Metres of Sea-Level Rise: Climate Commissioner

WILL Steffen is the executive director of the Australian National University Climate Change Institute and also a member of the Australian Climate Commission. This is the Climate Commission established to provide all Australians with an independent and reliable source of information about the science of climate change. This is the same Professor Steffan who, you may remember, sort of fudged hot day data for western Sydney [1].

My name is Mr Koala and I’ve been reading the latest contribution from this professor who is paid to provide me with an independent and reliable source of information on climate change.

He has a piece in today’s national newspaper, The Australian. It’s really scary! Professor Steffan tell us:

“Scientists have painted a clear picture of the risks from failing to act on climate change. The natural world would experience the sixth great extinction event in Earth’s history, coral reefs would almost completely disappear, and we would be facing metres of sea-level rise as oceans continue to warm and polar ice sheets melt and disintegrate.”

Ouch. Nemo!

“Over the past decade Victorians have seen a window into that possible future in their own backyard.

The 2009 heat wave in Melbourne caused 374 excess deaths as well as triggering disruptions to electricity supplies and transport systems. The Black Saturday bushfires caused more deaths and significant amounts of physical and psychological suffering.”

Then the professor went on about drought.

I have been under the bed all day: hiding from climate change.

Jen has just pushed this new letter under for me to read:

Dear Prof. Steffen

You write in The Australian…

“The Big Dry of 1997-2009 put severe pressure on Melbourne’s water supply and damaged the state’s agricultural production, leading to an 80 per cent drop in grain production and a 40 per cent reduction in livestock production in the Wimmera Southern Mallee region.

There is strong evidence that climate change influenced the extreme events Victorians experienced over the past decade. Without effective action on climate change, we can expect more such damaging weather and climate events in the future, and they will likely become more severe.”

Can I ask what evidence you are citing here? As an active climate researcher I am unaware of any evidence for ‘climate change’ influencing the recent drought. Even without ‘action’ on climate change we can expect more damaging weather and climate events, occasionally more severe than before.

Are you able to cite any science or is this afterall, just your opinion?

Best wishes, Stewart

A/Prof Stewart W. Franks
University of Newcastle

Ouch.

 

*************************************
1. Basil Beamish for Climate Commissioner, May 18th, 2012. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/basil-beamish-for-climate-commissioner/

, ,

174 Responses to Metres of Sea-Level Rise: Climate Commissioner

  1. bazza July 23, 2012 at 3:56 pm #

    The climate has changed and it has changed climate variability, says lots of evidence. You can have your opinion, but devalue it if you refuse to engage and provide your evidence that it hasn’t. But dont forget, it is a low powered test statistically if variability is high and the period of record is short.

  2. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 4:05 pm #

    I know Mr Koala,
    I’m also actually cringing at the cheek of this man.
    Fancy making such an obvious political move and then pretending it has something to do with ‘science’ ?
    Bazza has made a good point and I hope he has made you feel a little bit better.
    The tests are very low powered statistically and they are therefore really ‘pretty stupid’ like Jen said earlier.
    Yet still we have Prof Steffen trying to frighten nice koalas like you.
    Maybe you could also ask him for his koalafications?

  3. Neville July 23, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

    I’ll try again Bazza, try to engage using all the models. Sorry I’ve only included 99% of the planet’s ice. 90% of that ice volume from the models is negative for SLR. Do you understand?

    Alright Bazza for the zillionith time using all the models on SLR for both Greenland and Antarctica. That’s 99% of the planets ice until 2300.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    Explain how the positive Greenland (10%) and the negative Antarctica (89%) can lead to dangerous SLR?

    This is using all the models so beloved by Luke and yourself and covering the next 300 years.

  4. Dennis Webb July 23, 2012 at 4:17 pm #

    Bazza, please provide said “lots of evidence”. D.

  5. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 4:53 pm #

    Dennis,
    I’m also trying to figure out when Dr Jennifer Marohasy or anyone else had a fundamental disagreement with this particular statement from Bazza:
    ‘The climate has changed and it has changed climate variability, says lots of evidence.’
    Yet he must think she has because he then says:
    You can have your opinion, but devalue it if you refuse to engage and provide your evidence that it hasn’t.
    Did Dr Jennifer Marohasy claim that the climate hasn’t changed or that climate variabilty isn’t involved as a consequence of that?
    Maybe Bazza may need to provide the evidence for that claim first?
    Because if that’s not what Dr Jennifer Marohasy has claimed, why would she need to supply evidence?

  6. bazza July 23, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    The climate has changed and it has changed climate variability, says lots of AGW evidence . Extreme heat anomalies covered less than 0.2% of the globe over the period from 1951-80. But 2006 to 2011 extremes covered from 4-13%. Temperatures are not just warmer, they are more variable. ( As in New Scientist 7 July 2012 and from Hansen). A lot of data and a long period of record are usually necessary to check that variability has changed. And the less variable the data the easier it is to show change. Put simply absence of evidence of increased variability is not evidence of absence.

  7. Dennis Webb July 23, 2012 at 5:15 pm #

    quoting Mr Koala here
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/05/trends-hot-days-west-of-sydney/
    That period 1951 to 1980 corresponds exactly to cool year period.
    The other lots of evidence please. D.

  8. bazza July 23, 2012 at 5:22 pm #

    Dennis, west of Sydney is not the globe. And how many La Ninas were in the last decade?

  9. Debbie July 23, 2012 at 6:14 pm #

    That is correct Bazza,
    West of Sydney is most definitely not the globe. I don’t believe anyone claimed it was…not even Mr Koala… (although our climate commissioners certainly tried to relate it that way)
    Looks like you might need to explain to Prof Steffen that Victoria is not the rest of the globe either.
    Also, thankyou for inserting the very important missing part of your original statement:
    ‘says lots of AGW evidence’ as opposed to the original ‘says lots of evidence’
    But Bazza? What does this one prove or disprove?
    ‘Put simply absence of evidence of increased variability is not evidence of absence.’
    In what way can this help or even be practically or credibly applied to a statistical extrapolation about SLR (among others)?

  10. Otter July 23, 2012 at 6:32 pm #

    Oh My God, bazz quotes Hansen…..

  11. Chris Gillham July 23, 2012 at 6:38 pm #

    Has the 1896 heatwave that claimed 437 lives in NSW (Australia’s seventh deadliest disaster) become irrelevant?

    Or the 1893 floods still regarded as Australia’s worst-ever? Or the melting Arctic, shrinking glaciers and 100 years of rising temperatures that were extensively reported in the 1940s and 1950s? Or the weather bureau temperatures reported by the Press in those days being mysteriously warmer than BoM raw records?

    It’s worth reading newspaper reports from the 1800s up to the 1950s to get a proper perspective on modern reports about warming climate and extreme weather … http://www.waclimate.net/climate-history.html

  12. Luke July 23, 2012 at 6:46 pm #

    How did the bear get out of the garden and change its T-shirt. And why does the bear live under the bed – it needs to be loved. Unless it was checking for reds under the bed.

  13. Neville July 23, 2012 at 7:29 pm #

    Geeezzz Bazza and what about all the models and SLR for the next 300 years? Why were sea levels higher 4,000 years ago after the higher temps of the holocene optimum?

    Why is the holocene the coolest interglacial for the last 500,000 years?

  14. bazza July 23, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    so Nev, what is your estimate of climate sensitivity?
    Debbie, reread what Dennis said!

  15. Ian Thomson July 23, 2012 at 8:51 pm #

    Given that the Sun has gone a bit haywire just now, to say the least and that the effect on Earth seems to be bringing wild swings in jetstreams and the bombardment is shaking up the crust, perhaps we may ( possibly ) see an extinction or two.
    IF we went into a little ice age the last thing we would want is a lack of reliable electricity. Which could maybe be the difference between life and death if the Sun went behind a volcanic cloud and or, it went hot , or cold, suddenly, for a season.
    I would suggest that the chances of this are way higher than the chances of huge SLR.

    So, if we are planning for SLR on no evidence , why not plan for a real historically precedented disaster? That would not involve shutting down coal fired power stations.

    When the Thames next freezes over, (as one day it will) , the first mass extinction will be Green Loonies, who will suddenly discover a new identity with warm fires, electric heating and food from heated greenhouses, where the atmosphere is at 1200ppm of CO2.

  16. Ian George July 23, 2012 at 9:56 pm #

    Well said, Chris.
    We could add the 1851 Victorian bushfires which destroyed 5 million hectares, almost 25% of Victoria. Melbourne’s temp that day on 6th Feb was 117F (47.2C).
    Then there’s Cyclone Mahini in 1899 which killed some 400 people.
    How about Oodnadatta’s temp of 50.7C in 1960 or Australia’s longest heatwave of 160 days of 100F at Marble Bar in 1923-24.
    Didn’t Amundsen sail through the NW passage in the early 1900s? Can’t do that today in a 45 tonne fishing boat.
    And all without buckets of that nasty CO2.

  17. Neville July 23, 2012 at 10:28 pm #

    Bazza define what you mean by climate sensitivity.

    How can anyone take any notice of the loopy pronouncements of Flannery and Steffen. Last year our recent drought was not caused by AGW but this year somehow it is. Of course our co2 tax won’t change the climate or temp by a whisker.

    By purchasing fake credits from overseas for untold billions we hope to save 160 million tonnes of co2 by 2020, yet China, India etc are now emitting 1 billion tonnes more co2 every year.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/steffen_again_blames_the_warming_he_last_year_cleared/#commentsmore

  18. Mr Koala July 23, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    Dear Luke

    Sometimes I like to be in the garden and sometimes I like to spend time under the bed.

    Its been cold the past week in Noosa, so Ive been under the bed.

    I wish that imaginary global warming would come along soon and warm things up a bit.

    All the hot air from politicians and their helpers, is bearly enough to keeep us warm.

    Can you knit me a blanket please Luke?

    Mr Koala.

  19. Robert July 23, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

    Chris and Ian, the Chinese are cautious and not at all in love with their own historic temp recreations – which is a good sign – but they are of the opinion that China now is hotter than during most of the last millennium, that long cold phases occurred in the seventeenth and earlier nineteenth centuries…and that their hottest era may have coincided with our MWP, with ups and downs as in our MWP.

    Because there’s so much written history, periods of weak monsoon have been related to dynastic stresses and even collapses, though one would want to tread carefully there – one can’t put everything down to weather. Certainly, the flowering of the very high civilisation of the Northern Song coincided with the beginning of Europe’s MWP. Abundant summer rains over many decades made a lot of things possible.

    Their 1887 Yellow River flood is certainly the all time benchmark for “extreme”. I wonder if the people throwing that word about have much connection to the human and natural past.

  20. bazza July 24, 2012 at 8:24 am #

    Well, I never, Suncorp has changed their reinsurance policy from small to large events. Maybe they have an opinion they are more frequent?
    As fo Neville doing a Debby and a Jen replying to a question with a question, Nev asked “What do I mean by climate sensitivity?”. Nev, what do you mean by mean?

  21. Neville July 24, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    Bazza can’t respond to anything I ask, so here’s Pielke Snr on climate sensitivity.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/28/missing-the-major-point-of-what-is-climate-sensitivity/

    See paragraph highlighted for emphasis.

  22. Neville July 24, 2012 at 9:14 am #

    At least Roger Jones made an attempt to answer “the Bolt” question.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/yes_roger_gillard_is_indeed_disappointed/#commentsmore

    But the number is so ludicrous Gillard etc doesn’t dare to mention it or repeat it.
    If this isn’t the most barking mad tax in our country’s history then what is?

    Our entire power generation is to be turned upside down at a cost of countless billions $ for decades, involving the fraudulent purchase of useless pieces of paper that can’t change the climate or temp at all.
    Sorry those fraudulent purchases of a tiny 5% of 1% of 0.01% of the atmosphere will probably begin as computer code . the certificates of credit can then be printed as required.

