When Is the Right Time to Abandon Ship?

IN September, Patrick J. Michaels likened the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a treed cat. He wrote, “Instead of closing its eyes and scurrying to the ground, it climbs onto even higher and thinner branches, while yowling ever louder.”

Dr Michaels then went on to ask, how does the IPCC back down from a quarter-century of predicting a quarter of a degree (Celsius) of warming every decade, when there’s been none for 17 years now?

Chris Turney, professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales, could be described as a cat stuck on a high branch tweeting, but he’s actually at the Antarctic and should be considering abandoning ship, except that there is no clear water into which to launch a life raft.

According to the website Boatsafe.com it can be a difficult decision knowing just when to make the call and it is quite common for captains to wait too long to successfully get clear of a floundering foundering boat.

Four days ago the Professor Captain tweeted: “Great news. Icebreaker Snow Dragon on horizon with penguins! Everyone very happy!”Penguins_n_SnowDragon

Happy because the Chinese ice-breaking vessel Snow Dragon was expected to clear a path for the stricken ship by Friday night, avoiding the need to abandon ship.

That was after this 233-foot-long Russian-flagged ship sent out a distress signal on Christmas Eve, which was picked up by the Falmouth Maritime Rescue Coordination Center, in the U.K. As the floundering ship is in the Australian search-and-rescue region, the message was passed on to AMSA, and three ice-breaking ships were sent to the rescue.

So far there has been no mention of the climate by the professor of climate change.

But some positive reporting of the weather.

When it looked like the Snow Dragon would be unsuccessful in its bid to cut through 20 kilometres of sea ice frozen to an average depth of perhaps 10 metres, Professor Captain Turney explained that the weather had improved and the ship was no longer in a blizzard.

So, presumably no need to abandon ship.

Next day the Professor Captain tweeted that the ice was cracking. Still no mention of climate. But this time he did report that the weather had deteriorated with snowfalls and stronger winds.

Still no suggestion they abandon ship. In fact Turney tweeted confidently that the second ice-breaker, an Australian ship the Aurora, would be able to successfully rescue them. This despite reports that there was a growing distance between their floundering stricken ship and open water.

Oh. And wind conditions were putting a lot of strain on one side. Turney added that, “The build-up of ice on one side has given it quite a tilt.”

Not the climate, but the ship.

In fact must be five days stranded now, no clear water, and no mention of climate change.

I am surprised because there is surely potential for some simple climate change type calculations that could be done by the many scientists onboard.

For example, Professor Captain Turney has explained that sea ice can buildup fast because of high winds. Note. High winds, no mention of climate change.

But let me continue.

When the Captain Professor first realized there was no open channel through the ice they were only about two nautical miles from open water. Next thing, more than 20 miles of ice had built up. Now it’s apparently closer to 50 kilometers.

As someone genuinely interested in climate change I ask, “Given the tilting ship, is about 2,800 kilometres south of Hobart, if this catastrophic cooling trend continues, how many days before it is possible to skate across Bass Strait, from Hobart to Melbourne?”

But I digress. Back to the key issue: When is the right time to abandon ship?

As I write the distance between open water with the ice breakers and the tilting ship is somewhere in the vicinity of 50 kilometres. I don’t know how many penguins.

Of possible significance they are running out of coffee.

Sources of information





90 Responses to When Is the Right Time to Abandon Ship?

  1. Beth Cooper December 31, 2013 at 3:27 am #


  2. Russell Collie December 31, 2013 at 6:34 am #

    The only guarantee with Nature is constant change,very good observable lesson in the reasons why models fail so miserably.

    Understand the IPCC experts when pushed ,mumble about there being around a 10% probability that AGW will ruin the world that we know and love…….no warming for 17 years…wonder if that has dropped a couple of percent.

    Thank you for an excellent piece of work.

  3. handjive of climatefraud.inc December 31, 2013 at 6:47 am #

    Secret Santa has been good to the seekers of truth. A gift that just keeps giving and will be the poster child of all things wrong with UN-IPCC/BoM/CSIRO climate science.
    And still the saga continues. Thank you Gaia.
    Thought a look at the Conversation, the website of Australian Universities promoting the science of global warming would have the latest news.
    Not a peep.
    A Check of their previous stories before the expedition is telling: “This matters to Australians because, if Antarctica sneezes, we get a cold.” https://theconversation.com/australian-antarctic-science-is-being-frozen-out-by-budget-cuts-15758
    Watch this space.

  4. spangled drongo December 31, 2013 at 7:14 am #

    Classic stuff, Jen.

    A very good point, handjive. I emailed one of their authors but no answer was the stern reply.

    It’s all too inconvenient. ☺

  5. Neville December 31, 2013 at 7:19 am #

    Jennifer these hysterics could witness hell freeze over and it still wouldn’t convince them. And if they could skate accross Bass strait they would still claim humans were the cause.

    Michaels is correct and so is Bolt, they are pathological liars and so is any fool who supports their garbage.
    Here’s Bolt’s link again showing Commonwealth bay in 1912 free of ice and bare rocks everywhere. Certainly they are ” trapped by irony”, as the Bolter observes. But these morons are so dumb that nothing can puncture their thick skulls.
    And that goes as well for our clueless MSM.


  6. Luke December 31, 2013 at 7:22 am #

    ” if this catastrophic cooling trend continues”

    Jen will do anything to keep the faithful’s mind off the warmest November.

    And now those Queensland temperature records tumbling.

    Cooling trend? Genuinely interested. ROFL !

    and more hype – now the ship is “floundering”?

  7. mmxx December 31, 2013 at 7:33 am #

    In the last few days an hypothesis emanating from MV Akademic Consensus proposed that upper layers of relatively fresh water were associated with this rapid icing predicament. Also mentioned was that this spreading ice coverage was causing the decline of algal biomass at deeper levels. It was postulated that his would have increasingly deleterious impact on the marine biota in those waters.

    Unsurprisingly, this seemed to imply it was somehow a consequence of global warming and that spreading sea ice in this situation was bad for the environment.

    Huh? I thought loss of sea ice heralded a global catastrophe in any other sense. Now we the public are asked to believe our planet is facing doom either way.

    There is no situation that the narrative spun by the climate change cult cannot be twisted to fit their CAGW dogma.

    Climate science has been downgraded to junk status by the public ratings agency.

  8. jennifer December 31, 2013 at 7:33 am #

    Hey Luke,

    I think “stricken ship” is probably more apt than “floundering” boat? I’m open for suggestions on how to improve the wording, in particular, to make it more accurate. Also, hypothetically, just wondering, like, how long do you think it could be before the Tasman Sea ices over? I guess that will need to happen before the ice gets to Bass Strait?

  9. Neville December 31, 2013 at 7:48 am #

    This is a good coverage from Watts on these hapless fools. In this age of instant up to the minute satellite coverage we have to ask, how did they get into this trouble in the first place?


    I see Luke has jumped in with his usual nonsense still valiantly flogging his CAGW dead horse. As I’ve said before these fools will do anything to support their barking mad, totalitarian cult.

  10. Johnathan Wilkes December 31, 2013 at 7:59 am #

    Warmest November?

    Not in my part of the world! Blooming freezing yesterday and today morning too wit expected 25C max.

    Where do get your mail from?

