ANOTHER year, and I’ve received another photograph from the Spangled Drongo, a regular commentator at this weblog who visits a waterfront property at Cleveland Point, Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, around this time of year.
Spangled is getting older, and back in the late 1940s and early 1950s he remembers the King Tides used to cover the law by about an inch or so.
This time last year, with the barometer reading normal, Spangled saw the King Tide was about 30cm below the lawn height and sent us a photograph, http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/01/king-tide-not-so-high/
This year, according to Spangled, the highest astronomical tides were lower by around 20 cm and 10 cm respectively due to a small surge from the north. The first day of the King Tide, on January 2, Spangled says that the barometer was reading 1012 hPa and then yesterday (January 3) it was reading 1002 hPa.
Of course sea levels vary around a coastline depending not only on the tides, but also melting poles (climate change), land subsidence and vertical land motion (tectonic and isostatic phenomena). So around Britain the deglaciation of Scotland that occurred thousands of years ago means the northern part of that landmass is still adjusting and shows uplift (relative sea-level fall) while southern England shows subsidence (relative sea-level rise).[1]
Along the Australian east coast it is well document in the scientific literature that sea level was higher during the mid-Holocene around 6,000 years ago and have fallen in total about 2 m to more or less the present position over the last few thousand years. This is consistent with global climatic change over this period, in particular an overall trend of global cooling since the early Holocene.
So while the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO may nag on about a few centimeters of sea level rise over perhaps the last hundred years, the overall more significant trend during the present geological epoch, the Holocene, is one of sea level fall. The only real point of contention seems to be whether the fall has been smooth or oscillating over the last few thousand years.[2]
PS. I shall make some comment on the latest claims from the Bureau of Meteorology that 2013 was the hottest year ever in due course after I have had time to look properly at the data. In the meantime, my blog post from March is still very relevant http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/03/cooking-books-for-hot-summers/
***
References
1. This is all nicely explained in a paper by Ian Shennan et al. entitled Late Holocene vertical land motion and relative sea-level changes: lessons from the British Isles published in the Journal of Quarternary Science (volume 27, pages 64-70).
2. Lewis et al. published a controversial summary in Terra Nova (volume 20, pages 74-81) entitled Mid-late Holocene sea-level variability in eastern Australia.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I think these anecdotes from such a human impacts in the SEQ region is totally confounding – the Brisbane River, port, island building, sea walls, and dredging have altered the Bay hydrodynamics right through to the Southport Broadwater. Jumpinpin itself has changed at decadal scale.
The following study illustrates well why one would be totally suspicious of such urban anecdotes.
“In general, from the model results and
observations it can be seen that head loss associated with Seaway
and Jumpinpin openings accounts for almost 10 to 15 cm
reduction in tidal amplitude. ”
http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/363725/Mirfenderesk07.pdf
Why not have some pictures of the beach erosion scarps in western Cape York? or a picture such as Photo 7 here – 6mm year sea level rise – breaching the Sabai Island sea wall.
http://www.tsra.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2005/current20and20future20climates20of20the20torres20strait20-20csiro20report-1.pdf
Cleveland Point is a cherry pick
>”PS. I shall make some comment on the latest claims from the Bureau of Meteorology…”
Nothing re SLR in regard to Spangled’s lawn unfortunately:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/
But off Queensland, SST merely “Above Average”. That might explain Spangled’s lawn i.e. neither “Very Much Above Average” nor “Highest on Record”.
Great Australian Bight SST “Highest on Record” on the other hand. That might explain some of BOM’s “2013 was Australia’s warmest year on record” and heatwaves e.g. BOM re 2012/13:
“An extended national heatwave began over the southwest of the continent late in December 2012 before moving into southern and eastern Australia”
Along with slow moving High’s e.g. March SE Australia heatwave:
“A near-stationary high pressure system over the Tasman Sea….”
And the SST warming in BOM’s graph goes back to 1910 – well before any CO2 uptick, and therefore anthro attribution:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/2013/20140103_SSTa_plot.png
Errrr Luke?
“Cleveland Point is a cherry pick”
Well yes and no. . .as has been pointed out the observations go from the late 1940’s. . . so there are least 60 years worth. . .but it is only one location and of course humans have worked to protect their infrastructure (like Duh!!!).
