, but it’s rather bad form.
Luke is a fictitious entity. It’s instructive to learn from Luke that the AGWers are foul-mouthed and intellectually vacuous, but it’s far better to share information on what’s going on.
Schiller.
I hope this is not too OT, but below is my attempt to post a comment at Tamino’s Open Mind [sick] (http://tamino.wordpress)
where he is redoing the GHCN “global” [sicker] temperature series in ordert to rebut Anthony Watt’s and Joe d’Aleo’s saga on the disappearing thermometers in cold places.
“Sorry but I am not very impressed.
1. Data for 1880 to 1920 and even later are hardly representative of NH Africa and Asia.
2. NOAA raw trends since 1960 show Tmin rising and Tmax stable or even falling, and an average of 2 single point measurements is not very informative.
3. Inviting linear projection of trends of 0.0365 oC p.a. is as unwise with climate as it is with the Dow Jones! Projecting the Tmin and Tmax trends for Hilo (Hawaii) implies the nights will be hotter than the days in due course. Is that likely?
4. Why not use the NOAA data on average daytime temperatures? could it be because they are often trendless?
5. Use of anomalies as ever visually exaggerates by 100 what are really trivial changes. Why do it?”
Further to my (1), the point that escapes Tamino and his colleagues Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen is that again to use “global” temperature data for 1880 to 1900 as the baseline for showing “warming” since 1900 is unacceptable, even if worthy of Enron-type accounting (see great post today by Stephen McIntyre at his Climate Audit on the recent letter from Robert Bradley (ex-Enron) to Gerald North (ex Climate adviser to Bradley in Enron days, and now chief defender of Michael Mann of Penn State and hockey sticks and Phil Jones of CRU).
Tim,
Regarding your comment, “Use of anomalies as ever visually exaggerates by 100 what are really trivial changes. Why do it?”
I can offer a partial answer, but unfortunately, can’t recall or cite the source. Likely a statistician here can vindicate the point.
But the point was something like the following: if you keep a record of only the tallest and shortest children in elementary school, that is unlikely to tell you much about the rest of them.
From the point of view of information theory, this amounts to the deliberate introduction of ‘noise’ (a term of the art), out of which emanates a great deal of freedom to interpret ‘within the range’, and so forth.
Quite ghastly.
Tim – it appears to me that the increasing minimum temps is related to UHI effect where the concrete, bitumen and human development release the stored heat during the evening thus raising the min temp. As you said, the max temps (daytime) are stable or even falling so the whole concept of warming, and remember we are only talking about .7C over the century, can be directly attributed to UHI.
Oh – I forget to mention – Plus the Hansen fiddle – homogenisation or whatever they call it..
More whackoness on the way:
“MANILA, Philippines – Nobel Peace Prize Laureate and former US Vice President Al Gore is set to visit Manila in April to bring his urgent climate change message to top Philippine leaders.”
Stuuupendous!
Looks like Gore is reaching for a new demographic, or perhaps seeking a place where he’s less likely to be extradited for criminal behavior. Trouble is, global fraud can be prosecuted anywhere on the globe.
Of course, the denialist mantras continue. “The science regarding climate change is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming,” said Lisa Jackson, US EPA Administrator. When asked if new information would change her mind, she said, it wouldn’t lead to a “new conclusion”. (2)
There’s putative ‘good’ news of investigations on the climate fraudsters, even though they’re going after the small fish.
The Brit Met Office plans to ‘re-analyse’ ‘millions of observations dating back more than 150 years’. (3) Cretins. Analysis, corrupt and otherwise, has been the problem for decades. Just release the data — others will deal with the issues. (Though it would be fun to see more of the corrupted code.)
Of course, there’s those out for blood, and justly so. (4)
Then, there’s ‘climate porn’.
“Ofcom is to investigate the Government’s notoriously emotive ‘Drowning Dog’ prime time TV advertisements. Ad industry self-regulator the ASA is already conducting its own investigation of the ‘climate porn’ campaign.” (5)
“The taxpayer-funded advertisement features a father reading a bedtime story to his young daughter. The picture book comes to life, with a Carbon Monster engulfing a town; many cartoon animals are swept away in the resulting floods – which are the result of humans keeping the heating on and driving cars, the advertisement says.”