  11. Ian Thomson December 31, 2013 at 8:08 am #

    Jen, they’ve been getting heavy rain in NZ, so lots of that deadly fresh water must be polluting the Tasman, ( via the West Coast rivers ) , even as we speak. Look out Tasman, we better buy some skates.

    I am quite sure that the algae on the bottom in that spot will recover, fertilised by all the nutrients dribbling from that ship in the last week or so.
    The ABC will also get a dynamic lift, fueled by the bullshit which will be forthcoming from Professor ‘ Mawson Man’ Turney, upon his eventual , premature homecoming.

  12. Martin Clark December 31, 2013 at 8:10 am #

    ” … warmest November … Queensland temperature records tumbling [?] … ”
    Not around here [19°S]. I wouldn’t go along with the cooling trend being catastrophic, but it is cooler than the late ’90s. We have climate sameness :-O

    “Floundering” presumably a typo for foundering. If the Polar Star doesn’t arrive in time, the ship could well founder. Already being tipped by the ice. The “ice armouring” does not extend all round the hull.

  13. jennifer December 31, 2013 at 8:41 am #

    Thanks Martin Clark…

    “founder, flounder
    It is easy to confuse the words founder and flounder, not only because they sound similar but also because the contexts in which they are used overlap. Founder means, in its general and extended use, ‘fail or come to nothing, sink out of sight’ (the scheme foundered because of lack of organizational backing). Flounder, on the other hand, means ‘struggle, move clumsily, be in a state of confusion’ (new recruits floundering about in their first week).”

  14. Debbie December 31, 2013 at 8:46 am #

    I truly do wonder why Luke thinks presenting broad brush averages/means/medians over whole continents that experience highly, highly variable weather actually means anything at all important?

    During some seasons in Oz. . .if you wanted to. . .you could go skiing in the Alps in the morning. . . hop on a plane around lunchtime. . .and sunbake on the beach in the afternoon.

    (those people in the Antarctic may have a bit of a problem trying that at the moment however . . I’m sure a quick plane trip to somewhere like the QLD coast sounds mighty fine to them about now)

    Presenting broad averages/means/medians and then writing them up as if they’re similar to breaking the 4 minute mile doesn’t mean anything significant or useful in terms of our climate/weather.

    They are interesting statistics. . .and it’s very clever. . .but in terms of significance and practical use. . . ?????????

  15. Popeye December 31, 2013 at 9:13 am #


    You FORGOT the links to your statement “the warmest November” – I’m sure you’ll fix that shortly (well – maybe not).


  16. Beth Cooper December 31, 2013 at 9:26 am #

    Should all hell freeze over, alarmists
    would allow themselves no doubt.
    ‘It’s warming, folks, and you’re to blame.’

    Though the ship founder and activists flounder,
    the ice misadventure to suitably explain, it won’t
    be long before they’re back playing the gigo game.

  17. Neville December 31, 2013 at 9:32 am #

    Cohenite thanks for that link to Ken’s kingdom, something I wasn’t aware of, but will follow him more closely after his updates in the new year.

    BTW OZ’s coldest temp (ever) was recorded at Charlotte’s pass NSW in June 1994. Not that long ago.


  18. Neville December 31, 2013 at 9:53 am #

    WUWT on the flip of the sun’s magnetic field. And good links to NASA on this as well.


  19. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 11:45 am #

    They can see the other ship over younder. SO what’s the problem? Put on your hiking boots, throw on a life jacket, bring a line for safety (case somebody falls in a crack), walk on out.

    Looks like about a three hour walk.

    And count their lucky polar stars a U.S. Icebreaker was just deployed Dec 3rd after a refit, headed in that direction anyways.

    Think about it, a Chinese icebreaker probably designed to open ports. or some such.
    ” Xuelong (Snow Dragon) is China’s first icebreaker and was built in Ukraine in 1993. China spent 31 million yuan (US$3.7 million) to convert it into a transport ship for Antarctic expeditions. It replaced Jidi in 1994 and has remained in service ever since.”

    A commie cast off picked up at a fire sale. Where as the Polar Star was built specific to break ice in Antarctica.

    Shackleton spent two years trapped on the ice. I’m sure these jokers can last a week or two.

  20. richardcfromnz December 31, 2013 at 11:56 am #

    >When Is the Right Time to Abandon Ship?

    UN IPCC: before one finds oneself to be the last one fielding calls from dissatisfied customers.

    MV Akademik Shokalskiy: before it looks like this >>>>>


    At least the climateers will have a firm footing. They’ve seized their unexpected opportunity to do some extra “research”:

    “…….tests done by the scientists on board the vessel have found that the frozen wasteland encasing its hull is now between 3m and 4m thick.”


    After all, “discover and communicate” was the purpose of their voyage.

  21. Tom Biegler December 31, 2013 at 11:59 am #

    The central issue raised in this article and associated commentary is simple. We are being told that the climate scientists who contribute to the work of the IPCC are either fools or knaves, or both. That is, they are not as smart as the Marohasys of the world (not, by the way, a climate scientist but “an Australian biologist, columnist and blogger”) or the many other keen climate observers and interpreters who contribute here and elsewhere with grim determination and peerless chutzpah. Or else they are involved in a giant conspiracy to maintain their reputations, positions and research grants and to suppress contrary views.

    I am not saying that I am certain the IPCC is always right. All I am certain of is that true scientists are always curious and sceptical and love nothing more than proving their peers wrong. In my long scientific career I worked and interacted with thousands of scientists. I often thought they were wrong but never that they were crooks. I always thought that on points of disagreement the normal processes of scientific publication and review would steadily lead to the truth.

    The most common fault amongst scientists is neither stupidity nor dishonesty but a tendency to move away from their science and into advocating its practical application. On matters of the commercial or practical application of discoveries and inventions scientists are usually working beyond their remit and outside their expertise. They are always emotionally involved, often conflicted and surprisingly ignorant.

    This is exactly what has happened in the case of climate science. Many climate scientists have moved into advocacy of their pet solutions, perhaps costly or impractical, to the problems of climate change. They have antagonised many and damaged their credibility. But their views on such solutions are of no more consequence than those of the rest of us.

    Critics often find that the easiest response is to discredit the science. Just look at this blog. But those critics are displaying precisely the same fault as the climate scientists they attack. They are way outside their fields of expertise. Leave the science to the scientists and submit your critiques to peer-reviewed journals. Pull up the scientists when they step outside their fields. Don’t make the same mistake. Perhaps then we can have a more polite and civilised discourse.

  22. richardcfromnz December 31, 2013 at 12:23 pm #

    Other “research” being carried out, apart from counting penguins, includes:

    “Some built snowmen, others had snowball fights. ……. someone built a snow tree. Inside the ship, the expedition doctor was leading a first-aid course, a Scrabble tournament was in full flow and one of the chefs had started giving groups of passengers rudimentary lessons in Russian.”


    Ensuring future Antarctic expeditions will have an excellent reference resource on which to call upon in the event of unexpected sea ice entrapment.

  23. jennifer December 31, 2013 at 12:34 pm #

    Hey Tom Biegler,

    It is my considered opinion, also based on my recent publications in peer reviewed journals concerned with climate science, that much of what is being published by the IPCC is nonsense.