  23. Max July 24, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Were we, the taxpayers, paying for Mr Steffen when he penned his ‘opinion’?

  24. Neville July 24, 2012 at 9:41 am #

    Max the answer is YES plus flannery etc and all types of other delusional galahs.

    BTW new study finds that co2 definitely follows temp but by a few hundred years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/#more-67994

  25. Robert July 24, 2012 at 9:50 am #

    First it was Woolies and Coles. Now Suncorp has won admirers on the Green Left!

    It’s heartening to know that, in the struggle to adapt to and even manipulate green lunacy, no supermarket duopoly or massive insurance company will be left behind.

  26. Another Ian July 24, 2012 at 10:15 am #

    FYI


    Alice Springs – Plumbers flat out during record cold

    “Burst water pipes all over town are keeping local plumbers busy as a new cold weather record is set in Alice Springs (Australia),” says this article by Emma Sleath.

    http://iceagenow.info/2012/07/alice-springs-plumbers-flat-record-cold/

  27. lurker passing through, laughing July 24, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    we know sea levels are rising dangerously because…..because …….because some really smart people who really worked really hard really mean it when they say sea levels are rising dangerously, even as we listen to Mr. Koala.
    They are rising because everyone knows subsidence and erosion are just denialist plots to help pretend Hitler was not so bad. And of course the smart guys know that just because the records indicate sea levels are not rising much, it is because the denialists are tricking those tidal gauges and satellites because the denialists hate their children and ‘specially their grandchildren.
    In fact, there is a denialist plan to have a giant grandchildren summer camp at the beach just when the sea levels jump up metres and metres so they do not have to drive out on Sunday and pick them up and hear them whining for chips all the way home.

  28. kuhnkat July 24, 2012 at 12:47 pm #

    I think Mr. Koala should write Jacques Cousteau and find out about building undersea habitats. Then he is covered whichever way the sea level actually goes!!!

    Yes little Lukey, smart Koalas always check for WATERMELONS under the bed!! If they find one they don’t have to cook dinner!!

  29. Debbie July 24, 2012 at 11:19 pm #

    Here you go Mr Koala,
    This may help to ease your fears.
    I’m sorry it won’t do anything much to warm you up though.
    This one looks at those ‘assumptions’ that our climate commissioners use and that others keep making and then putting in those models.
    It’s not statistics for a change.

    Of course I’m assuming it’s still OK to call physics ‘science’ ?

    Gerlich and Teuscher

    Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.

    International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364

    World Scientific Publishing Co.

    There is a freely available post-print version 4.0 from the preprint server of the Cornell University :

    http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

  30. Luke July 25, 2012 at 12:00 am #

    Now Debbie seeing you’re just learning how to find things – see how long it takes you to also find the rebuttals to that ! As an exercise in open scholrship. Then you’ll know what we’d say before we say it. How cool would that be. (it’s old news anyway Debs – zzzzz)

  31. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 7:24 am #

    Really Luke?
    Don’t tell me a published, peer reviewed science article has been refuted?
    Surely not.

  32. Luke July 25, 2012 at 7:49 am #

    Well if you want to reach black belt level grasshopper you have to learn about the great try-ons. You have been telling me peer review isn’t perfect but it does mean dross will get nailed more quickly (on both sides). As an example I refer you to this rebuttal on our celebrity sceptics – http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012960.shtml has to hurt ! You see the system self-corrects.

  33. Luke July 25, 2012 at 7:51 am #

    You would also note the ducking of the mainstream journals with such an important discovery. This should ring some alarm bells for you. Although sceptics would say it’s a closed club – well they would wouldn’t they?

  34. Mike July 25, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    This from twitter:

    @ScotClimate: Scottish Government found to have lied on key figure. Is the Scottish Climate Bill dead?. Will the minister resign? http://bit.ly/OwkVl1

    The Scottish government lied to politicians about key financial data which was central to the argument for the bill when they passed the Scottish Climate Change Bill. The government citing Stern said that the economic cost of a 2-3°C rise would be “between 5-20% of GDP”. In fact Stern suggests there may not be any net economic harm quoting figures of 0-3%

    The figures are so key to justifying the bill, that it really is difficult to see how this bill could withstand a legal challenge.

    … but the scandal gets worse. The Scottish paper (The Courier) which broke this story seems to have been lent on to remove the story. Presumably by someone in government.

    This is about as bad as we can get. It appears the world’s most enthusiastic government for climate change is now embroiled in lies & cover-up.

  35. Mack July 25, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Mike,
    My name is Mack,—Scottish ? you bet. Here I was thinking the Scottish were canny and wise…..yet you’ve got people living in sodding Glasgow and Edinbourgh still believing in AGW!. :)

  36. kuhnkat July 25, 2012 at 9:36 am #

    Debbie,

    The G&T paper really put the finger up the noses of Little Lukey and his ilk. Real Mathematicians and Physcis types contradicting their mythology was too much to take. A few mid level morons a little smarter than Little Lukey took a swing at the paper and fanned out.

    G&T took on the range of Gorebull Warming Mythology. The debunked all of them. Little Lukey’s people selected one of the Myths that were not accepted by the mainline scientists and “proved” that G&T were not addressing THEIR theory!!! Gee, that must have been really difficult!!

    G&T also threw cold water on the idea that the GISS, HADCRUT, or NOAA temperature series were really meaningful (assuming they were done correctly). This really PO’ed Lukey’s team and they went ballistic over that and alledgedly proved G&T wrong again.

    Well, I think you can see that Little Lukey’s claim that G&T was taken down is just a wee bit of hubris. G&T is a solid piece of work that they haven’t been able to scratch without their usual distractions and strawmen arguments!!

    As far as the global average temp I think I can give you an idea of the problems. To compute an average where the law of large numbers is meaningful what is being averaged must be the same thing. That is, if you compute the mileage of a fleet of Ford Focus taxis and include Boeing 747′s in the numbers you aren’t getting a meaningful result.

    If you compute the average temperature of all the pools in Los Angeles the Law of Large Numbers does not help because you can’t be measuring the same thing. That is, if you use the same instrument you won’t be able to measure the temp in all the pools at the same time. if you use instruments that have been calibrated to a certain level of accuracy to each other you can measure at the same time but you then have to include the error bars from the range of instruments. You STILL aren’t measuring the same thing because the conditions surrounding the different pools are different. That is, some pools may have a tree or house… shadowing it. Some pools will be black bottomed to absorb more solar and reduce heating bills etc. The only time the Law of Large Numbers helps is if you are measuring the same pool multiple times close together in the same spot.

    Climatologists want us to believe that you can average temperatures taken by different types of instruments in at different pressures, humidities, winds etc. and the Law of Large Numbers will increase the accuracy. BS!!! They also totally ignore that the temp is pretty much meaningless when it is actually the ENERGY we need to know so not having the humidity and pressure means we really aren’t measuring a useable metric.

    G&T was right there also and Little Lukey and friends are, as usual, full of it!! Hope this helps.

    Oh yes, G&T have never withdrawn their paper or made any substantial corrections. They are right and the Climatologists are wrong as our continuing lack of a Hotspot, Strat cooling, or other “fingerprints” quite simply show!! Lukey and the rest are simply protecting their incomes even though it damages everyone else. They are such open loving people huh??

  37. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 9:38 am #

    Luke,
    While I admit that I’m not the best ‘finder’….I can’t find a published, peer reviewed rebuttal of the paper.
    You said there were rebuttals available….do you mind sending me the link?
    Also….isn’t that journal a reputable journal for Physics?
    I thought it was?

  38. Neville July 25, 2012 at 9:47 am #

    Here’s a good debate between Schlesinger and Christy about climate change.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCGlcAfxNjI&feature=relmfu

    Christy is very convincing and very forensic, His info on Greenland over the last 10,000 years is very interesting.

    This comes in 8 parts but is well worth watching. Christy easily shows that reducing co2 emissions just doesn’t work and can’t make a zip of a difference.

    In facts from an aussie point of view it’s laughable.

  39. kuhnkat July 25, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    Debbie,

    So you can appreciate it from the Horses aahhh, mouth, here is a link to one of the authors’ blogs that links the ARXIV preprint:

    http://duoquartuncia.blogspot.com/2010/05/early-in-2009-unusual-paper-appeared-in.html

    You will see why Little Lukey is hesitant to show it!!

  40. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 10:50 am #

    I found this Luke,
    http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979210055573
    But the paper that it refers to seems to have been withdrawn under that Peer review process you mentioned earlier.

  41. Luke July 25, 2012 at 12:22 pm #

    Debbie – you know you’ve touched a raw nerve when you get more than a two sentence quip from the kuknkat personage.

    Debbie every time you get a silver bullet paper (this is it ! nail in the coffin, this sinks AGW once and for all ! etc) you check the usual places Realclimate or RC wiki, Deltoid, Open Mind, Rabett, James Annan, Science of Doom, Chris Colose, Skeptical Science

    It’s not that hard. But be careful you don’t start to loose faith in the “word of sceptics”. It’s what they don’t tell you normally. What’s left out.

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=G._Gerlich_and_R._D._Tscheuschner

    And of course you’ll expect rebuttals on the rebuttals on the rebuttals.

    You’ll also notice most of the sceptic haunts spend their lives yelling fraud. There’s actual genteel discussion and learnings to be had on other non-AGW sites.

    Compare what you get here – little discussion – and Neville’s press clipping service with “fraud” attached.

    So don’t take anyones word for it- including mine – be TRULY sceptical.

  42. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 12:27 pm #

    Thanks Khunkat,
    I’m not clear why Luke would be hesitant to show it?
    What I have noticed however is that the paper still stands and at least one rebuttal (under the peer reviewed process) has been withdrawn.
    Of course…there may be more information that I am not aware of….as I know that my ‘ net surfing skills’ are not wonderful.
    I am unclear why Luke keeps bouncing between ‘old hat out of date’ (with the attendant zzzzzz) and ‘it doesn’t matter if it’s not up to date’.
    I’m finding that particularly confusing because the stuff I would expect to be up to date (like statistical work) is the stuff he says doesn’t matter if it’s out of date….. and the stuff I thought doesn’t often go out of date (like basic physical properties of elements and compounds) he seems to imply does have to be updated or maybe can just be ignored as unimportant?
    I get it when a new particle or a new breakthrough happens in the world of physics (like the recent breakthrough re the God particle).
    But the rest of that mindset is very confusing.
    That’s why I’m finding Jen’s discussion on the ability of the oceans to store heat very interesting.
    There truly does seem to be some sort of discrepancy between the hypothesis and the known physical properties of water.

  43. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 1:08 pm #

    Oops!
    Looks like we cross posted Luke?
    Looks like I may have found the rebuttal of that rebuttal piece?
    Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t the rabbet run article withdrawn under the peer review process?
    As I was searching earlier I remember seeing that reported.
    I agree that the language used in this debate is unscientific on both sides.
    (IMHO) That’s because most of the arguments (on both sides) are not about scientific evidence.
    I also don’t believe that what people are arguing over is ‘the science’. They are arguing over the use, the credibiltyand interpretation of the statistical projections.
    When the politics and the stats are removed, most scientists agree on the basic physical/chemical/geological/biological properties of elements, compounds & etcetera.
    It is exciting when new info becomes available such as the ‘god particle’.

  44. Robert July 25, 2012 at 1:11 pm #

    Just wander over to the re-education camps at RC, SS, Tamino etc for some genteel discussion and learning.

    Good try, warmie.

  45. Neville July 25, 2012 at 1:37 pm #

    Debbie and others, have a look at the debate mentioned above.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCGlcAfxNjI&feature=relmfu

    Christy has checked all the data and he’s an expert on the satellite temp data etc. His info on Greenland is very interesting and his graphs tell a story that applies to this post. i. e. warming for thousands of years on Greenland in the earlier holocene.