However. . .wouldn’t this also be ‘cherry picking’?
” Why not have some pictures of the beach erosion scarps in western Cape York? or a picture such as Photo 7 here – 6mm year sea level rise – breaching the Sabai Island sea wall.”
And since when did beaches not suffer from erosion and since when did sea walls not get breached?
SUUUUrrrreeeeellllyyy you are not inferring that if we could stop causing AGW then beaches won’t erode anymore and sea walls (which of course are built for a very, very particular purpose. . . see the barrages in SA) won’t be breached anymore?
Well Debs mucking around with Moreton Bay goes back decades. Jumpinpin channel breached Stradbroke Island forming North and South Islands in the late 19th century and has changed ever since.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/preview#!data=!1m4!1m3!1d158126!2d153.3169998!3d-27.6694991
Compare figures 8.3 and 8.4 http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/pdf/CRC/62-jumpinpin.pdf and the 8.4 summary – this is a highly dynamic environment with hydrodynamic and therefore tidal implications.
The Middle Banks area close to Moreton Island has been used in the past as a source of sand for large projects such as the nearby Brisbane Airport and port facilities. Past dredging has removed 18 Mn3 and the removal of another 40 Mn3 is planned. Future sand extraction is expected to aid a major shipping channel straightening project.
Cape York is an area of suggested high sea level rise (unlike SEQ http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/index.php/site/report_card_extended_2/category/sea_level) and the beach erosion/incision is at multi-decadal scale indicating a progressive erosion. Geomorphology ! Some Torres Strait islands more complex due to possible subsidence.
Luke,
Sabai Island has been a disgraceful waste of money for nearly 70 years. After WW2 the island was totally inundated with high tides and waves etc. The community was moved to Cape York (about 1948) to live with the Murri groups there. The Saibai Islanders moved 13 km west to the coast at Red Island Point because the locals couldn’t get along with them.
Some moved back to Sabai Island in the 60’s and ever since we have been pouring money into a sinking island ever since. Utter stupidity, and then the link to your intrepid climate scientists jump on the money gravy train and do another report. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr……….
It is NOT sea level rise, the alluvial soils that built up over 1,000 years from PNG river systems, have stopped, in part from massive river mouth blockages and mining waste from different sources. Even Ross Garnauts OK Tedi mine waste has impacted on many of the Torres Strait islanders with no outcry from the Greenies.
Just scream sea level rise and do another 100 reports on climate change, spend billions on trying to save Sabai Island, like the last 60 years of brain dead politicians and new wave of climate scientists. The island has been sinking for nearly 85 years or so since records were taken. Sabai Island is located on a tectonic plate which is slowly descending below another rising plate. Walls, barriers etc are an utter waste of money.
Luke, this example you gave is the BIGGEST cherry pick of the year.
Check this article from 1948 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/49657129
Errr Luke?
Is there such a thing as ‘regressive erosion’ when we are talking about coastlines?
I’m not sure why you think the information re the mucking around in Moreton Bay and dredging etc is relevant?
Is it because you think it has ‘masked’ AGW induced SLR or is it because you think it’s all bad to create infrastructure to mitigate coastal erosion and develop areas on the coast . . . or what?
It looks like that ancient looking dock thing was made at the perfect level for this King Tide.
I wonder how your ancestors knew to adjust for the global warmi… Say!
Luke has some very valid points about cherry picking.
One should ‘look further afield’ …
* The Lempriere-Ross mark http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39386000/jpg/_39386131_dead350.jpg
This Ordnance Survey Bench Mark engraved into a rock face on a little island near Port Arthur, Tasmania out there in 1841 by the famous Antarctic explorer Captain Sir James Clark Ross and amateur meteorologist Thomas Lempriere to mark mean sea level is still there today.
* Century old map throws new doubt on climate change sea level claims
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2725/old-map-throws-doubt-on-climate-change-sea-level-claims/
A new book on the history of New Zealand has inadvertently stirred the climate change debate by revealing a near zero sea level increase over the past century.