    For a more nuanced take on the extraordinary lengths that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology scientists will go to mislead, consider reading my upcoming paper in Atmospheric Research, already available online…

    Link here http://jennifermarohasy.com/input-selection-and-optimisation-for-monthly-rainfall-forecasting/

    Abbot J. & Marohasy J. Input Selection and Optimisation for Monthly Rainfall Forecasting in Queensland, Australia, using Artificial Neural Networks, Atmospheric Research, 2013, 10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.11.002.

  24. jennifer December 31, 2013 at 12:36 pm #

    PS. Just heard ABC news reporting that the ship became stuck because of ‘wild weather’, no mention of the cold weather.

  25. Martin Clark December 31, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    Imo the purpose of the hottest November / Angry Summer pronouncements is that on some people, they work.
    Early this year I ran into an acquaintance who exclaimed “Isn’t it hot !!”.
    I had my work gear with me, so I pulled out the T/RH meter. (I had to explain that it would need to sit in the shade and away from my hand for a bit, and away from the concrete, bitumen and shiny leaves.)
    34°C 59%. That’s comfortable.
    (I also carry a CO2 meter, originally used for checking air quality in confined workspaces, now needed to demonstrate that 400ppm is no big deal. Goes up to 425, 450 when the sun sets and photosynthesis shuts down.
    No vehicles or AC units nearby, no coal-fired power stations out there on the Pacific Ocean, where the air is coming from 60% of the time.)

  26. cohenite December 31, 2013 at 12:42 pm #

    Tom Biegler. there are elements of truth in your comment but you are far too generous to climate scientists who seem increasingly motivated by ego, ideology and money and power.

    Basically AGW is a failed theory because the modelling it is based on is irreparably flawed. It is astounding to me that given the lack of evidence to support AGW and the preponderance of evidence against it that such people as Chris Turney, the leader of this absurd expedition, can still maintain their faith in the theory as they slowly disappear beneath the ice. This is not a scientific perspective but an act of faith.

  27. Neville December 31, 2013 at 12:58 pm #

    Alright Tom Biegler here’s your chance to be the first to answer my question. I can give you a 100% guarantee that I am correct just by applying simple kindy maths.

    Between now and 2040 the increase in co2 emissions will mainly come from the non OECD developing world and ZIP from the OECD.
    The EIA forecast is 94% of the increase in co2 emissions until 2040 will come from the non OECD and 6% will come from the OECD.

    Now here’s the question– how can CAGW be tackled by the OECD countries trying to reduce co2 emissions by 5% or !0% or 20% or 50% or 100% for that matter?
    Also you must understand that OZ only emits about 1.2% of global emissions and we easily cover that number because our EEZ sink is larger by a factor of 10.

    The mitigation of CAGW is the greatest fraud and con for at least 100 years and anyone who doesn’t understand this can only be a liar , a fraudster or a fool.

  28. Robert December 31, 2013 at 1:13 pm #

    Tom, the problem with climate science is that it really doesn’t exist. Consider those oceans which are important in every climate theory. Largely unvisited. Consider the Earth, not just the tiny bit we hop about on. Almost totally unexplored and unexamined, and most of it is plastic and hot. Of course many will say these are secondary matters, but gowned ignorance has always said as much.

    I’d suggest that “climate scientists” are not walking away from science, they are refusing to walk toward it. Who can blame them? To understand the hydrosphere, the lithosphere, the atmosphere and all relevant matters solar and celestial is a stupendous challenge. At least “an Australian biologist, columnist and blogger” may have paused to consider this. Have you?

    We can’t leave the science to climate scientists because they do not exist, except in the sense that there were medical scientists before surgeons knew to wash their hands.

  29. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 1:15 pm #

    @ Tom

    See that. She’s smart, cute, and published.

    If I had to be stuck on an ice float, I’d rather be there with Jennifer Marohasy than Chris Turney. Easy call.

  30. Tom Biegler December 31, 2013 at 1:26 pm #

    Happy to answer your question, Neville. Climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions cannot be tackled by Australia alone. And any action that does not involve all of the major energy users, worldwide, will be futile. In my view, no technically feasible solution to tackling climate change has yet been put forward. Renewable energy advocates are much too optimistic about the effectiveness of those technologies. Environmentalists generally ignore the real economic costs of reducing emissions. Much more could be said on this topic. This is not the place.

    So, how does that answer in any way invalidate what I wrote above? It doesn’t. My answer does not require me either to defend or doubt climate science or insult the scientists. It is based on my knowledge/views on politics, economics and technology. And people do disagree on such matters. But in polite society that is no reason to hurl insults at them.

  31. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 1:38 pm #

    Not in the habit of amending my temperament to appease liars, who push fraud for their amusement and personal enrichment.

  32. Neville December 31, 2013 at 1:39 pm #

    Alright Tom I’ll give you 10 out of 10 for your answer so far. But Oz is indeed more than tackling our share of so called CAGW because of our much greater EEZ sink.

    So can CAGW be tackled by the OECD and non OECD reducing emissions by say 20% for the next 30 years?
    It won’t happen of course but what do you think would be the impact on global temp and climate by 2050 and by 2100?

  33. Johnathan Wilkes December 31, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

    “Much more could be said on this topic. This is not the place.”

    I’m sure Jen will accommodate, please make it the place and enlighten us.

    Reading of the antics of some scientists’ I regretfully have to disagree with you about their methods and motives.

  34. Neville December 31, 2013 at 1:46 pm #

    It now seems like all the media are forgetting the reason why this cruise ship load of fools were there in the first place.


  35. cohenite December 31, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

    “Much more could be said on this topic. This is not the place.”

    Why not? Let’s start with whether there is any evidence against the very existence of AGW; here it is:






    Now, Tom present your evidence supporting AGW.

  36. Neville December 31, 2013 at 2:31 pm #

    Chris Turney now tells us all that extra ice in Antarctica is caused by AGW. But the UAH temp record for the south pole 1979 to 2013 shows a flat or slightly negative trend.
    And Bob Tisdale’s SST also shows there is a declining trend over the same period.


    Don’t these people ever look at the data? What are they paid for and why would anyone ever take any notice of them again?

  37. Debbie December 31, 2013 at 2:39 pm #

    I mostly agree with Tom’s points about hurling insults and the fact that advocacy is not a scientific field.
    There is however a sort of loose fraternity of scientists and their supporters who Luke has dubbed AGW celebs who do indeed pursue advocacy and have won much exposure leaning on and promoting their credentials and qualifications. . .many with no expertise as a ‘climate scientist’ (whatever that really means)
    I dislike the behaviour immensely but I do not think it is being hurled in one direction only and not just by or at scientists.
    I feel just a little sorry for the people stuck in the ice. . .but they did go out with big plans and much fanfare that they knew what they were doing & what to expect… and I’m guessing that ‘Mother Nature’ was somehow their special friend (sort of).
    I seriously think it has proved to be a waste of time and resources with no clear explanation of the ROI to either the Australian public or the Australian environment/weather/climate.
    However where I tend to disagree with Tom just a little is his implication that ‘climate scientists’ in particular are being unfairly criticised for their work
    As per my simple question to Luke earlier:
    From which quarter and areas of scientific research have the deliberately insulting terms ‘denier’, ‘silly sceptics’, ‘climate criminals’, ‘carbon pollution’ & etc come from?
    Who are the people who have made an art out of assuming that they know what is better and that they are the only ones who care about the environment/climate/weather and if you dare to ask questions about practical application (ie reality) it means you must not care and/or you just don’t understand and/or that you’re being funded by some deeply suspicious source?
    But I do agree that it is very poor behaviour.