    Perhaps even metres of SLR and all natural and nothing that could be blamed on humans.

  46. sp July 25, 2012 at 2:14 pm #

    Mentioning climate change is a sure fire way to obtain funding for:

    Physiology
    Civil Engineering
    Public Health and Health Sciences
    Political Science
    Psychology
    Sociology
    Journalism and Professional Writing
    Literary Studies
    Historical Studies

    http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2012/07/climate-change-where-you-d-least-expect-it

  47. Luke July 25, 2012 at 2:38 pm #

    Well Robert – I’ve made a testable hypothesis – sample the quality of discussion on those sites I’ve listed (in general).

    sp – not really. And you’ve never applied for a grant in your life. And where did he read it “Quadrant” – yuh well …..

    Debs – actually I don’t know about the exact status of rebuttals on G&T. It’s been a while. To be truthful I could spend a lot of time updating myself for you but you’ll just dismiss it anyway – so waste of time. Which is where you are at with Bazza. Low yield discussions, no exchange of information. My disappointment was when you didn’t want to discuss aspects of forecasting on the neural net thread but happy to make pronouncements.

  48. Minister for Truth July 25, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    1. Can the standing of science be any lower when it stoops to this sort of unprofessional garbage at an International Conference

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/07/24/us-official-activate-your-science/

    2. Dear old Professor Steffen and his idiotic piece in the Australian on Monday was quite properly exposed and dumped in the garbage bin, by the subsequent Letters to the Editor….Pity about his article being nearly all wrong.

    Cant these people do anything right, or are they all just over educated nit wits, who think the public exist to be their funders and playthings and who can be easily fooled and manipulated.

    Disgraceful stuff.

  49. Luke July 25, 2012 at 2:41 pm #

    And Robert I know why you wouldn’t be over at Tamino as an example. Too sciencey for you.

    Basically you’re happy penning philosophical prose and trying to be sound clever. But it isn’t science is it and advances nothing as an argument. It’s just quips and you’ve reduced me to your level. So how useful.

  50. Robert July 25, 2012 at 2:58 pm #

    Listed sites already sampled. Too many times.

    Thanks for the invite to sing Kumbaya over at your buddies houses, but far too many “records” and “all-time evers” and “furthest extremes” and “things to come” and “welcomes to the future” for my old skeptic head. Plus, you know how those guys like the chorus perfectly in tune…or else.

    Peace, hippy.

  51. Luke July 25, 2012 at 4:35 pm #

    Like I thought. sad. Sure you were there?

  52. Debbie July 25, 2012 at 5:13 pm #

    Luke,
    Bazza was the one who stalled the discussion.
    He seemed to be only interested in assigning personality flaws to me…and accusing me of being a barking lap dog and vioulating your rule 7 among ohter things.
    He also didn’t keep his side of the deal….even though I answered his question….he simply stonewalled and refused to answer mine.
    Go back and read the comments.
    I did try hard to engage him.
    I’m sorry you were disappointed with comments on the Neural Net paper.
    That’s actually not my problem though.
    I have no objection to the method they are using….it shows some early promise.
    I have no more idea than anyone else whether it will continue to deliver on that promise.
    I will be happy if it does because that would actually be helpful in my world.
    It was also published and peer reviewed so I guess I wasn’t the only one who assessed it in a similar manner.

  53. Tony Price July 25, 2012 at 8:10 pm #

    Bazza said: “Put simply absence of evidence of increased variability is not evidence of absence”

    Put simply absence of evidence of fairies is not evidence of absence either, but it’s a pretty good starting point for a rebuttal.

    Luke said: “Debs – actually I don’t know about the exact status of rebuttals on G&T. It’s been a while. To be truthful I could spend a lot of time updating myself for you but you’ll just dismiss it anyway – so waste of time.”

    “Dismiss it anyway…” – it’s never stopped you before, and I’d be disappointed if it did in the future. Anyway, absence of evidence of rebuttal papers is not evidence of absence – you missed that one, it was a gift from Bazza.

    Back to the title of this post – “Metres of Sea Level Rise”. Your Climate Commission (Is a “Climate Commissioner” in favour of climate, or is he agin it? Is he controlling it, administering it, or taxing it?) and CSIRO say

    “At an average of about 5 millimetres per year, sea levels are rising faster around Australia since 1993 than the global average. And the rate of sea-level rise varies around the coast of Australia.”
    and
    “Since 1993, the rates of sea-level rise to the north and northwest of Australia have been 7 to 11 mm per year, two to three times the global average, and rates of sea-level rise on the central east and southern coasts of the continent are mostly similar to the global average.”

    Why 1993? A strange start date, but the two august bodies have an excuse for using that year, as it’s acknowledged as the start of the “satellite era” for sea-level measurement. That year also happens to coincide with a dip (yes, a DIP!) in the sea-level record around Australia, so any trends calculated from that startpoint exaggerate the rate of rise. Trends calculated from a few years prior or a few years post tell a very different story.

    An extreme example is Sydney, where the rate of rise since 1886 is 0.6 mm/year. Sea level declined from 1990 to 1997, after which the 1997/8 El Niño created a “step up” (in common with most Oz sites). From 1990 to 2011 the rate is just 1.04 mm/year, from the CSIRO’s vintage year of 1993 it’s almost three times that at 2.85 mm/year. After the El Nino, that is from 1999, the trend is ZERO (very slightly negative).

    Not only have the CSIRO cherry-picked a start year, but they only include a subset of Oz gauges in their “high quality data”. One would have thought they’d include major population centres like Sydney, Melbourne, Newcastle, Adelaide, Fremantle, Brisbane and Hobart, but none of these is represented in their “database”. Perhaps the reason is that their inclusion (with much lower rates of rise) would totally demolish their scary statistics and predictions.

    NIWA and the Kiwi guvmint are “at it” in New Zealand too. The recently updated (July 2012) “Coastal Hazards and Climate Change” has a graph with trend lines, and their caption notes

    “Note: Trend lines in relative sea-level rise since 1899 were calculated from data measured at
    Auckland (1899–1999), Wellington (1899–2001 with gaps), Lyttelton (1901–2001 with gaps).”
    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual/page3.html

    A distinct lack of data since 2001 methinks. Perhaps a reason might be that sea-levels around NZ haven’t risen much if at all since 1999. I have the data, I have the graphs, I have the trends. Why don’t they have them (they do of course), and if they have, what’s their motive for hiding them?

    NIWA says “Regional subsidence, from slow-slip events, has increased the relative sea-level trend in the Wellington area since ~1997.”

    Long-term trend at Wellington 1944-2011 is 2.44 mm/year, trend from 1997-2011 is 2.48 mm/year – some increase, 0.04 mm/year!. Trend from 1999-2011 is 0.34 mm/year. I wonder why NIWA doesn’t mention THAT in their report?

    Evidence of absence trumps absence of evidence every time.

  54. gavin July 25, 2012 at 8:21 pm #

    Regardless of SL considerations, hows this for an global average thermometer?

    “Arctic sea ice continued to track at levels far below average through the middle of July”

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Keep up with SL, ice sheet models and projections here

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6081/551.summary

  55. sp July 25, 2012 at 8:46 pm #

    I suspect Luke has already applied for a grant to study the impact of climate change on origami. And probably successfully too. Cant wait to read it. But doubt it will ever happen – Luke does not publish – he just castigates others for not doing so.

    How long will it be till origami is threatened beyond repair Luke? Just about everything is threatened according to you.

    Luke also thinks Skepitcal Science is a serious science site. And that Tamino is sciencey. Must be true if Luke says so, he’s never wrong and knows everything.

    Luke thinks every post on this site is directed at him and feels the need to comment on everything.

    There you go Luke – feel better to see your name in print a few times?

  56. Ian George July 26, 2012 at 6:47 am #

    Jenny,
    Slightly OT but there is an interesting article in Weatherzone re the drought around Walkers Flat, SA and a visit by South Australian Water Minister Paul Caica. He says;
    “The impacts of the drought are still being felt here and in turn, that is exactly the reason why we need to fight for the Murray to ensure that we do have a Murray-Darling Basin Plan that restores the system to an appropriate level of sustainable health, so we don’t have to go through a situation in the future where we are on the verge of ecological collapse.”
    I checked Nildottie’s rainfall (it’s just up the road) which showed that only 3 years of the past nine have had below average rainfall and the last two years have been some of the wettest on record.
    So far this year rainfall has been about 100mm above the average.
    So what drought are they talking about? Or can we now assume that data is irrelevant when pushing an ideological agenda – whatever it takes?

    Article here:
    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/caica-hears-walker-flat-drought-struggle/22134

    Rainfall record here:
    http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_display_type=dataGraph&p_stn_num=024547&p_nccObsCode=139&p_month=13

  57. Neville July 26, 2012 at 8:13 am #

    More on Greenland warming BS and the history of Greenland temp etc and the arctic. Nothing unprecedented or unusual. Christy also showed Greenland graphs from the earlier holocene with temps much higher than today and for periods of thousands of years.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/paging-aps-seth-borenstein-hey-seth-wheres-the-beef/#more-68126

  58. Minister for Truth July 26, 2012 at 8:17 am #

    http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/massimo_banzi_how_arduino_is_open_sourcing_imagination.html

    http://www.economist.com/node/21559317

    Dont worry guys the day is rapidly approaching that with Open Sourced Harware and Open Access papers the tax payer will be able to have greater visibility as to what these research agencies of government are doing….

  59. Neville July 26, 2012 at 8:30 am #

    Mann gets nailed by Steyn, McIntyre, Watts etc and beetle larvae. What a clueless drongo.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/dr-michael-mann-compares-inconvenient-visitors-to-his-facebook-page-to-beetle-larvae/#more-68137

  60. Neville July 26, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    Good talk by the brilliant and sceptical Lindzen. Climate models are flawed.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/25/lindzen-at-sandia-national-labs-climate-models-are-flawed/#more-68105

  61. Debbie July 26, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    Oh deary dreary me!
    http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/verve/_resources/TheClimateOfTheNation2012_Final.pdf
    The obvious question begs asking.
    What is this really all about?
    Science?
    Methinks not.
    Scientific evidence?
    Methinks not.
    Observation of climate/weather in an attempt to better understand it and maybe one day be able to forecast more accurately?
    Methinks not.
    Yet this tax payer funded organisation is called the ‘climate intstitute’.
    What is obviously their major concern?
    The climate?
    Apparently not.

  62. Minister for Truth July 26, 2012 at 9:48 am #

    What a dreadful document that Climate Institute document is

    The colours, layout and graphics are just appalling.

    Its as though they feel they have to say something, but have to put it in such a crap format that no-one could read it any way.

    As they say in the classics “all mouth and no trousers”…

  63. sp July 26, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    Its all too late – the reefs are doomed! ……… again

    Zombie reefs as a harbinger for catastrophic future:

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4153290.html

  64. kuhnkat July 26, 2012 at 11:41 am #

    Luke,

    ” Robert – I’ve made a testable hypothesis – sample the quality of discussion on those sites I’ve listed (in general).”

    What is testable about that with the amount of blatant editing that goes on at those blogs?? Suuuure what is left usually looks pretty good, but, the best stuff usually doesn’t even make it onto a thread!!

    Try again Luke.

  65. kuhnkat July 26, 2012 at 11:43 am #

    Debbie,

    I notice that Luke seems to not want to discuss the rebuttal to G&T. While I haves my suspicions, which is why I suggested he would be hesitant to bring it forth, you will have to ask him why.

  66. John Sayers July 26, 2012 at 3:09 pm #

    sp – the author of the reef article is:

    Gary Pearce has a PhD from the Centre for Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies at Monash University and works at RMIT University Library

    so now Literature PhDs get to write science articles!!