You can watch the video online. (6)
Don’t share the video with your children, please.
———–
1. Al Gore coming for new pitch on climate. Philippine Daily Inquirer. Feb. 25, 2010
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20100225-255267/Al-Gore-coming-for-new-pitch-on-climate
2. EPA Head: No Warming Since 1995 Doesn’t Mean Warming Isn’t Occurring. Prison Planet, Feb. 24, 2010,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/epa-head-no-warming-since-1995-doesnt-mean-warming-isnt-occurring.html
3. World’s temperature record to be re-analysed. The Independent (UK). Feb. 25, 2010.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/worlds-temperature-record-to-be-reanalysed-1909909.html
4. Investigate Climate Crimes. Investors Business Daily. Feb. 25, 2010.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522120
5. Ofcom probes TV climate porn: But too late to save Drowning Dog. The Register, Feb. 24, 2010.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/ofcom_drowning_dog_probe/
6. Video available at the link on footnote 5.
Luke your link to hamiltons article says the following ( capitals are my comments following the hamilton quotes…i’m not trying to shout)
Soon after AR4 appeared in early 2007, those familiar with the science began to say that as a result of the consensus process and the natural caution of scientists, the Fourth Assessment Report had seriously understated the risks from climate change, particularly in its selection of scenarios and its estimates of likely sea-level rise. SEA LEVELS HAVE APPARENTLY BEEN FALLING FOR A WHILE AND THERE IS CERTAINLY NO EVIDENCE FOR RAPID RISES…SO A LIE. INFACT ALMOST NTG THAT HAS BEEN PREDICTED HAS OCCURED YET?! (ie temp has been “static” or not statistically significant for the last decade or so?)
Rather than rehearse the evidence for these warnings, well known to those who follow the science, let me make mention of a number of developments in climate science that have been published or reported in the five months since the leaking of the Climategate emails. It is evidence that warming is more alarming than previously thought yet which has been buried in the avalanche of confected stories claiming that climate scientists have exaggerated.
We have just had the warmest decade on record. (duh, the temperature has been rising since the end of the LIA, we would expect this!!?…but tell that to all those suffering undue cold in the northern hemisphere since these leaked emails)
A new study concludes that an average warming of 3-4°C (which means 7-8°C on land), previously thought to be associated with carbon dioxide concentrations of 500-600 ppmv, is now believed to be associated with concentrations of only 360-420 ppmv, a range that covers the current concentration of 385 ppmv, rising at 2 ppmv per annum. If confirmed by further research, the implications of this are terrifying.
(THIS HAS TO BE BASED ON MODELS AND THE EVIDENCE FOR POSITIVE FEEDBACK AND HENCE MORE THAN A 1c INCREASE FOR A DOUBLING OF CO2 IS UNLIKELY…SO THIS “NEW SCIENCE” IS MORE OF THE SAME CRAP…..remember the real physics suggests around 1c for a doubling of Co2….without positive feedback)
While news reports allege glacial melting has been exaggerated, the best evidence is that the rate of disappearance of glaciers is accelerating. The University of Zurich’s World Glacier Monitoring Service reports that “new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades”. ( GIVEN THE WORLD IS WARMING DON T WE EXPECT MORE GLACIERS TO BE CONTRACTING THAN EXPANDING??!!)…NO MENTION OF COURSE OF THE OPPOSITE OCCURING with RECORD LEVELS OF SEA ICE ( ALSO UNDERESTIMATED BY THE IPCC BY 50% I READ LAST WEEK?!)
The rate of flow into the sea of Greenland and Antarctic glaciers is accelerating, adding to sea-level rise. This augments the evidence that IPCC cautiousness led to significant underestimation of the likely extent of sea-level rise in the 21st century. The East Antarctic ice-sheet, previously believed to be stable, has now begun to melt on its coastal fringes. The West Antarctic ice-sheet continues its rapid melt. ( WHAT IS THE TEMP FOR MOST OF THE YEAR DOWN THERE? -40c, AND IF SEA ICE HAS BEEN AT RECORD LEVELS HOW LIKELY IS WHAT HE SAYS TO BE ACTUALLY HAPPENING?)