  38. richardcfromnz December 31, 2013 at 2:49 pm #

    Tom Biegler, you say:

    “Critics often find that the easiest response is to discredit the science. Just look at this blog. But those critics are displaying precisely the same fault as the climate scientists they attack. They are way outside their fields of expertise. Leave the science to the scientists and submit your critiques to peer-reviewed journals”

    I’m one of those critics. I have studied introductory thermodynamics and applied it commercially i.e. heat is not “way outside [my field] of expertise” although I will concede I’m not an expert. Contrary to your criteria, peer-reviewed journals were not required reading for my education, that was texts with titles like ‘Applied Heat’. How many climate scientists have undergone that training?

    So lets take a look at the IPCC’s forcing expression dF = 5.35 ln (C/Co), a simplification of a simplification (Myhre et al 1998) arrived at originally by a bogus splicing (requiring a massive fudge to fit) of Law Dome ice core CO2 to Mauna Loa CO2. More on the evolution of that here: http://www.john-daly.com/bull-121.htm

    Basically they extrapolated from 1998 to accommodate the 2xCO2 scenario at 800ppm, but without experimental justification for the extrapolation. Neither has that expression ever been verified experimentally.

    Here’s the thing Tom. There are other CO2 forcing expressions that have been verified for combustion engineering. Not saying CO2 performs exactly the same in the atmosphere as it does in a furnace but if it does perform differently, climate science certainly hasn’t done any work on it to know what the difference is.

    The following plot is a comparison of the IPCC’s forcing expression with one of those other verified expressions (Leckner at 278K – applicable to about mid lower troposphere):


    As you can see, there’s no forcing past about 200ppm in the verified expression but the IPCC’s continues its straight line extrapolation on the log-log scale (it’s a curve on a log scale).

    However, you require a critique from me in the form of a paper appearing in a peer-reviewed journal. But what if there’s literature already covering the above that the IPCC has not deferred to? Why didn’t they defer to it? Can I cite it? Surely if there’s such a paper then I don’t have to duplicate it just to satisfy your criteria?

    Turns out Tom, that there’s a couple of papers to reference in respect to the above, one of which compiles the expressions originally in use (IPCC’s not one of them), the other verifies some of those expressions for continued use (IPCC’s not one of those either). The first is:

    R. VISKANTA and M. P. MENGO, 1987


    Quoting from it:

    “There are several curve-fitted expressions available in the literature for use in computer codes. Some of them are given in terms of polynomials 48- 50 and the others are expressed in terms of the weighted sum-of-gray gases. 51~-54″

    48. LECKNER, B., Combust. Flame 19, 33 (1972).
    49. MODAK, A. T., Fire Res. I, 339 11979).
    50. STEWARD, F R. and KOCAEFE, Y. S., Heat TronsJer–
    1986, C. L. Tien, V. P. Carey, and J. K. Ferrell (Eds),
    Vol. 2, pp. 735-740, Hemisphere Publishing Corp.,
    Washington, D.C. (1986).
    51. TAYLOR, P. B. and FOSTER, P. J., Int. J. Heat Mass
    TransJer 17, 1591 11974).
    52. SMrm, T. F., SHEN, Z. F. and FRIEDMAN, J. N., J. Heot
    Transfer 104. 602 (1982[
    53. FARAG, I. H., Heat Transfer 1982, U. Grigull, E.
    Hahne, K. Stephan and J. Straub (Eds), VoL 2. pp.
    489-492. Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1982).
    54. COPALLE, A. and VERVlSCH, P., Combust. Flame 49. 101

    The second is:


    N. Lallemant, A. Sayre and R. Weber


    Quoting from it:

    Emissivity correlations are usually limited to calculations of the CO, and H20 total emissivity. Mathematically, these models appear either in the form of the weighted sum of gray gases model (WSGGM)4-‘5 or in the form of polynomials.‘-3 Existing WSGGM are somewhat less general than the polynomial correlations since coefficients for the WSGGM have to be recalculated for each H20/ CO1 partial pressure ratio. Polynomial correlations such as those of Leckner2 and Modak3 do not feature such shortcomings; they involve many more fitted coefficients (e.g. 48 for each species in Modak’s model) but retain all the generality required to model total emissivity of gas mixtures. Both types of correlations are accurate enough and simple to use in engineering calculations. However, they are often limited to total emissivity calculations in volumes of gas with a mean beam length greater than 1 cm. This section surveys the total emissivity correlations presented in Table 2. Only the models which have been widely applied in CFD modeling of flames and engineering combustion problems are described.

    3.2. Polynomial Approximations
    The two most well-known and general total emissivity correlations using polynomials are those developed by L.eckne2 and Modak.3 Prior to these publications, Hadvig’ derived polynomial expressions to calculate the total emissivity of HzO-CO2 gas mixtures for pW/pC = 1 and pW/pC = 2. However, in view of the limited range of applicability of this model, it is excluded from the assessment in Section 4.

    4.1. Generalities
    In this section, the exponential wide band model (EWBM)25,26 is used to provide benchmark data to validate the total emissivity models developed by Johnson6 Leckner,2 Taylor and Foster,’ Modak,3 Smith et a1.,13 Coppale and Vervish14 and Steward and Kocaefe” (see Table 2).

    # # #

    I suggest Tom, that the fundamental underpinning of climate science’s application of radiative heat transfer wrt CO2 i.e. dF = 5.35 ln (C/Co), does not need a peer-reviewed critique from any of us critics in order for it to be discredited. All we have to do is point to two papers already in the literature, one that’s has been there for 26 years and the other for 17 years.

    I could elaborate with a similar situation regarding LWIR penetration of water where climate science is oblivious to work done by medical laser physics, firstly by Hale and Querry (1973) 40 years ago, results here:


    Subsequently corroborated by, among others, Segelstein and Wieliczka. See:

    ‘Optical Absorption of Water Compendium’


    It’s climate science that needs to look “outside their fields of expertise” (whatever those are) Tom – not their critics. We (their critics) have looked at long established applied physics and found climate science to be operating in ignorance of it and without deference to it, all we have to do is point that out.

    Unnecessary effort really because they’ve been exposed by the very climate they’re supposed to be scientists of. Growing IPCC confidence despite their CO2-forced models diverging wildly from observations:


    The climate is climate sciences foremost critic Tom

  39. Tom Biegler December 31, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    Hello Cohenite. The ‘topic’ I was referring to was the economic costs of reducing emissions, not the science of AGW. It makes no more sense for me to develop and express an ‘opinion’ on, let alone criticise, climate science as presented by the IPCC than for me to do that for the functions of a mitochondrion or the theory of relativity or the atomic weight of lutetium. I am not a climate scientist or a climate physicist, or a cloud physicist, or a computational fluid dynamicist. Are you? However, I have been aware of the physics of the greenhouse effect for about 55 years, dating of course from much earlier (Fourier, Tyndall etc from the 1820s onwards), my school chemistry textbook mentioned the interest that Arrhenius had in the early 1900s on the possible climate effect of burning lots of coal, and I have no problem at all in accepting the possibility that the use of fossils fuels could affect the earth’s climate. Beyond that, my ignorance and modesty prevent me from either supporting or attacking the work of the IPCC on climate. I can only repeat. Leave it to the scientists to sort out. And to those who accuse them of being liars or cheats, tackle them directly with evidence admissible in a court. Or stay silent.