* FISH TRAP EVOKES POWERFUL MEMORIES FOR ESPERANCE TRADITIONAL OWNERS
http://www.pasthorizonspr.com/index.php/archives/03/2013/fish-trap-evokes-powerful-memories-for-esperance-traditional-owners
* Shipwreck timbers add to mounting evidence that explorers visited New Zealand, Australia, much earlier than generally accepted
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/technology/science/shipwreck-timbers-add-to-mounting-evidence-that-explorers-visited-new-zealand-australia-much-earlier-than-generally-accepted/story-fnjwl0ds-1226788010037
It would appear that even 40 years of observations at Moreton Bay confirm observations all over the antipodes.
Ms Jen. If I may go o/t and refer to a previous post comment in reference to Drudge News, you might find this link amusing.
“MSNBC’s Chris Hayes is not happy that skeptics of the catastrophic anthroprogenic global warming (CAGW) theory, in particular, Matt Drudge, have been pointing out that in this age of global warming, it often seems very cold.”
…”The right wing had a field day, pointing and laughing at the global warming believers, who just to be clear, are only a group of scientists risking their lives for no monetary gain and little glory in order to help save the planet,” [Hayes] said defensively.”
http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/1/4/do-what-i-say-not-as-i-do-msnbc-global-warming-edition.html
“Hayes admitted, however, that Drudge had been successful in creating a culture of global warming skepticism.
“I mean, Drudge has been incredibly powerful, I think, in this,” Hayes said. “Drudge has a thing about climate hoaxism and he has been leading the charge.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/msnbcs-chris-hayes-complains-of-drudge-fueled-snow-trolling-on-global-warming/article/2541532
Debbie I said progressive and I listed a geoscience comment.
DavemyFace I acknowledged subsidence on some Torres Strait islands. But you can have both sea level rise and subsidence or uplift in rare circumstances. Western Cape York is another matter.
Quote: “So while the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO may nag on about a few centimeters of sea level rise over perhaps the last hundred years, the overall more significant trend during the present geological epoch, the Holocene, is one of sea level fall.”
– RECORDS of global sea level rises may be out by as much as 14 per cent on official findings, a climate change study released shows.
The second CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology State of the Climate report found ocean levels had risen 210mm around the world on average since 1880. But the study also acknowledged that the margin of error for the average result was plus or minus 30mm.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sea-levels-rising-and-so-is-the-csiros-margin-for-error/story-e6freuy9-1226299773152
Quote:”So around Britain the deglaciation of Scotland that occurred thousands of years ago means the northern part of that landmass is still adjusting and shows uplift (relative sea-level fall) while southern England shows subsidence (relative sea-level rise)”
‘Britain’s Atlantis’ found at bottom of North sea – a huge undersea world swallowed by the sea in 6500BC
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2167731/Britains-Atlantis-North-sea–huge-undersea-kingdom-swamped-tsunami-5-500-years-ago.html
Hunter, J.R., 2003. A whisper from the past – staff.acecrc.org.au/~johunter/bamos_pap.pdf
Demolishes the old Isle of the Dead story.
Oh Luke,
Why do you link to papers that are done solely by Climate Scientists?
Your paper regarding western Cape York is an information black hole on erosion at Cape York. The authors are from Tasmania, South Australia and Victoria. Church loves to reference himself and yet uses no Geological papers to investigate his theory. The majority of the paper is NOT about erosion in the Western Cape York.
It is a paper on Climate Change Sea Level alarmism.
Luke, lets start on western Cape York Geology101. to make your 2nd BIGGEST cherry pick of the day more obvious.
1. The entire west coast is beach ridges and swamps.
2. This excludes the bauxite cliffs between Weipa and Aurukun, have you been there Luke?
3. These shelly quartz sandy deposits drift slowly from North to South.
4. The whole of this area has been eroding for some 7,000 years.
5. The sands of almost 80% of the beaches have subsided into the Gulf of Carpentaria.
Once again you had missed my inference of wasted money on Climate Science, when more constructive research should be made in geological studies.
But do you agree that too much emphasis is placed on catastrophe instead of real science.
The Cape York erosion cherry pick is nearly as bad as your Sabai Island gullible stories.
CSIRO promised a report out by 2000 – nothing to date in 2012 and still waiting – because this mark is still only 350mm above mean sea level – Dr Pugh says:
“technical problems have prevented CSIRO from recording reliable data until just the last few months and, because mean sea level can change over the course of a year through seasonal water temperature changes, no results will be published until the year 2000″
Why?