Sharply rising temperature in the Arctic has, over the last five years, caused a rapid increase in the amount of methane being emitted from melting permafrost. The limit of the Arctic permafrost has retreated northwards by 130 kilometres over the last 50 years in the James Bay region of Canada…. YUP PROBABLY AS THE WORLD WARMS OF COURSE THIS WILL HAPPEN,
The fact also remains that the IPCC was established with a political purpose.
its boring going over the same old things over and over again, but if you believe as i do that it was warmer in the MWP and probably in the ,RWP and Minoan WP and that warmer is better than colder, the fact the world has warmed up is not such a bad thing.
If you also believe in human ingenuity as I do you would also believe that new technology is just around the corner and when its available we will be able to produce more energy without emitting CO2 and hence emissions will fall later in the century.
Whilst I am sceptical of much of the science, i am more worried that it is and will be used as a political tool that will do few people any good and cause immense harm to most.
” I agree that it’s great fun to poke fun at Luke, our residential village idiot, but it’s rather bad form.
Luke is a fictitious entity. It’s instructive to learn from Luke that the AGWers are foul-mouthed and intellectually vacuous, but it’s far better to share information on what’s going on.”
You are so right Schiller I should stop doing it..Its just too easy taking the piss out of a cowardly village idiot from Qld hidng behind a pseudonym
The moron has no idea about cause, effect and attribution.
Luke that link is also very intersting because most of the comments seem to be from people finding holes in what hamilton is saying. Have you read them? Hamilton has written an article that suits your bias
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
has an interesting graph of how much warmer it has been in the recent past, according to the greenland ice core data…..so should we worried that this decade is the hottest in teh last 150 years? I think not……
Hey Malcolm, you’re from SA? Me too, Wistow in the Adelaide hills. Maybe we could get together and NOT talk about Luke aver a glass of whatever.
Cheers.
Toby – do you really by now need answers to your long post and Hamilton comments ? You should know what the rebuttals would be off by heart.
Toby,
Thanks for the link to the interesting MWP graph and discussion.
Here’s a link for you: graphs covering the MWP from places all around the globe:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html
It truly was a global phenomenon!
There’s another graph available from NCDC/NOAA which covers the MWP, at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
They’re still using the Hockey Stick!
HAHAHAHAHA
Schiller, thx for that global map, pretty cool to look at!
I thought it was fascinating when Jones in his interview was asked “was the MWP global “and he said something along the lines of , ‘there are very few paleoclimate records from the southern hemisphere’…as if that then allowed the IPCC and others to make the claim that it was a northern hemisphere event.
I think given all the evidence from proxy data ( at times doubtful) and the written accounts it is highly likely that it was warmer then and also during the RWP AND Minoan WP.
Yes the NOAA graph does of course contradict this! I wonder which map Luke likes best!
Toby,
We know of course that Luke prefers an al-gore-rithm that generates hockey sticks from plain noise. NCDC/NOAA/NASA/IPCC/Hadley CRU/Penn State U/consensualists obviously agree.
After all they’re getting the mo$t dollar$ to produce thing$ that re$emble hockey $tick$.
Yeah, I’m not too hot on proxy measurements, with Briffa and Yamal, and Mann’s having to ‘hide the decline’ by pasting ‘cooked, fixed, and smoothed’ station data over the top of treemometers, and all that.
These days, you can trust climate data about as much as your friendly ‘climate credit’ broker.
Once you monetize crap, crap is what you get. Expensive crap, of course, or they’d be working a different job.
I’m a skeptic, but I’m still trying to encompass how things could be truly this wretched.
Schiller being an arch-denialist keeps reading his mantra from the coal-industry provided hymn sheet. Spreading the utter libellous horseshit that they were paid off to produce a result.
Toby you could well reflect that MacIntyre himself doesn’t know if the MWP was warmer than today. Doesn’t know !
Anyway let’s assume it was for arguments sake. The mega-droughts that impacted America, Africa and China of no concern? Perhaps a nice Euro-centric view of cathedral building is all one needs.
Well Walker in addition the information we are all waiting for on Plimer and Monckton ,viz
” Please show me references to where Plimer and Monckon have been as consistently and repeatedly rude and obnoxious as you have to the extent of repeatedly referring to people as denialist turds, arseholes and full of shit etc. ”
Please provide the evidence that Mcintrye doesnt know if the MWP was warmer than today.