  40. Neville December 31, 2013 at 2:55 pm #

    This is a very good column by Maurice Newman on the madness of crowds and the implication for CAGW.

    I hope Tom has the time to read it.

  41. Debbie December 31, 2013 at 3:23 pm #

    As you have pointed out yourself earlier. . .leaving it to the scientists to sort out has proved to be a bad idea:

    ” On matters of the commercial or practical application of discoveries and inventions scientists are usually working beyond their remit and outside their expertise. They are always emotionally involved, often conflicted and surprisingly ignorant.

    This is exactly what has happened in the case of climate science. Many climate scientists have moved into advocacy of their pet solutions, perhaps costly or impractical, to the problems of climate change. They have antagonised many and damaged their credibility”

    And very unfortunately, too many of them have also moved into hyperbole, faux celebrity status and alarmism.
    I would agree that in most cases it’s not because they’re bad people or that are intentionally lying or cheating. . BUT(!). . .and it’s a BIG BUT(!) it is becoming rather obvious. . . as you inferred earlier. . . that we should not be ‘leaving it to the scientists’. . .it is simply costing a lot of time, resources, political angst, unrest and reputations for no clearly defined benefits to the environment/climate/weather.

  42. cohenite December 31, 2013 at 3:27 pm #

    “I am not a climate scientist or a climate physicist, or a cloud physicist, or a computational fluid dynamicist. Are you?”

    This is a stock reply to those who question ‘climate science’. Such luminaries as Hamilton, Manne, Shearman and many others have taken this tact with ‘ordinary’ folk commenting on their betters.

    It is repugnant. Climate science is not rocket science; it is based on establishing a base period of weather/climate and then comparing the period in question with the base; see von Storch and Zwiers, page 7:


    They say:

    “Climatology was originally a sub-discipline of Geography, and was therefore mainly descriptive (see, e.g., Bruckner [70], Hann [155], or Hann and Knoch [156]). Description of the climate consisted primarily of estimates of its mean state and estimates of its variability about that state, such as its standard deviations and other simple measures of variability. Much of climatology is still focused on these concerns today.”

    The idea that ‘ordinary’ folk can’t comment on climate science is b……t! I have given you several links to papers and reasons for regarding AGW as a failed science; unless you can rebut these or point to where they are rebutted all flow-ons from AGW such economic measures, energy scams and the like are irrelevant because the basic reason for them, the existence of AGW, has not been established.

  43. Robert December 31, 2013 at 3:28 pm #

    I have no trouble believing in the possibility of some AGW and the possible correctness of certain radiative theories which have been around for a long time. I can also go along with some cooling caused by particulates etc. Why not?

    Of course, none of this has anything to do with the outrageous prognostications, extrapolations, predictions – and hockeysticks! – of people who may be scientists but cannot possibly be “climate scientists” (see my remarks above). This also applies to coolists who see a new Dalton or Maunder coming because the sun has gone sluggish for a bit, and to born again warmists like Steven Schneider and the admirable Hubert Lamb when they were in their coolist phases in the 70s.

    Can we let the science exist first, before we defend it? It’s likely to be a long and expensive job. Better get started.

  44. Neville December 31, 2013 at 3:31 pm #

    Tom this is how you chose to introduce yourself to this blog——

    “The central issue raised in this article and associated commentary is simple. We are being told that the climate scientists who contribute to the work of the IPCC are either fools or knaves, or both. That is, they are not as smart as the Marohasys of the world (not, by the way, a climate scientist but “an Australian biologist, columnist and blogger”) or the many other keen climate observers and interpreters who contribute here and elsewhere with grim determination and peerless chutzpah. Or else they are involved in a giant conspiracy to maintain their reputations, positions and research grants and to suppress contrary views”

    You went for Jennifer straight away in a rude and stupid fashion and seemed to put the boot into the other bloggers here because we have doubts about CAGW and the guaranteed waste of billions $ on this mitigation fraud and con.
    You seem to accept the science that there will be big problems because of CAGW and yet you don’t seem to understand that a number of the most qualified scientists doubt that perhaps some extra warming from GHGs will be much of a problem at all.
    My main issue is the undoubted mitigation fraud and con and some of the most prominent alarmist scientists still advocate and promote this nonsense and have done for decades.

  45. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 3:34 pm #

    Wow. Just wow.

    Some dude off the street comes in and says in effect we haven’t been treating the High Preists of global warming with the proper amount of respect, and you all just roll over?

    He has a point?

    The hell he does.

    Far as I know, nobody has ever lost their job for pushing the global warming bs. No global warming believer ever had their income audited. No global warmer ever their house raided and their computers seized. No global warmers website was ever hacked in the attempt to silence them. No professor of warmology ever had their tenure revolked.

    Maybe you just haven’t been paying attention long enough.

  46. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 3:38 pm #

    Inventions. What a joke. Still waiting for the first invention featuring the principle of back radiation.

    Where are those evaporative heaters they go on about?

    Don’t hold your breath waiting for em.

  47. llew jones December 31, 2013 at 3:43 pm #

    It seems Tom Biegler is totally unaware that there is more than a handful of highly qualified scientists who are actively involved in climate science and who certainly do not share the views of the IPCC (which does no science itself) as well as the views of those “alarmist” climate scientists who generally are climate activists, if one cares to check, as much as they are climate scientists.

    Then more than a few scientists including climate change scientists associated with climate change alarmism are essentially neo-Pagans with a nod to mother nature also known as Gaia. Sir James Lovelace, David Suzuki and Tim Flannery are just a small sample from that religious following who overlay their religiously with snippets of science for respectability.

    It is this sort of befuddled scientist that is giving science and more particularly climate science a bad name with those who may have no scientific training but are not fools when it comes to observing the climate they have lived in, sometimes, over long periods of time. To them it would not be unfair to suggest that climate change alarmist scientists are, at least, bordering on being unprincipled scammers who certainly are not ornaments to their science

  48. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 3:56 pm #

    I forgot to mention, literally thousands who froze to death due to the global warming policies adopted by eager commie wannabes.

  49. Tom Biegler December 31, 2013 at 4:05 pm #

    Hi Llew, I do realise that there are climate activists and alarmists and that their views need to be considered with caution. And I realise that there are climate scientists with significant credentials (like Roy Spencer) who disagree with the IPCC. The point I keep making as a mere ‘dude off the street’ (I like that one) is that I simply do not have the background to develop a view as to which of those is right. I have no choice! I must leave it to the processes of science to sort out. This is not fake humility. I am not qualified. Yes, I can look at the latest UAH v5.6 Global Temperature Update for Nov. 2013 and ponder as to whether there is a temperature pause worth revisiting the climate models but my musings are worth precisely zero. As I said, I am not qualified. But if a Nobel Prize winner (hypothetically) says with total conviction that we must stop climate change no matter what the cost I am most certainly qualified to shout that he or she is talking nonsense. The cost, and lots of other arguments concerning feasibility and futility, ought not be left to climate scientists.