  67. gavin July 26, 2012 at 3:17 pm #

    On models, myths and whims; who in blog spotters inc. noticed the recent articles following University of Bristol (UK), research as published in Nature this month?

    “Trigger for past rapid sea level rise discovered”

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1546

    “The cause of rapid sea level rise in the past has been found by scientists at the University of Bristol using climate and ice sheet models. The process, named ‘saddle-collapse’, was found to be the cause of two rapid sea level rise events: the Meltwater pulse 1a (MWP1a) around 14,600 years ago and the ‘8,200 year’ event”.

    http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2012/8626.html

  68. Debbie July 26, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    Kuhnkat,
    Luke has been asked….
    I think Tony also highlighted how peculiar the answer was.
    However….what I have noticed here is that for someone who gets terribly prickly and offended if he thinks someone is criticising scientists and /or science….he doesn’t do a bad job of crticising scientists and/or branches of science himself…..if that branch of science or those scientists don’t support a particular theory and/or are not working for particular organisations.
    Even scientists like Physicists who work in reputable universities and have peer reviewed papers in a journal like ‘Modern Physics’.
    I realise that Physics is not often that interesting or politically relevant….but they have certainly recently discovered an exciting new particle…..but there is no doubt that it is ‘science’.
    He also did not seem to be willing to allow that Jen and Abbot’s neurel net paper/research was obviously acceptable as it too was peer reviewed and published….in a science journal….and written by scientists.
    From my understanding of the article I read yesterday (and I apologise I can’t remember how I found it and Luke is correct that I struggle a bit with technophobia….so can’t link it) the rebuttal was not accepted… apparently because it didn’t focus on the physical properties of C02 which is of course was what the paper was about.
    I never found the actual rebuttal itself….so Luke certainly helped there.
    I eventually found the rebuttal of the rebuttal. :-)
    So getting better at surfing and linking….but nowhere the master that Luke is.

  69. Luke July 26, 2012 at 7:42 pm #

    Debs – it’s not that difficult – get a good list of pro and con sites. Learn how to Google search properly. Find Google Scholar – and add pdf to your paper title search to hopefully jag a free copy. Surf off others links (thanks Neville). Work out that matter and anti-matter exists. Work out the main climate journals.

    Bazza and I objected to the press release that went with the neural net paper. Overstated bogosity.

    BTW I don’t offended. I’ve been insulted by experts.

  70. Ian Thomson July 26, 2012 at 7:43 pm #

    Hi Gavin,
    Pleased that some people at Bristol Uni used some models and gave it all a name. I am sure if anyone can find a 5,000,000 sq mile lump of land based ice, 10,000ft thick anywhere in danger of melting , the new ” saddle collapse” will immediately raise calls for a new tax.
    And Lake Agassis is all empty just now, even though it was there for 4,000 years.
    We would not survive in our current state, its recreation.
    As I have asked before. How do I get one of those jobs? What if I proposed a model on how to refill Lake Agassis ?
    Sorry, couldn’t resist it.

  71. Ian Thomson July 26, 2012 at 8:07 pm #

    I wanna, I wanna, I wanna job . Pleeease, counting snow at a resort. Pleeeeease.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7358221/Snow-making-to-increase-as-climate-changes

  72. sp July 26, 2012 at 8:12 pm #

    I’m still amused at Luke sneering at Quadrant magazine and his belief that Skeptical Science is for serious science buffs.

    While “surfing”, I came across a quote from Gavin Schmidt on SS concerning forcings and variability, at least I think thats what its about:

    Gavin Schmidt replied:

    “Any single realisation can be thought of as being made up of two components – a forced signal and a random realisation of the internal variability (‘noise’). By definition the random component will uncorrelated across different realisations and when you average together many examples you get the forced component (i.e. the ensemble mean).”

    A wit on another blog commented he may as well have said:

    “So, one more time. The remastat kiloquad capacity is a function: square-root the intermix ratio times the sum of the plasma injector quotion”

    Both comments sound like Lukes offerings on this blog.

    Thats modern “climate science” for you.

  73. gavin July 26, 2012 at 9:57 pm #

    When sp grabs Schmidt’s “Any single realisation can be thought of as being made up of two components – a forced signal and a random realisation of the internal variability” and so on, we need to be sure the blog “wit” hasn’t only got the bull by his shorts.

    A good read over the WCC-3 Decadal Climate Variability Session, “Towards Prediction of Decadal Climate Variability and Change” etc. should offer some clues.

    http://www.wcrp-climate.org/decadal/references/WCC3_Decadal_WhitePaper.pdf

    Modern “climate science” is only just gearing up. Schmidt & Co are at the forefront.

  74. Robert July 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm #

    “Modern “climate science” is only just gearing up.”

    Gav, you will never make a truer statement. Just that one.

  75. Mack July 26, 2012 at 10:15 pm #

    It just simplifys down to “noise” and “signal” sp. You see through the noise you have to listen for a signal. If you can’t hear the signal it might be because of the noise or you may have to know in the first place how the noise makes a signal. Then this has simply to be distinguished from a noisy signal. Climate science for monkeys with headphones.

  76. sp July 26, 2012 at 10:25 pm #

    OK Gavin, we agree – the remastat kiloquad capacity is a function: square-root the intermix ratio times the sum of the plasma injector quotion.

    Go tell Julia – defintely a need to increase the Carbon Tax to save us from it. Makes as much sense as what we have been told to date.

    In any case – Gavin is at the forefront of it. Hate to see what the back-end is doing.

    Hang on Gavin? Gavin Schmidt? Surely not.

    Not bad for first gear.

  77. sp July 26, 2012 at 10:39 pm #

    Thanks Mack, I understand now.

    When I see through something I might hear something else, but if I cant hear it, its because something else is is making noise but I cant see that, so that means the planet is warming alarmingly and we need a new tax (that always seems to be the conclusion, no matter waht the question).

    Who would have thought that science could be so simple? No wonder there is concensus and the science is settled.

  78. Luke July 26, 2012 at 11:57 pm #

    sp – thanks – Gavin’s point was simple. Your posts reveal your IQ.

  79. sp July 27, 2012 at 12:36 am #

    As Obi Wan Hansen said – Use the forcings Luke. Its the best you’ve got.

    So weak.

  80. Luke July 27, 2012 at 6:19 am #

    Anyway enough drongoism with arrant clowns like sp and back on theme (listen up Debs)

    http://ess.uci.edu/researchgrp/erignot/files/2011gl048794.pdf

    Revisiting the Earth’s sea‐level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008 Church et al.

    and the latest tour de force – Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century Rayner et al

    http://badc.nerc.ac.uk/data/hadisst/HadISST_paper.pdf

    sp need not bother reading – above his grade level. You can sit up the back of the class with your copy of Dick and Dora.

    And for Debs – the secret revealed – how’s it done – well Debs yo’ll go to http://www.agu.org/pubs/journals/ and see what’s new – also http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/

    Now Debs – these are serious journals – not the Hungarian Journal of Chook Farming and Serious Review Dodgers

  81. Tony Price July 27, 2012 at 6:46 am #

    I’ve just been pouring over (that”s not a typo, it’s a Freudian slip, there’s something I’d like to pour over it, if it was on paper, and check if “Fahrenheit 451″ really is the temperature at which paper ignites) the NRC tome “Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future “. Out of 275 pages, it struggles to give 5 pages to the past, with a single table for far fewer than the relevant set of gauges, and one graph for Seattle. “Present” is not represented at all, despite the title, “Future” totally ignores tide gauge records and trends, and relies entirely on models for vertical land movement and global ice melt. It states that 60 years is the minimum period for the calculation of long-term trends, and the quotes extensively from a reference which used the period 1930-1980. The bulk of it has nothing whatever to do with sea level. It doesn’t do what it says on the label (may contain traces of relevant sea-level data).

    If I’d paid good money for this, as a state or local planner, I’d want my money back, and compensation for time wasted.

  82. Debbie July 27, 2012 at 7:59 am #

    Yes Gavin,
    modern climate science is still in its infancy.
    Despite many accusations otherwise, I have no objection to climate research.
    However,
    can you explain why we’re forever told that the ‘science is settled’?
    Can you also explain why a disproportionate amount of funding and research re modern climate is myopically focused on AGW?
    There is far, far more we need to understand about climate/weather than just its sensitivity to human produced C02.

  83. Luke July 27, 2012 at 8:15 am #

    Tripe Debbie – rampant opinion

    “infancy”? sez who – maybe it’s middle age – or maturing?

    myopically focused on AGW, anthro CO2 – NOT REALLY – lots of good science work on understanding the climate system which is useful for many reasons given how much it affects humanity

    e.g. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL045777.shtml CO2 ??

    You are someone who has NEVER visited agu.org suite of publications, Journal of Climate, Nature, Science etc etc have you??

    Just talking through your hat (again)

    Memeing away to suit your POV ain’t evidence.

  84. Debbie July 27, 2012 at 8:35 am #

    Luke?
    Have you noticed by any chance that the main point of this particular post is an objection to the overstated bogosity of our climate commissioners?
    And not to put to fine a point on it, it seemed your main objection to the press releases was that Jen & Abbot pointed out that they achieved results without factoring in a C02 signal and they mentioned BoM methods.
    Press releases by whatever side for whatever reason are not much more than an attempt to advertise or create some positive PR.
    I’m more interested in the practical application of scientific research and it’s ability to add value to what we already know AND its ability to inform management decisions.
    As I often try to explain, I think the only sensible way to judge is on practical, measureable outcomes.

  85. Debbie July 27, 2012 at 8:41 am #

    OOPS,
    cross posted again!
    Sorry.
    Luke,
    Gavin said that and you agreed with him.
    I have no idea why you keep accusing me of poor literacy skills and trying to attach me to an imaginary organisation.

  86. sp July 27, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    Richard Wakefield question:

    ”How many more years of no acceleration [in SLR] will it take to abandon AGW theory?”

    Gavin Schmidt answer:

    “AGW is based on the radiative impact of CO2 and other atmospheric constituents – none of those things depend on sea level rise.”

    FAIL.

  87. el gordo July 27, 2012 at 8:48 am #

    This from the late Stephen Schneider:

    ‘On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

    ‘On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change.

    ‘To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

    ‘This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.’

  88. sp July 27, 2012 at 8:52 am #

    “It is true that one of the few places in the world where temperatures have not exceeded temperatures in the 1930s is the southeastern U.S. (including Alabama),”

    Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, said in an email. “Whether this is due to some oddity in the weather patterns, air pollution effects, irrigation or something else is unclear.”

    But Alabama weather over the last 100 years or so has “very little to do with global warming,” Schmidt said. “It certainly isn’t the case that predictions of Alabama temperatures can ignore what’s happening globally,”

    Schmidt said. “It is just that there is more noise … when you get to the state or local level. ”

    http://blog.al.com/breaking/2012/07/alabamas_heat_wave_isnt_a_sign.html

    Ah yes – local noisy forcings. Modern climate science for the infantile

  89. kuhnkat July 27, 2012 at 9:00 am #

    Luke,

    “Now Debs – these are serious journals – not the Hungarian Journal of Chook Farming and Serious Review Dodgers”

    Yup, serious journals where serious budy review is done so the message is not diluted. Occasionally there is some real science that slips through!!!

    Luke, you are a rusty tool. You are still using the same arrogant, My PEEr Reviewed Litchurchur is the only ordained WORD from the Ordained Climatologists!!

    We are still waiting for that engineering quality research and/or experiments that reasonably show we can expect multiplication of the basic climate sensitivity. You don’t even seem to be able to get your PEEr Reviewed Litchurchur to include it!!

    So sorry you are still on empty old chap.

  90. Luke July 27, 2012 at 9:17 am #

    Hey Kookers – agree – science such as rebutted here – HOHOHOHOHO

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD012960.shtml sunk on the maiden voyage

    Do go on mate ! It’s all a big conspircacy – blah blah blah – or perhaps you’re crap – the real reason.