You may start with this.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/jo-nova-finds-the-medieval-warm-period/
I expect this home work to handed up by end of class today as befits all good school boys.
I noticed just a few days ago Luke, that the Sahara has been becoming increasingly wetter and more arable since the 1970’s with the desert actually contracting not expanding. This i recall was completely the opposite of what the ipcc were saying and predicting?
Luke
Steve Mac recognizes that there were megadroughts during the MWP.
http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/06/underwater-in-the-sierra-nevadas/
Malcolm – he made the comment when the Craig Loehle stuff was doing the rounds …. you can choose to believe me or not – do i care.
Didn’t say Plimer or Moncko did – but plenty on here have extended that discourtesy to me – so when in Rome Malcolm….. I just morph your behaviour back at you….
Malcolm – he made the comment when the Craig Loehle stuff was doing the rounds …. you can choose to believe me or not – do i care.
Yes of course El Gordo – coz MacIntyre is a smart guy.
Didn’t say Plimer or Moncko did use expletives – but plenty on here have extended that discourtesy to me – so when in Rome Malcolm….. I just morph the group behaviour but as a warmist …. unlike others Malcolm I have not threatened anyone. And you would notice Malcolm that my on-line interaction with Toby is much less robust as he treats me far better.
Toby – better quote the IPCC ! Was said where ….
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/26/a-new-paper-comparing-ncdc-rural-and-urban-us-surface-temperature-data/#comments
As the auther says.. “the consequence of the NCDC’s protocol for adjusting the data is to cause historical data to take on the time line characteristics of urban data.The consequence intended or not, is to report a false rate of temperature increase for the contiguous USA.”
And earlier he says…. ” The temperatures due to nature itself ,at least within the contiguous USA, have increased at a non significant rate and do not appear to have any correspondence to the presence or lack of presence of carbon dioxide.”
Watch this with interest. The truth will out one way or tother..and it looks like the truth is slowly being exposed to some fresh air at last.
Perhaps most people would treat you differently if you began by not abusing them with your foul language and personal abuse just because they expressed a view you didnt like.
Many many decently expressed posts get an reaction from you that is just the pits and you know it because it has been your whole modus operandi, and done so from behind the shield of a pseudonym.
To try and weasel out of it by saying it has been a reactive response is pure and absolute b/s but then what else can you expect from a pseudonomous operator.
Malcolm, all,
Here’s a link to the paper:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf
The way they get a ‘global warming signal’ is to very slightly reduce temps for urban stations (to correct for UHI), and then exaggerate rural temperature rise by a factor of FIVE.
What rot.
For a while, the skeptics thought Climategate was big, and then came this…
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/022510_greeneconomy.pdf
It never was about climatology.
“Mott is streets ahead of you ..at least he did his homework and had a solid background to underpin his judgements..as well as being humorous.”
and
“Perhaps most people would treat you differently if you began by not abusing them with your foul language and personal abuse just because they expressed a view you didnt like.”
Malcolm,
I suggest you revisit the archives and familiarise yourself with Ian Mott’s blog diplomacy and excellent research skills. Your current view of such suggests you lack the ability to view contributions objectively.
As for pseudonyms, there are plenty on your side here who use them and I don’t see you complaining. It has been discussed over and over again and it is the same “side” that does the complaining yet partakes in exactly the same activity. If you want to be taken seriously (and I assume your posts are meant as such), then play fairly.
“The following information was printed in bold letters on the first page of my 93-page
extended summary report to the Stern Review An assessment of the likely consequences of
global warming on the climate of South Africa dated November 2005. It was ignored.
Continued global warming will NOT
• Pose a threat to water supplies
• Adversely affect agricultural production
• Increase the risk of floods and droughts
• Increase the spread of malaria
• Increase the eutrophication of water in dams
• Increase soil erosion
• Result in the loss of natural plant and animal species
• Result in desertification
There is no believable evidence to support these claims.
I rest my case!
Regards”
Read more at http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/IPCC_carcass.pdf
Thanks for that Schiller, and the Green Economy.The standard turgid prose of UN documents doesnt make for easy reading. I wonder where the $2bn estimate for Australia came from and who is responsible for it? …… One couldnt have any confidence that the UN will handle this any better than all that has gone before .