  50. Robert December 31, 2013 at 4:35 pm #

    To take the politics, glamour, faddism and activism out of what passes for climate science would be a good way to kick-start a science of climate. However, instead of hoovering climate money, real science will have to beg for it. What can’t be used for political and revenue advantages will suddenly seem unimportant. An example:

    The most likely global climate disaster in the short term is volcanism, is it not? A Tambora or Krakatoa would not be the end of things, but would inflict more than we are ready for. The real prob would be a long dirty, basaltic eruption like Laki, many times greater than the Eyjafjallajökul pea-shooter which caused such problems in 2010. Volcanism like Laki is not a far-off speculative thing: it has happened on a fairly regular basis in the historical period, it just hasn’t happened in our era of aviation, mass production and mass transport. It’s going to happen however.

    Yet – go figure! – volcanism and its effects are notoriously underfunded. You see. Tom, if one doesn’t yell a bit disrespectfully at times the people with the funds – scientists included – will just take all those trillions of dollars to the pub. Which is what they are doing.

  51. Johnathan Wilkes December 31, 2013 at 4:40 pm #


    You know nothing as you say, but you have the nerve to come here and berate us assuming that we are also ignorant nincompoops.

    Sorry to disappoint you but you only need proper high school physics training and common sense + a generous dose of dedication and curiosity to follow the “climate science” debate to be able sort out the wheat from the chuff. (following the money trail is very helpful also)

    If you can’t do that then bugger off and annoy someone else.
    Asking us to be nice while barging in and abusing the host sheesh!

  52. DaveMyFace December 31, 2013 at 4:50 pm #

    Hey Tom,

    Are you the author of this paper?

    “How carbon pricing changes the relative competitiveness of low-carbon baseload generating technologies” , by Australian researchers Martin Nicholson, Tom Biegler and Barry Brook

    Just wondering.

  53. Tom Biegler December 31, 2013 at 5:03 pm #

    Hi Johnathan, I apologise if I abused the host (I’m sure she can defend herself) but as for the rest of your rant I plead not guilty. I imagine you are not interested, but I did get first class honours in high school physics, think I have common sense (but it’s not that common, as they say) and spent my career in scientific research. Plus I’m a paid-up member of The Skeptics. But soon after talking to a meteorological colleague in one of the Australian learned Academies (it was around 2005) came to the conclusion that I could never catch up with the niceties and subtleties of climate science. I therefore decided that I must leave that to the experts. And I do have faith that they will sort it out, eventually. But that’s just me. You can do as you wish.

  54. Tom Biegler December 31, 2013 at 5:05 pm #

    Yep, DaveMyFace, that’s me. Does it matter?

  55. Larry Fields December 31, 2013 at 5:09 pm #

    I couldn’t help but notice that this thread was filed under both Information and Humour. Generic science related humor — even if it’s only tangentially related — probably would not be too far off topic. Especially considering that most of the comments thus far have been pretty serious. That said . . .

    Three vampires walk into a bar, which has a reputation for catering to those with unusual tastes. They sit down at a table. The bartender walks over.

    Bartender: What’ll it be, gents?

    First Vampire: I’d like a pint of O-positive, please.

    Second vampire: Yeah, that sounds good. I’ll have the same.

    Third vampire: Well, I was planning on dining early this evening, and I don’t want to spoil my appetite. I’ll just have some plasma.

    Bartender: Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Two Regulars and one Blood Lite.

  56. davefromweewaa December 31, 2013 at 5:23 pm #

    Does it matter?
    Remember Tom, it’s only a rort if you’re not in it!

  57. Mack December 31, 2013 at 5:23 pm #

    @ Tom Biegler
    “However, I have been aware of the physics of the greenhouse effect for about 55 yrs.”
    Well, that would make you, to put it nicely..”very old” . (But I suspect you are about 55yrs old)
    I only became aware of the “greenhouse” effect in 1972…..
    Was that a brick wall or 9m. thick pack ice, you just ran into Tom ?

  58. cohenite December 31, 2013 at 5:24 pm #

    Well Tom, that being the case say hi to Martin and Barry.

  59. Johnathan Wilkes December 31, 2013 at 5:42 pm #

    “You can do as you wish.”

    How very noble of you!

    As to Jen defending herself, spoken like true jerk.
    Did it occur to you that she wouldn’t have to if you hadn’t insulted her in the first place?

  60. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 5:53 pm #

    It’s not rocket science.

    Remember back when a teenaged girl, what was her name, (Karen Byrnes?) she wrote up a detailed dismantling of the climate science for a school project. And as soon as we started talking about it the global warming bulldogs, Josh Halprin, Grant Foster, and others I’m barely aware, of started attacking her character.

    Not her science. Didn’t refute a single point. But attacked her character. A fourteen year old girl.

    What kind of people do that? Thugs.

    Forget your own faculties, dude says, trust the thugs.

    I got a finger for you pal. Guess which one.

  61. DaveMyFace December 31, 2013 at 6:10 pm #


    You asked:

    “Yep, DaveMyFace, that’s me. Does it matter?”

    Well no, of course it doesn’t, but I worry when you say:

    “The point I keep making as a mere ‘dude off the street’ (I like that one) is that I simply do not have the background to develop a view as to which of those is right.”

    Now, Tom, you have used your real name which is commendable, but trying to pass off as a DUDE ON THE STREET is not a good look.

    Just saying, that’s all. Have you worked with Ross Garnaut?

  62. Neville December 31, 2013 at 6:15 pm #

    Here’s Barry Brook’s uni details, at least he supports new nukes. That’s something in his favour anyway.


  63. Neville December 31, 2013 at 6:38 pm #

    Martin Nicholson is a supporter of new nukes as well so he can’t be that bad. Just joking.
    Her’s a recent article from Martin.


    This fits well with my philosophy about future energy needs. We should junk all wind and solar and spend that money on new nukes and more R&D.
    But we should also be prepared for adaptation as the best reponse to any future climate change problems.
    New nukes won’t change the climate or temp by 2100 either but at least we’re not pouring money down the drain on useless, unreliable and super expensive solar and wind energy.

  64. Neville December 31, 2013 at 7:05 pm #

    Here’s a recent article from Tom, “A climate change policy for grown ups.”


    I disagree with Tom’s thoughts on the IPCC, in fact they would be the last group I would take any notice of , just look at their woeful climate models and just about everything else they’ve been promoting for the last quarter century. What a hopeless mob of drongoes they are.
    But he’s correct about new nukes, but until all the bugs have been ironed out we should build more coal fired stns to fill the gap.
    Germany wasted over a hundred billion on clueless solar and wind energy, but have now started to build new CF stns AGAIN to fix their energy grid.
    And Tom isn’t a sceptic when it comes to CAGW, he’s on board all the way hook, line and sinker.

  65. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 7:34 pm #

    Akademik Shokalskiy rechristened via fotoshop.

  66. Neville December 31, 2013 at 7:40 pm #

    Very funny James, just a pity the author big HIPPO Al wasn’t there freezing his dusters off.

  67. Luke December 31, 2013 at 7:44 pm #

    Well tin foil hats are out for New Years

    “Climate science is not rocket science” – yea it is !

    “No global warmers website was ever hacked in the attempt to silence them” – yes that would be email thieves and FOI lovers carrying out their very own denial of service attacks.

    “No global warming believer ever had their income audited” well the closest things – their grants definitely are. Not so much your billion dollar think tanks though.