    Debbie sez

    “And not to put to fine a point on it, it seemed your main objection to the press releases was that Jen & Abbot pointed out that they achieved results without factoring in a C02 signal and they mentioned BoM methods.” CO2 signal – nope – they proved nothing. BoM methods – nope they constructed their own straw man – BoM don’t do what they used/constructed.

    “Press releases by whatever side for whatever reason are not much more than an attempt to advertise or create some positive PR.” maybe – but they should also be accurate and not misleading or claim what the paper doesn’t show

    “I’m more interested in the practical application of scientific research and it’s ability to add value to what we already know AND its ability to inform management decisions.
    As I often try to explain, I think the only sensible way to judge is on practical, measureable outcomes.” and when we repeatedly tried to engage you on that for a conversation on use you ran a mile – so what bunk. You have no idea what you’d do with it. If anything.

  91. Debbie July 27, 2012 at 9:33 am #

    Luke,
    I think you need to rethink.
    I was asked what I imagined I would use it for.
    My answer was if it did deliver on its promising early results I would imagine I would use it the same way as I currently use BoM and Yr forecasts as a helpful tool.
    I did answer your question, perhaps you didn’t like my answer?

  92. gavin July 27, 2012 at 9:33 am #

    Mack, sp:there is a lot more to a technology than a bit of intelligence.

    We have come a long way from the early days of radio ie crystal sets and the first considerations of S/N ratios. Mid last century I got interested in fringe reception at TV frequencies via stacked phased arrays. At the end I was doing band restructure in microwave networks based on similar “mechanical” methods for each service isolation. Yesterday I noticed in our latest supplementary cattle dog, research on phased arrays at radar frequencies has provided new solutions for our ADF and work for about one hundred eng/techs over five years.

    I could go on about light etc starting with dc,ac, hot wires and leds before going into, amplifiers, transducers or instruments in general but its nuf to say science has to be supported in every way by gurus in the practice, not goons outside the windows.

  93. gavin July 27, 2012 at 9:49 am #

    Deb; we don’t seem to have much of an argument about the rising cost of our electricity since much of it is based on the ongoing cost of networks and delivery, not sources.

    Phasing the load, current with voltage in each cycle is hardly mentioned here though. Thus I could say the “science” regarding our electrical engineering is settled. How long have we enjoyed electric powerfrom the wires?

  94. Luke July 27, 2012 at 10:26 am #

    Your answer Debbie was about equal to “some stuff”. Highly informative. Some sort of hand waving obscure generality. Equivalent to asking for a brief critique of Tolstoy’s War and Peace and receiving “something about Russia” as the response.

  95. Debbie July 27, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    So Luke,
    you didn’t like my answer?
    Maybe you might like to ask a different question?
    Because that was my answer to that particluar question. I wasn’t aware that the question had ‘other’ preferred answers to it. I thought you wanted to know how I imagined I would personally use it?

  96. sp July 27, 2012 at 11:40 am #

    I think Gavin said that when you adjust the thrimfibulator the spondoolins tend to go faster – or something like that

    Is there anybody who can translate Gavinspeak? – Schmidt or otherwise

  97. Robert July 27, 2012 at 12:00 pm #

    I’m not sure we can blame the Napoleonic wars, but something has been going on with SLs since the early 1800s. Because the complexities and contradictions of SL really are beyond me (and most others, I suspect) let’s go for a wander off topic. Snip or delete, Jen. I’ll understand.

    Electricity is being generated in bloody clunkers in Australia. It will go on being generated in bloody clunkers under current plans. (I won’t insult anyone by implying they believe in the promises of current wind, solar, wave or Timmy’s Geothermia. I think we all know we will continue to depend on coal.) Modern plants for brown and black coal in Asia and Middle Europe are achieving savings of between 25 and 30 percent. (Because they’re modern, duh. Still driving around in an old XR or EK? Duh.) Those are savings in – yes! – CO2 emissions as well as money and real pollution.

    Coal and uranium rich Australia has no nukes – and we’re geologically stable! – and is burning coal in clunkers. Great for their era, but now rickety, decrepit clunkers. No wonder they call it “durrdy coal”. They keep it that way.

    I remember walking the industrial estate of our nearest town after the insulation scheme folded. Our local “provider”. Power Results, had probably been the worst. You would not have them near your home, let alone in your roof cavity. I watched the disintegrating fluff from sub-standard batts blowing about like tumbleweeds in an old western. That’s when I started to realise how much waste and sheer ruin came with being “green”. And it goes on.

  98. cohenite July 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    Will Steffen; now there’s a name to conjure with! And that is what Mr Steffen does; conjure with exaggerations and fabrications.

    Sea level is NOT rising globally:

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-11A-00008.1

    Or in Australia:

    http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1

    End of story; Steffen and the climate commission should be in court answering for their scaremongering.

  99. Luke July 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    Debbie – we tried for days on that thread. If you were going to use a seasonal forecast most people would want to know what form it came in in – expressed how? (otherwise you’d be clueless as to using it) e.g. tercile probabilities for y period with z lead time, probability x mm over y period with z lead time , probability exceeding median rainfall over y period with z lead ; what the error rates might be if you had used it over the last 100 years or so and what you’d find acceptable; and what sort of actual farm decision you’d use it for. If you can’t talk about these things you’re not serious and it’s just info-tainment.

    It’s not some trap for you – they’re just straight questions. You weren’t and still aren’t interested. We were seriously disappointed. You say you’re so interested but really you seem not to be.

  100. Debbie July 27, 2012 at 2:46 pm #

    Luke,
    my definition of a discussion must be different to yours.
    As you have done above, what I saw was you asking and answering your own questions and then assigning personality and literacy flaws to me.
    I tried my best to answer the question you asked of me that you hadn’t already answered yourself.
    I’m sorry you find that disappointing but that is not actually my problem.
    Despite your accusations, I am interested. However not interested in the veiled insults.
    Also, not that it matters, I do read the majority of links you recommend.
    I wasn’t aware I was expected to do a detailed analysis of every one?
    If you would like to pay me I will happily do so.
    I usually only comment if
    a) I have a question
    b) I can see that it might add value or
    c) I can see a flaw in either the calcs, the terms of reference or the logic.

  101. cohenite July 27, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    luke the bully, picking on Deb, using sesquipedalianisms like tercile. Ignore him Deb; when he refers to tercile he means he is one of the 3 stooges.

  102. sp July 27, 2012 at 3:30 pm #

    Luke to Debbie – “We were seriously disappointed. ”

    Luke – Is that the royal we”?, or do do you mean your imaginary friends?

  103. Luke July 27, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    So Debbie you’re totally disingenuous – great work you say – very useful – will help – but you really have no idea. Total bulldust artiste – simply cheer squad comments for something you really have no interest in except you think it’s on you “side” So this is the point Debs – you’re prepared to make mindless accusations against all and sundry and yet you really have done no homework or no idea. It’s not bullying – we’re the bullied.

    Gee Cohenite – it’s hard isn’t it. Wettest, driest and in the middle. Ter – meaning three – a duh …. Boy that’s really hard concept. Such complex maths. Did you say you’ve studied climate science?

    Yes was “we” sp – RTF thread (mate)

  104. cohenite July 27, 2012 at 6:54 pm #

    luke explains tercile to his 2 mates:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jocRd-aajW0

  105. sp July 27, 2012 at 8:15 pm #

    Luke: “Yes was “we” sp – RTF thread (mate)”.

    You have a bad habit of speaking for others. Speak for yourself. I’m not your mate. Nobody is, except your imaginary ones.

    Luke considers Skeptical Science “scientific” – a site that provides misinformation and whose editors regularly falter and falsify blog comments. Says it all.

    And another beauty from Gavin, Schmidt that is, a leader of modern infantile “climate science”:

    “The basic issue is that for short time scales (in this case 1979-2000), grid point temperature trends are not a strong function of the forcings – rather they are a function of the (unique realisation of) internal variability and are thus strongly stochastic…..There are other issues, but his basic conceptual error is big one from which all other stem”

  106. cementafriend July 27, 2012 at 11:39 pm #

    sp – saw elsewhere Gavin Schmidt did not know about the Schmidt number (guess he looked it up on Wiki) and admitted he did not know its use ie he has no understanding of heat and mass transfer. That of course also applies to all the fellow travelers of GS at RC. GS likely does not understand forces such as gravity or EMF if he refers to CO2 as a forcing.
    There are a lot of con(men)-persons around with big egos but whose knowledge and understanding is small eg ————–(let you fill in the blanks- maybe many politicians). Anyone that accepts the words of Steffen has to have something missing in their makeup.

  107. sp July 27, 2012 at 11:49 pm #

    Skeptical Science – Tar Sands Oil – An Environmental Disaster

    This is not a climate catastrophe-causing quantity of carbon emissions

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/tar-sands-oil-an-environmental-disaster.html

    James Hansen – Tar sands is game over for the climate.

    I guess in this case SS may be closer to the truth. Maybe somebody at SS made a mistake and told the truth?

    Solid science. Good reference site … cough cough… scuse me

  108. Tony Price July 28, 2012 at 1:39 am #

    sp said: “Is there anybody who can translate Gavinspeak? – Schmidt or otherwise”

    I’m pretty sure I fully understood two of (our) Gavin’s longer comments, but the mental shock was such I forgot to bookmark ‘em. You’ll just have to take my word for it. Which is a concise but accurate analysis of the “executive summary” or whatever they call it in most large quasi-scientific reports.

  109. gavin July 28, 2012 at 6:19 am #

    Guys; get off the Schmidt tangent for a bit. Have a look at this letter and tell us it has nothing to do with SL today or global climate change on the way.

    “Different glacier status with atmospheric circulations in Tibetan Plateau and surroundings”

    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1580.html

    Simple: Google “climate change study july 2012″

    Got it one Deb, but please look at the others on page one.

    a choice piece from “Are climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists?”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-change

    “The findings provide yet more evidence that a rejection of climate science has more to with ideological views than scientific literacy, bolstering the well-supported finding that climate change scepticism is more likely to be found on the right, than on the left of politics. But they go a step further, adding an important layer of detail to the crude characterisation of climate change scepticism as a “conservative” issue”

    But we knew that, didn’t we?

  110. Robert July 28, 2012 at 7:09 am #

    New York Times wins out for smugness and self-satisfaction. Spiegel wins for hysteria. Fairfax for matronisng and pomposity. But for sheer juvenile daffiness, you can’t beat the Guardian. When you think of the earnest chin-strokers who define themselves as “Guardian readers”, the hilarity is doubled.

    Oh my god, that’s a silly rag, Gav.

  111. Luke July 28, 2012 at 7:50 am #

    So what’s wrong with Gavin Schmidt’s comments. Makes sense unless you’re simple or an engineer.

  112. Debbie July 28, 2012 at 8:26 am #

    Luke,
    I don’t have a ‘side’.
    That’s one of my objections about this whole thing.
    It has way more to do with politics and the inappropriate use of statistical analysis than anything else.
    (IMHO)

  113. gavin July 28, 2012 at 9:01 am #

    Deb; I for one don’t rely on stats in finding trends. Using simple evidence like my ice link above is best with climate shifts.

    Robert didn’t read the Guardian article full stop.

  114. sp July 28, 2012 at 9:30 am #

    Yes – read the The Guardian or go to Skeptical Science for proper “climate science”. Totally reliable and impartial sites – for dingbats.

    Whats wrong with Gavin’s comments? (no not you Gavin), the important Gavin – nothing really, but I’m glad Luke asked – Schmidty basically said that natural variability outwieghs any (supposed) human signal. I should concede he gets some bit right … sometimes.