This reference on the Review of Pachauri’s position came from Andrew Bolts’ Blog.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7316758/IPCC-chief-Rajendra-Pachauri-to-face-independent-inquiry.html
I dont care what other people like Hamilton and Flannery et al might say about Bolt, at least he is doing his job as an excellent and incisive journalist.
As a case in point this reference indicates that commons sense may be about to erupt, and they may move to replace Pachauri, and do a top down over haul of how this shameful organisation has been allowed to operate. This is important information.
Perhaps the reviewers may even contemplate instituting some best practice standards,and proper management protocols…. but that could be pushing the expectation too far.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/12882
The Walls Of Anthropogenic Warming Come Crashing Down
Published by AJStrata at 7:46 am under
Another Ian,
Surely, you realize that the IPCC has identified its abject failure to prove the bullet points identified in your summary report to be ‘minor misunderstandings’.
Hahaha. And the ‘look around you and you will see it’ argument is looking stupider all the time.
Malcolm,
Your wondering “where the $2bn estimate for Australia came from and who is responsible for it” is not much of a poser, and likely a low estimate. You consider the co$t of $wirly light bulb$, and the carbon credit$ that could be generated from imposing a carbon tax on your coal exports, and a few other thing$, and you can quickly count up the billion$ which many hope to reap from Global Green Governance.
This was never about the atmosphere, or the global temperature.
Well Malcolm
Perhaps I would treat you differently if you began by not abusing me with your personal abuse just because I expressed a view you didnt like.
To try and weasel out of it by saying it your case if holier than thou is pure and absolute b/s but then what else can you expect from a pseudonomous operator. Who’s M Hill anyway – never heard of him?
So Mal – where do you get off libeling scientists you don’t know and spreading total misinformation from crap sources ? You lot really are indiscriminate in your conduct.
1. Malcolm Hill is my real name
….and yours is?
2. I will make comment back on things I disgree with. It called Freedom of Speech
3. Whether or not it is ” misinformation from crap sources” is a matter of opinion.
4. Based upon what we now know it is clear of lot of the so called science is also a source of crap.
5. What ever my faults at least I am not hiding behind the skirt of a pseudonym.
McIntyre cuts the mustard!
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf
I wouldn’t read it if I were you Luke – you may be embarrassed.
Hottest on record – pigs arse!
Oh so common!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pig's%20arse
http://www.nicholsoncartoons.com.au/rubbery.php
http://www.mp3.com.au/Track.asp?id=127395
hey Gavin
Hmmmm..now what was that about crap science.
Please read some of the submissions to the UK Govt to the Parliamentary Select Committee from:eg
Warwick Hughes
Benny Peiser
UK Met Office
UEA Vice Chancellor Memorandum to the Select Committee
….together with the McIntyre Climate Audit report of the UEA dated Feb 10th referenced by janama above.
What an absolutely disgraceful situation.
Perhaps this thread will win a Guiness record or something?
I see Baghdad Bob is still defending the AGW regime, even as it collapses around him.
I think the question for folks to answer is this:
Who has more credibility?
Luke and pals, or the Institute of Physics?
What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.
2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.
3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:
· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and
· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.
4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.
5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.
6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ’self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.
7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.
8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.
9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.
Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?
10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.
11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.
12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.
How independent are the other two international data sets?
13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.
The Institute of Physics, with worldwide membership of 36,000, has just submitted (Feb 27, 2010) a memorandum to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee of British Parliament in response to its inquiry into ‘Climategate’.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm
Marvelous quote therefrom:
“However, most of the [Hadley CRU ‘leaked’ etc.] e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.”
Beauty.
Its a pretty significant statement thats for sure. I hope the main stream media run with this, so much of what we have been saying is vindicated by this statement alone.
A big thank you to Janama and Hunter for the links and info. It is now completely clear and unequivocal that the researchers involved in the climategate scandal ceased being “scientists” several years ago and have been using their “research” purely for advocacy purposes based on personal ideologies.
I’m afraid that pure science has been infiltrated by activists who embark on a science career path with the aim of using their qualifications for the promotion of their personally biased world view.