    “commie wannabes” Woo hoo ! adjusts tin foil hat. Why can’t one just do it ? (Assuming one would want to be a commie)

    “more than a handful of highly qualified scientists who are actively involved in climate science ” no it’s just a handful.

    “To them it would not be unfair to suggest that climate change alarmist scientists are, at least, bordering on being unprincipled scammers who certainly are not ornaments to their science” or maybe correct?!? Could one be a principled scammer? hmmmmm

    Yes indeedy folks it’s cracker night.

  68. DaveMyFace December 31, 2013 at 7:51 pm #

    Hey Luke,

    Did I meet you and Tom at the Future – Proofing Australia – Rising to the Challenge of Climate Change in Brisbane November 2009? See below.


  69. Neville December 31, 2013 at 8:01 pm #

    Here’s today’s Govt press release on the ice boat. Definitely looks like a helicopter job. Let’s hope they all get off safely.


  70. Robert December 31, 2013 at 8:01 pm #

    Well, the Professor has confirmed one piece of settled science. You can’t beat Sikorsky’s old rotor config for controlled vertical flight.

    If a narcissistic doofus strands himself near one of the windiest places on earth when Antarctic ice is known to be around record high seasonal levels by the same measurement we use for confirming those more famous low Arctic levels…

    You’ve always got helicopters.

  71. Beth Cooper December 31, 2013 at 8:08 pm #

    Oh I like that, Robert, ‘narcissistic doofus.’ May I borrow it?

  72. DaveMyFace December 31, 2013 at 8:08 pm #


    The Xue Long is also stuck in ice, but they aren’t releasing any data on this.

    So the CAGW warmists go from one stuck ship to another. Only the Australian icebreaker is free but the Sikorsky K29 can’t land on the the Australian Icebreaker.

    Happy New Year Professor Turkey of the last Climate Change Antarctic Expedition funded by taxpayers.

    You so far have costed us over $25 million in taxpayer money. Green Fool.

  73. James Mayeau December 31, 2013 at 8:28 pm #

    “commie wannabes” Woo hoo ! adjusts tin foil hat. Why can’t one just do it ? (Assuming one would want to be a commie)

    California Luke. Remember? For example, the mayor of my city is a supposedly non affiliated office, meaning no mention is made of what party the candidate is a member of. So we ended up in a run off election between two democrats neither of which wanted to claim the affiliation.

    The argument degenerated into which one more closely alligned with President Obama, both claiming to be the true acolyte. SO yes. Commie wannabes.

    Sadly one of them eventual won, the so called “Strong Mayor” candidate who favored expanding the powers of the Mayors office, and we citizens lost again.

  74. Luke December 31, 2013 at 9:42 pm #

    Goddam James. There are goddam commies in Cal y forn IA. Goddam boy. Goddam commies.. Don’t you stand for it boy.

  75. Larry Fields January 1, 2014 at 7:40 am #

    Comment from: James Mayeau December 31st, 2013 at 5:53 pm
    “Remember back when a teenaged girl, what was her name, (Karen Byrnes?) she wrote up a detailed dismantling of the climate science for a school project. And as soon as we started talking about it the global warming bulldogs, Josh Halprin, Grant Foster, and others I’m barely aware, of started attacking her character.
    Not her science. Didn’t refute a single point. But attacked her character. A fourteen year old girl.”

    James, you remembered the last name, and I remembered the first name. She is Kristin Byrnes. And she was a very helpful volunteer on Anthony’s surface stations project. Kristin’s famous phrase was something like: “measuring climate with junk.”

  76. Larry Fields January 1, 2014 at 8:02 am #

    Here’s a link to Kristen’s website:

  77. James Mayeau January 1, 2014 at 8:13 am #

    Thanks Larry. I was fairly close.

    Let me define “commie wannabe” for Luke.

    A permanently stratified state capitalism governed by quasi-totalitarian bureaucrats. You probably suffer under a similar system over in Melbourne.

  78. Tom Biegler January 1, 2014 at 9:20 am #

    OK, it’s 2014 here in Australia and time to sign off. Just one more thing. It’s clear the IPCC is not very popular amongst the bloggers here. But attacking me for citing the IPCC misses the point. There is a real need for governments to acknowledge the huge economic costs and essential futility (because the whole world will never agree to give up fossil fuels) of trying to cut greenhouse emissions. Renewable energy will never, in my view, be able to support the living standards of the developed world, let alone meet the legitimate aspirations of developing economies. Those are all sufficient reasons to move away from ‘green energy’ policies. Of course, if climate scientists who contribute to the IPCC are all wrong, that would be another reason. Is it a reason that a responsible government could rely on? Not in my view. As I said in another blog:

    “Of course I am aware of the controversies involving the IPCC. I didn’t say the IPCC was always right. Indeed, how would I know? I am a humble physical chemist with the ability, I think, to read critically scientific literature from many disciplines. Years ago I realised that for me to contradict climate scientists on the basis of my reading vs. their reading of the data would be plain silly.

    But that’s not the point here. I am proposing that a government should have a strategic climate policy instead of the present ad hoc approach (cut emissions a bit here, support a bit of new technology there, etc.) and that it should start with the scientific basis of its strategy. It could say that it didn’t believe in global warming, or that it did, or that it didn’t know. For the ‘believing’ option it could say that its source of science was for example the CSIRO, or our Bureau of Meteorology, or the UK Met Office, or one of the numerous US climate agencies – or the IPCC. The choice makes no practical difference to the policy. It simply eliminates ‘don’t believe’, or ‘don’t know’, or worst of all, the personal opinions around the Cabinet table, as the strategic driver of Australian policy. To me that’s a necessary first step for long term credibility of any policy. From a global perspective, I think there are advantages to plumping for the IPCC. It’s not that critical. Please don’t get hung up on it.”

    Happy 2014!

  79. Max January 1, 2014 at 9:32 am #

    I fall into the same category as Tom. Completely unqualified to make any informed comment.

    However I would like to share something that I read recently. Bill Bryson’s book ‘One Summer America 1927’, Chapter 3 pp63 on, details the unprecedented weather in across America that year, which was far worse than the most recent storm events often attributed to global warming???

    Once again it becomes clear that our timeframes and memory seem to just forget the past and only concentrate on the immediate without historical reference.

  80. Robert January 1, 2014 at 10:09 am #

    Maybe Tom has been labouring under the belief that the IPCC is a scientific organisation rather than an all too typical UN political trough, as described by Vaclav Klaus. That would explain a lot.

    Anyway, Max mentions 1927 in America. Fans of US extremes might want to look at the twelve month period which took in the Labour Day Hurricane, then the historic coldwave in the north, followed by the Big Heat of 1936. They managed lots of dust and quite a bit of flooding as well. Of course, our own dry-to-wet swing around 1916 would rate highly in the extreme stakes, as would the extraordinary stalled weather system of 1950, which absolutely drenched eastern Oz and left the rest dry.

    Remind me to ask Professor Turney about why climate changes so dramatically. When he’s available.