    Thanks for asking Luke. Makes you simple – your certainly not an engineer (obvious lack of logic and discipline). Your should have asked Gavin (no not Schmidt) before you asked, seems he can translate GavinspeaK (Schmidt that is).

    But but but Gavin (get off the Schmidt tangent) – why? – you said Gavin Schmidt is leading modern “climate science” – thought you would hang on his every word? You expect us to (the “us” refers to the readers of this bloke – not Lukes imaginary friends, the voices in his head).

    Schmidty does seem to have a bit of n obsession with “noise” and “unique realsiation of” (very Zen of him).

  115. sp July 28, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    And back to our Gavin – “The findings provide yet more evidence that a rejection of climate science has more to with ideological views than scientific literacy”

    Of course – the next step is to brand deniers foreheads witha big D and send them off to re-education camps to set heir minds straight. Cant have people thinking about thngs, using logic and then having the temerity to disagree. No no no.

    “What we got here is a failure to communicate” (Cool Hand Luke).

    No – not you Luke, I’m talking about the Paul Newman Luke – the movie. The message being that falure to comply with dictat results in a violent or bullying response from red neck hicks who think they know everything and cant tolerate discussion because it might lead to dissent, and then maybe even scientific advancement (outside of the “science is settled” paradigm)

  116. cohenite July 28, 2012 at 10:23 am #

    Schmidt said this:

    “Gavin Schmidt replied:

    “Any single realisation can be thought of as being made up of two components – a forced signal and a random realisation of the internal variability (‘noise’). By definition the random component will uncorrelated across different realisations and when you average together many examples you get the forced component (i.e. the ensemble mean).”

    A wit on another blog commented he may as well have said:

    “So, one more time. The remastat kiloquad capacity is a function: square-root the intermix ratio times the sum of the plasma injector quotion”

    That is priceless!

    And Halpern’s reply to G&T has been withdrawn? Is that after G&T’s 2nd paper:

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.1508v2.pdf

  117. Luke July 28, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    Cohenite – As if you’d understand the paper anyway. arxiv = avoiding running the gauntlet of a real journal

    Cohenite – why people find Gavin’s comments funny is simply that they don’t understand so ridicule is easiest. Just more stupidity.

    sp – do you think you’re actually influencing anything? and yo’all are the redneck hicks – at least get the roles right

  118. sp July 28, 2012 at 10:58 am #

    But Luke – feel the forcings – Gavin (the supposed smart one from RC) actually said (when translated) that natural variability outweighs any (supposed) human signal.

    Its a simple but important point.

    Somewhat contrary to your position. Think you should go to RC and thrash this out with Gavin Schmidt.

    It was conjectured once that Luke (Yoda’s student) and Gavin (ours) might be one and the same. However, recent posts suggest they are not, well they are not communicating with each other at least. Unless of course the host that channels their nonsense has forgotten to take the haliperidol and a complete breakdown and separation of identities has occured.

    BTW Luke – have you noticed that the voices in your head talk AT you – even they cant be bothered entering into dialogue.

  119. Debbie July 28, 2012 at 11:09 am #

    Gavin,
    Stats are a useful tool.
    Thankyou for getting the point about their reliability as a primary decision making tool.
    However the rest of your comment is rather generalised in the context of this post.
    The argument has developed into trying to attribute a significant statistical % to the AGW signal as a major concern.
    NO ONE with any measure of intelligence is trying to argue that the weather/climate does not change.
    That would include ice sheets and polar caps Gavin.
    NO ONE with any understanding of the world would argue that humankind has NO influence on his immediate environment.
    However….the degree of significance or whether the impact is positive or negative or if there is a alarming risk that needs to be managed by sweeping changes in social policy/behaviour is most definitely being hotly argued.

  120. bazza July 28, 2012 at 11:26 am #

    sp, you forget to mention that Gavin Schmidt said at grid points. As for the stats on AGW, as I read it there are an overwhelming number of studies going back decades that estimate climate sensitivity at about 3C from many studies across independent fields of research give or take a degree or so, and a mere few trying to show it is not.

  121. sp July 28, 2012 at 11:45 am #

    Sure Bazza – thats why real world measurements diverge from the modelled outputs.

    Its simply not warming as the models “project”.

    Even Phil Jones agrees it has not warmed since about 1997. But not statistically significant I hear you say.

    Its only a question of time.

    The first important date will be 2013 – when the Gillard Gov gets it in the neck at election time. Step one in unwinding this mess.

    The next important date(s) will be continued lack of warming – just how many years of that is required to convince warmists the situation is not alarming I am unsure.

    But the big difference now, from about 4 years ago? (when Phil made his admission) is the voting punters are aware of the non-warming, and that they are paying through the nose to solve a non-problem.

    Tick tick tick. The major problem is the amount of damage that will be done to the Australian economy, and science in general, during that period.

    The warmists are in retreat and enacting a scorched earth policy to maximise damage along the way (linking a CARBON TAX to tax cuts – nasty). Typical of fanatics. Shame on them. Shame on you. Its the sort of stuff expected from North Korea, who have one of the lowest carbon footprints on earth, and famine, disease, low life expectancy, etc. I guess thats what Combet means when he says we should be following the rest of the world on CARBON reduction. No wonder North Korea wins Earth Hour every year for the most lights switched off.

  122. sp July 28, 2012 at 11:51 am #

    And back to the beginning of this thread:

    A/Prof Stewart W. Franks letter to Prof. Steffen requesting he cite evidence to support his position.

    In the modern email age it should take Prof. Steffen about 5 minutes to provide evidence:

    Dear Prof Franks,

    The evidence is at links: a) —–, b) ——; c) ——–

    Best Regards,

    Will

    Has Will answered?

  123. cohenite July 28, 2012 at 11:59 am #

    “As if you’d understand the paper anyway”

    Well, it is tough but as I explained to SOD once with G&T you have to appreciate their wit; the point of the paper is to show that the physical assumptions of AGW are not consistent with the physical operation of the physical principles which determine climate, what G&T call the Barometric Formulas such as Navier-Stokes, Coriolis and centrifugal accelerations, electromagnetic fields, ideal gas laws etc.

    By integrating the various formuala for these various phenomenon G&T “compute the temperature profiles of idealized atmospheres” in much the same way Arthur Smith did to prove the Greenhouse effect.

    G&T prove the opposite; they say:

    “In case of the adiabatic atmosphere the decrease of the temperature with height is described
    by a linear function with slope −g/Cp, where Cp depends weakly on the molecular mass……Since the measurable thermodynamic quantities of a voluminous medium, in particular the specific heat and the thermodynamic transport coefficients, naturally include the contribution from radiative interactions, we cannot expect that a change of concentration of a trace gas has any measurable effect.”

    CO2 is a trace gas.

    What is your understanding of the paper and can you tell me where they went wrong with the formula integration?

    And can someone tell me if Halpern’s paper ‘refuting’ G&T1 was withdrawn?

  124. Luke July 28, 2012 at 1:43 pm #

    Beyond my grade level Cohers and alas unpublished so snobbery in effect – meanwhile I just get out my absolute reference radiometer and enjoy’s Philipona’s latest paper. Must remember to tell the USAF they’re wrong too.

  125. handjive July 28, 2012 at 2:34 pm #

    Luke, ‘science’ sites you suggest be read.

    Realclimate disclaimer:

    Readers of the Feb. 14th, 2005 Wall Street Journal may have gotten the impression that RealClimate is in some way affiliated with an environmental organisation.

    We wish to stress that although our domain is being hosted by Environmental Media Services, and our initial press release was organised for us by Fenton Communications, neither organization was in any way involved in the initial planning for RealClimate, and have never had any editorial or other control over content.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/a-disclaimer/

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website founded and run by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook.
    It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

    Thanks for the opportunity to post the truth.

  126. handjive July 28, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Prof Steffen said that this period of climate change caused by humans, known as the ‘anthropocene era’, could ultimately cause the whole system of ice ages followed by warm periods, that has allowed life on Earth to flourish, to be over.

    Yes, Whacky Will Steffen claims glacial- interglacial periods to be ‘over’.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9168055/Compost-bomb-is-latest-climate-change-tipping-point.html

  127. lurker passing through, laughing July 28, 2012 at 2:57 pm #

    Steffen thins ice ages and interglacials allowed life to thrive on Earth?
    What a fool.
    The extremists and kooks are making this more and more entertaining.

  128. Luke July 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm #

    Look at handjob rant – you know what they’re worried about by the depth of the bite.

  129. cohenite July 28, 2012 at 4:54 pm #

    Come off it luke, Steffen is a loon:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/19/swedish-show-trial/

  130. sp July 28, 2012 at 5:29 pm #

    AGW morphed into Global Warming which in turn morphed Climate Change (a totally meaningless term) which some tried to morp into Climate Disruption (in a feeble attempt to relate extreme weather to CO2, or CARBON as Gillard would say).

    Now, it seems Prof Steffan is a Global Change expert (yes, its in the Telegraph article link above at 2.43).

    So there you have it – its now about compost driven Global Change. Makes perefect sense and must be true – I mean Steffan is a Prof, a Climate Kommisar, and an expert on Global Change, and its in the Telegraph.

    So repent and prepare for Global Change – not sure if that means we have to change globes or what? But compost is the culprit – can this be taxed? A Compost Tax? Would not put it past Gillard.

    What next – Methane Chlatrates of course. Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html).

    Steffen – Compost – Tipping Point – Global Change.

    Roll on 2013 and the election – no more Klimate Kommisars. Or Global Change.

  131. sp July 28, 2012 at 5:33 pm #

    AGW morphed into Global Warming, then morphed into Climate Change (a totally meaningless term), which some tried to morph into Climate Disruption (a feeble attempt to relate extreme weather to CO2, or CARBON as Gillard would say).

    Now Prof Steffan is a Global Change expert (Telegraph article link at 2.43).

    So there you have it – compost driven Global Change. Makes perefect sense and must be true – I mean Steffan is a Prof, a Climate Kommisar, and an expert on Global Change, and its in the Telegraph.

    Prepare for Global Change – not sure if that means we have to change globes or what?

    A Compost Tax? Would not put it past Gillard.

    What next – Methane Chlatrates? Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html).

    Lucky we survived that one.

    Compost – Tipping Point – Global Change.

    Roll on 2013 and the election – no more Klimate Kommisars. Or Global Change.

  132. gavin July 28, 2012 at 6:20 pm #

    Deb; we can measure global warming with a stick but we can’t do it with a finger. All we need to do is watch the poles or the tides. Besides, here is no way this planet is not warming given the glaciers. Atmospheric and ocean temperatures will trend up during our lifetime too but the weather impacts from larger energy related disturbances can send us reeling before there significant land loss to the oceans. Adaptation as a rule for humans is not possible for most because of the numbers.

    Having seen the evidence, I don’t like self appointed politically motivated people spoiling the science from any angle and it’s the job of all media to bring out the facts as well as personal opinions. That Guardian article actually exposes who we are in denial.

  133. Ian Thomson July 28, 2012 at 7:11 pm #

    Hi Gavin,
    I am serious this time . Does energy related mean the Sun ?
    Give us the glaciers, not a press release from a Greenpeace activist.
    Show US the evidence you blokes are petrified by.
    AND stop putting people in political boxes. ( Rev Tim went to all your CON fests and I think he is on a very different social and political plane than anyone here. )

  134. Debbie July 28, 2012 at 7:27 pm #

    Gavin,
    Have only just got round to reading the guardian article you linked.
    The guardian article exposes who we are in denial?
    No it doesn’t,
    It introduces with:
    The radical decline in sea ice around the Arctic is at least 70% due to human-induced climate change, according to a new study, and may even be up to 95% down to humans – rather higher than scientists had previously thought.
    It concludes:
    “It’s unclear what will happen – it definitely seems like it’s going in that direction.”
    The middle links to one earlier report and then links to Day’s report published online in ‘environmental research letters’.
    With all due respect Gavin….I don’t believe there would be a scientific consensus on the claimed 70% or may even be 95% down to humans that is ‘mooted’ in this report.
    It also bases these findings on some rather interesting exclusions and time frames in the stat runs.
    I agree that the ice caps are not static…they definitely change, have changed and will change.
    I don’t think anyone is particularly in ‘denial’ over that.
    But…. at least 70% down to humans?
    It could all be gone by 2020?
    And even if this was right Gavin….how would you and the guardian and Day propose to prevent it?
    Because ….according to you:
    Adaptation as a rule for humans is not possible for most because of the numbers.
    So….is there something else that is going to save us all?