On an encouraging note, my son was at a Uni party last night as a volunteer “harm minimalisationist” and listened in to a conversation where a small group were discussing climategate and recent IPCC issues. They were all quite scathing of recent events and commented that it’s not getting out to the MSM.
I guess you really can only “fool some of the people some of the time”.
In Luke’s case however, we have to make an exception eh?
Folks,
Whilst we have a lull in the news this weekend, perhaps it’s time for a bit of comedy.
Check out “Watch how the greenhouse effect works.”,
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/energy/site/EIZInfogr9.asp
Fun and clever little animation that helps prove how using energy is smothering us in a blanket of warmth!
The UK Science Museum was founded in 1857.
From the same source, some weed-huggers and others speculate about the Doom of Earth:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/climatecalculations/
hehe. Look at the URL. ‘climatecalculations’? It is to laugh. One of the ‘calculations’ is a greenie preparing to deliver French kisses (there is a more accurate term) to some floral weeds.
One remarkable aspect of this whole climate thing is the vast number of people who do and say goofy, stupid, erroneous, and outrageously odd things on behalf of AGW and don’t feel embarrassed in the least. The Brits call it ‘eccentrism’, and even admire it as a prized aspect of culture. But something like AGW goes well beyond that.
Here we go again. Yet more evidence of things not being as they originally were so keen to portray.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/spencer-spurious-warming-demonstrated-in-cru-surface-data/
Do you just love Spencer’s concluding remark.
“It is increasingly apparent that we do not even know how much the world has warmed in recent decades, let alone the reason(s) why. It seems to me we are back to square one.”
It seem also that janamas, “ pig arse” is entirely appropriate
Malcolm,
The levels of cold, snow and ice we currently have Up North is being contrasted to satellite records showing an unusually warm January for the planet.
Some are blaming the Northern Hemisphere experience on a North Atlantic Oscillation event.
Do you, or others, have any thoughts on this?
For those few of you who don’t regularly visit Morano’s site, here is a long but compelling article that you might find interesting.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/climate-change-%E2%80%93-the-clash-of-theories-by-professor-will-alexander/
Derek,
Have a read of the following blog post by a scientist – seems we are dealing with Post Normal Science and Mike Hulme is in the thick of it, as is the IPCC etc. Science has indeed been hijacked by the political activists as are our universities and educational system. It’s Lysenkoism in other words.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
Back in 2007 I noted some highly questionable commenting shenanigans at HotCopper, “Australia’s most popular stock-market internet discussion site”.
From RF Beck:
“A HotCopper commenter has now been found guilty of defamation:
Legal counsel Martin Bennett has a short message for those who allow themselves to attack reputations over the internet, imagining they are safe under the cloak of anonymity. ”You can be hunted down and found,” he said yesterday.
Mr Bennett has done just that for a Perth client, winning $30,000 in damages and costs, an apology, and undertakings from a Colac man that he won’t post any more defamatory comments.
Oops!”
So wotcher Luke,
Schiller Thurkettle
Bookmark the AO Daily Index for a clearer understanding of what’s happening.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
We know that a negative AO and weak El Nino will bring snow and ice to the continental US.
It’s the Post Normal Science.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027748/the-real-reason-for-agw-post-normal-science/
Check the cartoon at
http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/02/cartoon-by-josh-oh-joy-scientific-body.html
Louis,
Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, or bizarre, or frankly f**ked up! I couldn’t read the whole article, it was too depressing. I’m just a simple science teacher and this “real world” you are showing me is just too scary.
Then Spangled gives us a link about the same stuff!
How come I’ve never heard about this stuff before? I’m sure even Luke would be appalled.
I think I’ll go read some comics, at this point fiction is much more appealing than fact.
I really think it’s time I should out myself – Janama was a skin name given to me by an old Aboriginal Sharman named Scotty Birrell in the Kimberly. I recently heard on Maccas Australia all over radio show he is still alive which would make him 89 which is amazing for an old guy like him. I classed it an honour to be given a name from the last of the great Sharmans so I used it as my web name in all the climate change discussions.
My real name is John Sayers. I design recording studios and have been a music producer for most of my 64 years.