  81. John Of Cloverdale WA January 1, 2014 at 10:36 am #

    The UK Daily Mail had the best headline.
    “Global warming scientists forced to admit defeat… because of too much ice: Stranded Antarctic ship’s crew will be rescued by helicopter”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html#ixzz2p6N2f5Rv

  82. cohenite January 1, 2014 at 11:10 am #

    The IPCC is a political institution set up to promote AGW not prove it:


    As for its scientific credentials Tom should read the assessment of the IPCC by the IAC in 2010:


    Many conclusions of AR4, which the IAC analysis concentrated on, were based upon little or no evidence, and were not traceable to the underlying science if it existed; these include:
    •Unpublished and non-peer-reviewed literature was used in violation of even the weak procedure then existent and was almost never appropriately flagged.
    •There was no traceability in the assignment of ratings for level of scientific understanding and likelihood.
    •Quantitative probabilities (as in the likelihood scale) were used to describe the probability of well-defined outcomes when there was insufficient evidence i.e exaggeration
    •The confidence scale was used to assign subjective probabilities to ill-defined outcomes.
    •Formal expert elicitation procedures were not used to obtain subjective probabilities for key results.
    •Inappropriate use of unpublished and non-peer reviewed material which has not been critically evaluated compounds the uncertainty of any conclusions.
    •High confidence was attributed on little evidence and to vague statements.
    •Many statements have weak evidentiary basis.
    •Conclusions were stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute.
    •Authors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence.
    •Anonymous unsubstantiated ratings are worthless.
    •WG2 SPM assigned high confidence on little evidence.

    Tom seems exceptionally naïve.

  83. Jams Mayeau January 1, 2014 at 2:39 pm #

    When did Tom cite the IPCC?

    First he rolled out You’re not a climate scientist whats been published in the Good Book of climate bigotry so why should anyone listen to what you say?

    Then he sidled over to the, I’m pretty darned smart but I can’t make heads or tails of that climate science. It’s so complicated. It makes my head spin and my eyes roll. bunch of gobbledygook.

    Then he sashayed over to We should trust the self appointed experts whose livelyhood depends on panicking the public, whose main talent is blocking and punishing unapproved analysis to create the appearance of consensus. Because…. Well.

    That’s the point where Tom went a bit fuzzy.

    Must have missed that post citing the IPCC, Tom. Maybe it’s in the batters box on your tray at home?

  84. Charles January 1, 2014 at 4:49 pm #

    All the to ing and fro ing of Tom Biegler is interesting. To say you have spent many years working with scientists and never having detected one who was not devoted to grant chasing, vested interest or just plain chasing the goodies (i.e. money, power, overseas junkets, acknowledgement, etc.) that come with a successful Gravy Train topic launch, is quite unbelievable.

    Over the 30 + years that I worked as research scientist along side scientists from CSIRO, Universities, and other public and private science institutions I saw many who belonged to the latter group and precious few to the group Tom describes as his working colleagues.

    It is also interesting that Tom while professing to be of curious mind claims he is not even qualified to think about climate science. In my view science is just an understanding of the logic of a variety of physical processes, which is relatively easily understood by anyone who uses logic as a thought process (i.e. pretty much everyone). Where science comes undone is when someone prefers to believe their own ideology (or how they wish things might be organised) over quantitative evidence, then we get the rise of the True Believer who thinks we are cooking the planet with our presence, because that is what they would like to believe, and would like to ignore what is really happening (because that is what they do not wish).

    Since we get strength in belief in AGW usually along political lines (i.e. Left generally believes and Right tends to be sceptical) Tom falls somewhat outside both parameters and even though he has all the credentials to have a view, he forgoes that opportunity due to what could be described as a relatively low discouragement level.

    Unique I would say.

  85. Luke January 2, 2014 at 6:23 am #

    Yes like the right tends to be sceptical of tobacco related illness, water pollution, air pollution and reigning in anything that might interfere with the share price regardless of the human cost. Try harder charles.

    Strange above – I thought for a moment Cohenite was describing any anti-AGW sceptic manifesto of nonsense

  86. richardcfromnz January 2, 2014 at 2:51 pm #

    @James Mayeau December 31st, 2013 at 3:38 pm

    >”Inventions. What a joke. Still waiting for the first invention featuring the principle of back radiation.”

    Exactly James. There’s about 400 W.m2 DLR available at Darwin 24/7, no invention to harness that yet. Fact that DLR has completely negligible heating effect on material (land, water, metal, human skin, etc) irrespective of wattage may have something to do with it i.e. solar SW is “tuned” to heat materials, DLR isn’t, and doesn’t.

    BTW everyone, I see at WUWT that the ‘Spirit of Shackleton’ expedition 2007 met a similar fate to the ‘Spirit of Mawson’ 2013.

    Could be they need more than just “spirit” to recreate those early expeditions.

  87. richardcfromnz January 2, 2014 at 4:17 pm #

    >”Leave it to the scientists to sort out”

    I’ve already detailed their fundamental pickle that climate scientists will have to “sort out” up-thread here Tom:


    But given their scrabbling around for explanations to explain the lack of 21st century warming (they don’t know in AR5 – no science, just some speculation) after 25 years of IPCC Assessment Reports, how long will we have to wait for them to “sort out” their model failure (see bottom of comment link above)?

    The IPCC points to solar change and oceanic cyclicity to explain the 21st century temperature “pause” they didn’t predict, which ironically, in the case of the latter (ocean cyclicity), has been what sceptics have been saying explains temperature oscillations over the past 100 years or so. At least the IPCC are on to that now.

    And in the case of the former (solar change), sceptics (some not all) have been saying that explains the underlying upwards trend in temperature since the 1600s and will explain a good portion of future temperature trend as well (probably downward for a few decades).

    We (the AGW sceptics) haven’t had much choice but to “leave it to the scientists to sort out” Tom, it’s just that they’re taking so long to figure out what sceptics already know that rankles.

    BTW, I see in the SMH David Karoly, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Melbourne and a member of the Climate Change Authority, asserts as “fact” that:

    ‘Maurice Newman’s flat-earth thinking ignores climate change facts’

    “….the global average surface temperature has warmed over the period 1997 to 2013”


    Karoly’s GAST “fact” appears to be somewhat problematic given the following:

    Statistical Significances – How Long Is “The Pause” (includes September data)

    On all data sets below, the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 9 months to 16 years and 11 months.

    1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 1, 2001 or 12 years, 1 month. (goes to September 30, 2013)
    2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 16 years, 5 months. (goes to September)
    3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)
    4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)
    5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 11 months. (goes to September)
    6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 9 months. (goes to September using version 5.5)
    7. For RSS, the slope is flat since November 1996 or 17 years (goes to October)
    RSS is 203/204 or 99.5% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.

    On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 20 years.

    The details for several sets are below.

    For UAH: Since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501
    For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968
    For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358
    For Hadsst3: Since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768
    For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326


    Don’t you think David Karoly (a “scientist”, and “climate change authority”, apparently) is twisting his “facts” Tom?

  88. richardcfromnz January 2, 2014 at 5:25 pm #

    And, at the risk of labouring the point, Maurice Newman was perfectly correct to state:

    “global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years”

    Characterized by Karoly as “flat-earth thinking”. How that’s inferred, I don’t know.

  89. kuhnkat January 6, 2014 at 10:17 am #

    Tom Biegler,

    “I therefore decided that I must leave that to the experts. And I do have faith that they will sort it out, eventually. But that’s just me. You can do as you wish.”

    Hope and change hasn’t worked very well here in the US or anywhere else people abdicate their rational abilities to so called experts busy pocketing our money.

Website by 46digital