  135. gavin July 28, 2012 at 8:02 pm #

    “It might seem odd to lump climate change – a scientific theory supported by thousands of peer-reviewed papers and hundreds of independent lines of evidence – with conspiracy theories like these. But new research to be published in a forthcoming issue of Psychological Science has found a link between the endorsement of conspiracy theories and the rejection of established facts about climate science”

    Quoting that Guardian article again -

  136. Ian Thomson July 28, 2012 at 8:13 pm #

    Hi Gavin,
    And the link between conspiracy theories and the AGW people, who think anyone who disagrees with them is a conservative political redneck, -with political and/or economic bias ?

    Your Guardian is obviously into balanced reporting. God forbid someone throws facts on the other end of their balance.

  137. Robert July 28, 2012 at 8:35 pm #

    The trick with the ice caps has been to measure from the icy late seventies. By luck for alarmists, this is when satellite measurement began.

    The lowest the ice got in the Arctic post-satellite was at the 2007 minimum. It hasn’t gone that low since, and nobody knows how low it will go this year. If it comes in well above that ’07 minimum, they’ll change the subject, as they did in ’08. If lower than last year (low) or the “record” ’07, you won’t hear the end of it. The abundance of Bering Sea ice this year was unmentionable, as is, of course, the high levels in Antarctica, even with reduction in the west. On the way down this year, Arctic ice levels went right up to the thirty year average in April (silence) and plunged way below ’07 in June (applause). There were no satellites in the early twenties, but ice levels went very low in the Arctic and there was an “ice-scare”. By the seventies, much more ice, glacial advance, global cooling scare (though punctured by what was likely the worst heatwave in England’s history for 350 years, in 1976.)

    Who would refer to the ’07 as “lowest on record” without specifying IMMEDIATELY that the record period was only from 1979?

    Manipulators, that’s who. CAGW is full of verbal, statistical and intellectual stunts like the above. Full of it. Hence Guardian. Hence Skeptical Science.

  138. Luke July 28, 2012 at 8:59 pm #

    Finally Robert has revealed himself as just another rusted on denier. So here we have the “even when it’s happening” – “it’s not happening” defence – makes sense for deniers I guess – just deny. The “but but but but” defence. A world of evidence not enough for Robby. You’re the manipulator you joker. A cherrypicker of records not trends. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/07/N_stddev_timeseries2.png shows the last few years way aside from 2 SD’s of the mean. Not enough for Robby.

    BTW now I was assured we’d be in bone crushing ice age by now ?

  139. Ian Thomson July 28, 2012 at 9:09 pm #

    Conservative, free marketeers, that’s what I always thought I was.Yeah right.
    “Sticking two fingers up at the mainstream”
    All this on top of being rednecked environmental rapists.
    Wow!

    http://zen-haven.dk/are-climate-sceptics-more-likely-to-be-conspiracy-theorists/

    Once again someone got paid for this, while the rest of us were working for a living.
    And don’t the latest opinion polls show the mainstream not buying AGW ? Now I am really confused.
    C’mon Gavin, obfuscate a little so I can get to sleep. Give me some nice mainstream platitudes to dream about.

  140. Robert July 28, 2012 at 9:39 pm #

    “BTW now I was assured we’d be in bone crushing ice age by now ?”

    Not by “Robby”, that’s for sure. I believe in decades of global warming after the late seventies (and maybe 1890s.) I believe in a longer term warming trend after the mid-nineteeth century. I have never believed any long term predictions, though I’ve noticed a big climatic change in my region since 2007. (That’s just a bunch of big and obvious facts to do with wind and moisture. I don’t have a clue whether it’s multi-decadal, but I’m amazed by those who don’t seem not to observe or who downplay something so substantial.)

    Nope. No Ice Age predictions from me, ever. (Strangely manipulative comment of yours, actually.)

    Stephen Schneider, on the other hand, in 1976:

    “I have cited many examples of recent climatic variability and repeated the warnings of several well-known climatologists that a cooling effect has set in – perhaps one akin to the Little Ice Age – and that climatic variability, which is the bane of reliable food production, can be expected to increase along with the cooling.”

    Luke, when the careerists are tip-toeing to the other side or a third side, don’t be left holding the can for them. They are not nice people. Not at all.

  141. el gordo July 28, 2012 at 10:26 pm #

    ‘…now I was assured we’d be in bone crushing ice age by now?’

    Not true, you are just making shit up.

    The big drought in the US is a symptom of regional cooling, that’s why the media are not blaming global warming for the aridity.

  142. Robert July 28, 2012 at 10:34 pm #

    I looked at the NSIDC graph showing clear diversion from and below the mean in recent years, which was what I expected, since I’ve looked at the same graph many times. Then I looked at what I’d written to see if I’d pretended that Arctic ice levels were not substantially lower than the mean in recent years – which would make me a “cherrypicker of records not trends”. Nothing!

    Then I looked at the rest of what Luke wrote, describing me as staging a “but but but but” defence, and re-checked to see how I might have distorted something. Nope. There was just angry rebuttal of what I had neither said nor implied.

    In a post-1979 satellite record, there has been a low trend in recent years, with ’07 the lowest and last year, as I described it, “low”. I might have called it “second-lowest”. Maybe that was an oversight, but all recent years except for maybe ’09, went low at minimum, the lowest being five years ago by this northern autumn. (By the way, I know this is too much about wiggles and not enough is known about wind, thickness, recovery etc etc., but ice, in the Arctic is lower in recent years. Who is arguing?)

    The “record” starts in a period when ice was high, (too bloody high for some) and it is a very short “record”. I assure you, if the line was going the other way, my first qualification would be: It’s a very short record!

    And here’s that other white thingy:
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_bm_extent_hires.png

    Hush!

  143. SP July 29, 2012 at 1:43 am #

    Luke and his comments to Robert. Your a sick puppy Luke. Gavin – I cant say anything in his defence either – another sick puppy. Distasteful – pure propaganda. Disgusting They use “science” as an excuse to abuse. Stomach turning behaviour. Nasty. I support free speech and discussion – good debate leads leads to robust outcomes, usually. But these two are beoynd the pale. Perhaps time to ignore them completely. They engage in behaviour that would make Goebbels blush – when telling a lie make it big and say it often. Happy to engage in discussion on this site, like to hear alternative viewpoints, like to be challenged – but think I will ignore them both from here on in. Disgusting sub human behaviour. Just mindless words with no intelligence behind them. Pests – a pox on both of them. Starve them of oxygen. Roll on the election, hopefully it will rid us of a number of rent seeking pests.

  144. gavin July 29, 2012 at 5:16 am #

    Can I CATCH you guys later?

  145. Luke July 29, 2012 at 7:24 am #

    So Robert unprecedented Greenland surface melt – sounds like wind – err nope

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724131608.htm

    On Antarctica – a warming and freshening Southern Ocean

    http://www.acecrc.org.au/access/cms/news/?id=91&full=true

    Increased basal melt of ocean affected glaciers through bottom warming.

    http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=1264

    And a stratified ocean that allows more ephemeral thin sea ice (for now)

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

    http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/135840/Stephanie-Downes-Abstract.pdf

    Sometimes if it looks like a duck for long enough it’s a duck.

    sp – STFU

  146. Robert July 29, 2012 at 8:44 am #

    The stunt:

    Somewhere, something is warming. Something MUST be warming. Find it. Talk about it. Portray the changes and circulations of the vast atmosphere and the of vast pits of ocean as an arm-wrestle between human aerosols and human GHGs. Work by implication, slob terminology combined with fussy calculation. Leave wriggle room. History is not your friend: unlike the future, it actually happened. “Unprecedented” is a great history eliminator.

    Somewhere, something is cooling. MUST be cooling. Sorry, what did you say? Can’t hear.

  147. Luke July 29, 2012 at 9:45 am #

    errr nope ! the trend is not your friend

    The signs are ubiquitous – you want to ignore science and physics well let’s burn witches like sp at the stake (the violent little turd).

    Of course history is the great eliminator. So is climate. Want the historical analogy – it’s the PETM. Not pretty.

    But we’re not in history – we’re the here and now with an “unprecedented” 6B going to 9B with 30 days food supply, limited freshwater, and a tendency to go to war to get resources.

  148. Neville July 29, 2012 at 9:54 am #

    Luke, Gav and Bazza just love the climate models but only when it suits them. They use their models to show that we will have CAGW that could ? deliver 2C to 5C increase in temp by 2100.

    Then comes all the predictions of dangerous SLR but the models also show that in a warmer world dangerous SLR won’t be a problem. This is a case of grabbing oneself by the short and curlies and trying not to look stupid.

    http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.expansion.html

    Meanwhile there is zero OECD countries can do about the climate or temp in the near future ( this according to AGW theory) because the non OECD emissions are soaring and will soar for decades into the future. OECD emissions are virtually flatlining for decades into the future.

    Of course darling Timmy says if we all stop emitting today (all countries) we won’t see a change in temp or climate for hundreds of years or perhaps a thousand years.
    BTW Luke this is our Chief CC commissioner so he’s either a fool or Gillard is a fool for choosing him for that position.

  149. Neville July 29, 2012 at 10:08 am #

    Another look at our wonderful NATURAL climate over the last 1000 years according to NOAA.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PDO1000yr.svg

    All that wonderful NATURAL droughty period of hundreds of years for the USA. Oh yes and super la ninas and super cyclones for OZ.

    Then a reversal for a very long period of that NATURAL climate extreme. The last cool phase PDO ( shown) is our very wet 1950s and 70s.

  150. sp July 29, 2012 at 10:39 am #

    GLOBAL WARMING – DEPRESSION AND THE INNER URBAN ELITE

    “In some cases apocalyptic thinking is part of a social movement. History is filled with examples of small cults and larger religious and quasi-religious groups that predicted the end of the world. In many cases they borrowed the apocalyptic mind set from the world of Christianity, where some fundamentalists devoutly point to the end of the world as prophetized in the Book of Revelations.

    The belief system of many modern cults and spiritual groups is a hodgepodge conglomeration of ideas from religion, philosophy, psychology, the occult, and science.

    It’s the injection of those “scientific” ideas into their ideology that justifies it, that makes it seem rational, logical, indisputable.”

    “Some unfortunate people grew up in a family or an environment marked by extreme unpredictability or unexpected trauma. Worry, suspicion, or even outright paranoia about what lies around the next bend has been burned into their psyche.

    Often in their lives they become preoccupied with anxious anticipation of cataclysm.”

    Exactly what calamity it will bring, no one knows for sure. But it will be calamity.

    It’s well know that one component of depression is the tendency to engage in the style of faulty thinking called “catastrophizing” – i.e., predicting and anticipating crisis, often based on little or no evidence.”

    http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/y2k.html

  151. Robert July 29, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    We’re not in history. We’re the New Men at Year Zero. Things are bad, too many humans have been allowed to survive since the good old dyin’ days of bio-dung and organic smoke – so just do as you’re told. No, we have not been at war with Global Cooling, Winston Smith. We have always been at war with Global Warming.

    Today I saw an internet ad with a hipster in a Fedora pointing like Uncle Sam in an old recruitment poster. He was saying something like: “The others have their solar panels, what about you?” Why worry about smelly old history when you’ve got vapid pop-culture to entertain and those plummy-voiced hipsters to explain about the state of the world?