So Luke – you can see why I posted Come Said the Boy as a relative song the AGW as I produced it.
http://johnlsayers.com
John Sayers,
Amaxing, all this time I thought Janama was a girls name, I’ll never think about you the same way again.
John Sayers,
Amazing, all this time I thought Janama was a girls name, I’ll never think about you the same way again.
I’m not sure I could handle some of the ways you may have thought about me then 🙂
That’s interesting Derek – we do reference women differently than men.
wow – the software won’t allow me to post as John Sayers
try again
janama-John Sayers,
that’s very interesting. I recently helped my son build a recording studio under his house [you could probably find a lot wrong with it] but it keeps him very occupied spending all his spare time as an amateur producer.
Hopefully it doesn’t upset the neighbours too much.
John Sayers,
What’s a sharman? A sort of spiritual healer?
Congratulations to John but not everyone should “come out” completely.
My main excuse has always been that my musings here could cramp the good work of another, a close relative who because of our rather memorable surname would be horrified at the thought of any interference from retired seniors who still get out on a limb over issues.
The other is my habit of personal campaigns to various institutions that may at times change a media response to acute political problems. However one can never be sure even as late as last week that it wasn’t simply their timely change of tactics in the face of general feedback when some great minds think alike.
I was also reminded in a review program last week that one of my old campaign tactics went horribly wrong. Influencing PS policy & jobs should be the least of our concern.
On another note I listened to a discussion on RN about the often anomous review process that passes in science circles before papers are published. In this interview the comments were about dodgy medical science and occasional fraud that gets through the usual barriers as a direct result of slack routines developing in closed publisher groups.
In my ramblings elsewhere I have a lot to say about the way good practice develops with out resource to rigorous application of old standards. Flexibility is the key word when dealing with a mess in any situation.
Measuring chaos in nature is a very young science. We can learn to run with what rhythm persists, but reliable products are most likely to come from extensive collaboration in the field. A sharman would just know how it was
Visionary, poet, and Nobel laureate Al Gore has returned from his mountain retreat at an undisclosed location to intone a new prophecy of doom and destruction:
Gore A. We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change. New York Times, February 27, 2010. Available at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28gore.html
Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.
and
The lags in the global climate system, including the buildup of heat in the oceans from which it is slowly reintroduced into the atmosphere, means that we can create conditions that make large and destructive consequences inevitable long before their awful manifestations become apparent: the displacement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees, civil unrest, chaos and the collapse of governance in many developing countries, large-scale crop failures and the spread of deadly diseases.
Thus saith our Green Messiah:
From the standpoint of governance, what is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption.
Yea, verily, I say unto ye: if ye would be redeemed, bend your necks under the yoke of Green Regulation, knowing that ye suffer in a Noble Cause, to help me go to and fro, and up and down upon the Earth, (1) to spread the doctrines which have been revealed unto me.
————-
1. Bible, Old Testament, Job 1:7, http://bible.cc/job/1-7.htm
Folks,
I’ve tried twice to post here. The first was perhaps rejected because of too many weblinks. After I took out each and every one, it was still rejected.
Does anyone here have a sense of the software rules?
JD Wiley
I seem to have missed your previous post, or it was one of those that apears long after the Send button has been pressed.
It obviously has slipped your notice but there is vast dfifference between the blogger known as Luke, and Ian Mott
Ian Mott is his real name, and Ian Mott has a web site and one can take up matters of interest with him directly.
Playing fair also involves proportions and balance .
John/Janama,
I pictured you as a 30 something female university graduate, probably with honors, possibly PHD in some unspecified science area. You came across as relatively young and energetic/enthusiastic (which makes sense if you’re into music in a big way). You may be relieved to know that my images of you in no way contained anything of a sexual nature.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if we were all to meet one day, I’m sure everyone would be very surprised.
Cheers, Derek (my real name) Smith.
Wild imagination is no substitute for facts hey Derek
Curse this rain, it never stops. Nearly 20 inches for Feb.
I heard on “our ABC” this morning where the CSIRO were at it again telling farmers that it ain’t gonna rain no more and that doom is nigh. I don’t think they were in Birdsville but Luke might be able to fill us in on the details.
BTW Luke, d’ya still think that raising the Wivenhoe wall by 50 feet and trebling capacity like they just did at the Hinze is a dumb idea? Nah! well