  152. Debbie July 29, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    Luke,
    What’s the Duck?
    because once again…I object to the way you have USED those linked reports.
    While a couple are ABOUT the same topic….they neither prove or disprove Robert’s point.
    Yes…we do have an increasing population…..like DUH!
    Is the major problem/risk developing from increased population that the weather/climate is changing?
    What’s the actual duck?

  153. Debbie July 29, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    http://www.mmegi.bw/index.php?sid=2&aid=26&dir=2012/July/Friday27

    Is this a duck?

  154. Johnathan Wilkes July 29, 2012 at 3:11 pm #

    Luke
    “Of course history is the great eliminator. “

    Yes Luke but are you prepared to face the future?
    I know I am, with a clear conscience too.

  155. gavin July 29, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    Further back Deb asks about my solutions re AGW but I was rather busy and getting overwhelmingly tired. However by returning to the Guardian Blog and following that skeptic/conspiracy theme “New research finds that sceptics also tend to support conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked”- it seems I still need to post much simpler evidence than all that from msm.

    Note again “All of this suggests that the battle to overcome climate scepticism – if that is even a useful way of thinking about it – will not be won by simply restating the scientific facts. The problem is that “the facts” are not “the facts” for a small proportion of people – and the noise made by this minority group dilutes the otherwise clear signal about climate change received by the wider population”.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists

    And it refers to “Tackling belief is the key to overcoming climate change scepticism” Adam Corner – March 30

    “But in studies that have asked who is sceptical about climate change and why, we find not a story about scientific ignorance, but a link between social attitudes, cultural beliefs and climate change scepticism. The evidence is starkest in the US , but similar patterns are found elsewhere too: older, white, conservative men tend to be more sceptical about climate change”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/30/belief-climate-change-scepticism

    Does the boot fit?

  156. Robert July 29, 2012 at 6:23 pm #

    Gav, stop talking about “findings” and “studies” and “evidence” when you – and those preening turkeys at the Guardian – are just trying to insult. Insults are fine, but the mock-concern and pseudo-academic jargon are just too ridiculous.

    As for the Guardian, please stop cutting-and-pasting from the petty authoritarian’s rag-of-choice. Get your conceit and smugness at the Canberra Times and ABC. Buy local.

  157. gavin July 29, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    We finally got round to cleaning up rivers, ports and coastlines in the late 1960′s and that was only after we could do continuous monitoring of effluents from various sources. Emissions to atmosphere were even more tricky and the petro/chemical industries had a lot going on mostly below the “radar”.

    All the while though, domestic and transport emissions were hardly ever checked on a routine basis. Sure, cars and heavy vehicles had to preform to ever improving standards from the 1970′s on but whole urban areas continued to be quite seriously damaged as they grew rapidly in size. Fifty years ago some realized polluted parts of the atmosphere could kill people and waste an environment. Global monitoring of atmosphere and oceans has only just began in earnest. Two hundred years ago it was awfully crude by today’s standards.

    Because I have been part of the upgrade in expectations over a range of industries and utilities I can confidently say how to look beyond the range of instrument records available from our more recent science and engineering using a series of natural events as another guide to global changes.

    Also our recorded history as written must be filtered relative to other turning points from the natural history as the new climate science verifies them. Experience at any time can be colored by individual circumstances like my yardstick is longer than yours when it comes to walks.

  158. el gordo July 29, 2012 at 6:47 pm #

    “…older, white, conservative men tend to be more sceptical about climate change”

    Wisdom comes with age (its quantifiable) but all this nonsense about white conservative men is racist and sexist ….and I suggest you reread your PC handbook on the subject.

    ‘The problem is that “the facts” are not “the facts” for a small proportion of people’

    Games up Gavin, the Gorebull Worming facts are history….its only a matter of time before the warminista and climatariat are totally humiliated.

  159. Robert July 29, 2012 at 6:57 pm #

    Gav, thanks for your last comment. Guardian-free and well worth reading. (I can really do without that miserable Pommie re-education camp called the Guardian.)

  160. Ian Thomson July 29, 2012 at 7:07 pm #

    Hi Gavin,

    “Without belief in climate change, repeating the scientific case for manmade global warming simply bounces off” ( Adam Corner , Guardian )
    What does he mean by this? Is it that only the converted can be preached to ?
    You do realise that this is just an opinion piece dressed up as information ? Or do you ?

    ” but similar patterns are found elsewhere too: older, white, conservative men tend to be more sceptical about climate change.”
    Hey Debbie, are you enjoying being a white , conservative old man ? That’s what this loonie infers.
    Jo Nova and Jennifer may need to change to fit as well, not to mention Donna LaFramboise .

  161. Neville July 29, 2012 at 7:58 pm #

    Gav your ramblings are just plain silly. So called mitigation of AGW is an impossibility without the support of the non OECD. Of course you first must believe in a positive feedback to increased co2 emissions.

    You seem to feel you can make assertions yet never ever offer a solution. Why do you bother repeating your silly mantra when simple maths tells you that any solution is politically out of reach?

    You know that Gillard and labor only care about Oz’s emissions and not emissions from our exported coal, gas and iron ore.
    In fact they are trying to increase exports from the latrobe valley in Vic by processing our huge brown coal deposits.

    Can’t you understand the hypocrisy and stupidity of these arguments? The non OECD are increasing emissions by 1 billion tonnes every year and yet you can’t seem to understand this simple fact.
    You seem to lack any logic and reason.

  162. Debbie July 29, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

    Yep,
    Got that inference Ian.
    You surely must be kidding Gavin?
    Ian’s correct you know….rather a lot of questions are being asked by females….and I don’t think they would appreciate being called old either.
    I don’t think their ideas are set in racist parameters either.
    I also think an attempt to brand them in a particular political camp will not work.
    I asked you a question that allowed you to assume that I’m not ‘sceptical’ and THAT was your answer? ????? :-) :-) :-)
    “Tackling belief is the key to overcoming climate change scepticism”
    That is incredibly ironic.
    ROFL!
    So you think eveything can be solved and the ice caps saved by ‘tackling belief’?
    The question was very simple Gavin.
    Is your answer to get rid of…or maybe re educate…. white conservative old men?
    Your problem there is that I will still be here asking the same question and you will likely not be around to answer it!
    You score at least 3 out of 4 on that one.
    I think I’m probably a zero….but not sure what age is considered ‘old’ in this article.
    The other problem is that I don’t believe changing the opinions of conservative white old men will influence the polar caps, the SLR or the atmosphere!

    The question was about solutions Gavin….not beliefs.
    You also said that adaption was not the answer….so I assumed you had a better one?
    And to your question:
    Does the boot fit?
    Answer:
    Nope!

  163. gavin July 29, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

    Deb; I grew up in an era where we built a few big dams while planning the next power scheme. Progress was measured in terms of the cheapest and largest amount of power available to expanding post war industries. There had to be lots of Euclids dashing about. Assessing other impacts was hardly ever contemplated then. Changing that philosophy took a while but it all happened as the science got behind us.

    As it turns out, water is one of our major regulators and it’s the flow that counts, not the storage as we don’t like variations in availability. Precipitation is the key, hence vital studies are increasing round our oceans. Detecting climate change will get easier region by region.

    Observation by the lay is important too. I had to go to NZ to see glaciers retreating by kilometers from historic marks to know by my boots that the world is not cooling. I had to go back to Tasmania to find high water marks that were not impacted by big ripples.

    There is no way our SL is falling. From the air a whole island has no beach at king tide on a bright sunny day.Trying to measure this with a school ruler is not so easy though. Think about a HP weather cell v a big low for a mo. We need to see both the sun and the moon at their best.

  164. Neville July 29, 2012 at 9:49 pm #

    Debbie the trouble is Luke Gav etc are not into solutions of any kind because they know it can’t be done.

    In the Christy video I linked to, he actually does the maths for the possibility of building 1000 nuclear power stations.

    The answer for AGW mitigation is still sweet fanny adams, zip, zero, nothing. Trouble is we’re arguing with fools or people who know their arguments are stupid nonsense but can’t admit it.

    These people are so sure that there is a positive feedback to co2 but then cringe and crawl away without offering a solution for the mitigation of this most important moral challenge of our lives. What a sick joke.

  165. Robert July 29, 2012 at 10:10 pm #

    Met recently with an Aussie consultant-type working in the Maldives. He confirmed what I’d heard elsewhere, but what is not widely touted, for some reason.

    Most of us are encouraged to think of the place as as a marginalised poster child for global warming and sea level rise. Well, the globe may have warmed a bit between 1980 and the late 1990s. Sea levels are so complex they make one dizzy, but the Maldives, when it comes to all that, are like John Travolta, lecturing about ” the environment” while he had a couple of private Boeings and other jets parked right outside his house. In short, the Maldives and their many investors are pretty relaxed about their looming catastrophe.

    Here’s an idea of the price of property, waterfront of course:
    http://www.primelocation.com/international-property/search/path/maldives/sr/s/t/houseandapartment/?ls=1

    As well as having the money to hold underwater cabinet meetings to get world attention to their “plight”, the Maldivians are busy with maintaining (and building many more) luxury hotels, high-en resorts, golf courses…and numerous airstrips!

    We may be feeling terribly worried for the sub-aquatic future of this little nation, but big investors like the Taj Hotels Resorts and Palaces group don’t seem at all concerned.

    Interested in a stay before the Maldives sink beneath the waves? You’ll be enchanted by their natural beauties, but you may find yourself confronted with an unexpected poverty problem. Your own!

    https://www.atollparadise.com/maldives

  166. cohenite July 29, 2012 at 10:19 pm #

    “We need to see both the sun and the moon at their best.”

    Gav is tripping again; too many magic mushrooms.

  167. gavin July 30, 2012 at 7:52 am #

    It took only minutes to find the right photo after Google using a key word “surf” not “bad weather”. Pictures tell all.

    There is no island beach there under the blazing sun.

    Male Surf Photo: ‘Male Atol, Maldives – from the air’ by Nick Russill – 2007

    http://www.surf-forecast.com/breaks/Male/photos/1270

  168. Luke July 30, 2012 at 8:18 am #

    Gee Robert – well that’s proof then. Sort of like a pre-GFC investment prospectus.

  169. Robert July 30, 2012 at 8:51 am #

    Gav, don’t tell me Male is a very low-lying atoll! Seems like only a couple of millennia ago it was a very low lying atoll. And that Google thingy you’ve got there! It’s so fast!

    By the way, there’s a saying up the coast here. Maybe you’ve heard it. An environmentalist is somebody who has already bought his waterfront.

  170. gavin July 30, 2012 at 9:53 am #

    Get a perspective!

    Anyone considering the Maldives for investment or as evidence of AGW adaption should have a good look at this.

    “A PROCESS BASED ASSESSMENT OF ENGINEERED STRUCTURES ON REEF
    ISLANDS OF THE MALDIVES” 2003

    http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/1031/1/KenchParnellBrander.pdf

  171. sp July 30, 2012 at 10:02 am #

    PRESS RELEASE – U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286

    Perhaps its not as bad as we have been told?

  172. kuhnkat July 30, 2012 at 10:08 am #

    Luke,

    “So Robert unprecedented Greenland surface melt – sounds like wind – err nope

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724131608.htm

    Er yeah, unprecedented, about every 150 years!! Jeez Luke, you Heaters are SOOOOO GUUUULLLIBLE!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  173. kuhnkat July 30, 2012 at 11:07 am #

    Debbie,

    Luke quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, craps like a duck, in fact Luke IS the duck. You need ask no further.

  174. Luke July 30, 2012 at 7:40 pm #

    No it doesn’t kuknkat. as if you’d know anything mate.

Website by 46digital