1. They can’t alter the data that much to prove it wrong.
2. Too many people have recorded over the 171 years.
3. That particular land mass is stable – so they can’t even add 50mm on the land rise.
4. Because on the “Isle of the Dead”, the mark made in 1841 (171 years ago) is still only 350mm above mean sea level.
5. Because they’re running out of time for the BullSh*L.
6. The BBC ran an article in 1999 with Dr. Pughs excuses that it is wrong.
The “Isle of the Dead” Ordnance Survey Bench Mark is there now, today – KR, Maxcaine, KFC et al – go and have a look.
This has not been peer reviewed, it is carved in STONE not melting ICE.
Luke,
Secondly, you indicate sea level is rising between 3mm and 8mm per year in some localities?
Do you know by how much the tip of Cape York plate is being pushed per year towards the PNG mainland?
Well, it’s 7cm per year now.
That’s right, in 2013, Cape York was 700mm closer to PNG than the year before. And you listen to Climate Scientists like Church, Flannery and Turney for facts?
7cm is only 70 mill
sorry be a pedant
DaveMyFace – Hunter hit the old Daly ruse on Isle of the Dead mark for six. Who knows what the mark really means.
Tip of Cape York? Church?
Cape York is a bit bigger than the tip. A very large amount more than that – see http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/1247957/72972.pdf page ii So you’re a geoscientist now are you?
And I don’t listen to Flannery and Turney for facts. Don’t verbal me mate. Like a typical faux sceptic you assume too much.
still a lot for plate movement??
Luke, you should know better than to criticise Cleveland Point as a cherry pick and subject to the vagaries of any hydrodynamic patterns in Moreton Bay.
During early settlement, Cleveland Point was touted as the logical port for the city of Brisbane because it fronted a 7 kilometre wide stretch of deep water expanding to ~ 20 kilometres wide up to the north end of the bay, a great advantage for sailing ships to reach port without assistance.
Any dredging or shore-line modifications anywhere in the bay would make absolutely no difference to Cleveland Point’s hydrodynamics simply because of this huge body of water that feeds that general area.
It is equally well fed with tidal flow from the Rous Passage as it is from the North East awa North West shipping channels.
It is completely unrestricted WRT tide flow and not only NOT cherry picking but as good a subject for true SL comparison as you could want.
IOW, enormous tide flow in a natural stilling pond.
Luke, you’re not seriously suggesting that the Gold Coast Seaway has an effect on the tides at Cleveland Point?
The new Seaway didn’t even have any effect on high tides in the Southport Broadwater!
It has made low tides lower but king tides still come to their old limits at the top of canal walls built to AHD 100 as required by GCCC 60 years ago.
So it would have absolutely no affect on Cleveland Point high tides 50 kilometres away.
And of course the Jumpinpin opening happened before these obs so doesn’t come into it.
The Uni of Colorado sea level page is still showing about 3.2mm/ year. At that rate SLR by 2100 would be about 275mm or 11 inches. Not much different than the 20th century rise. So were’s the dangerous AGW they keep telling us about?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ But other new studies using tidal gauges estimate about 175mm by 2100 or about 7 inches.
Even the French are now ripping into Turney and his pseudo science junket cruise. What an embarrassment to serious OZ work in Antarctica.
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=939155&cid=BP_RSS_TOPSTORIES_3_PolarchiefslamsAntarcticcruise_040114
Luke.
Q. “DaveMyFace – Hunter hit the old Daly ruse on Isle of the Dead mark for six. Who knows what the mark really means.”
A. Are you on drugs, I didn’t mention anything about this rant.
Q. Tip of Cape York? Church?
A. You have to read your own links Luke. Drugs again.
Q. Cape York is a bit bigger than the tip. A very large amount more than that – see http://www.ga.gov.au/webtemp/1247957/72972.pdf page ii
A. Irrelevant paper and old (1995) but still useful thank you. But nothing on the CAGW massive erosion of Western Cape York.
Q. So you’re a geoscientist now are you?
A. No, I never said I was. Are you sure you’re feeling OK tonight Luke.
Q. Don’t verbal me mate. Like a typical faux sceptic you assume too much.
A. I didn’t, but you seem to have gone into a state of anger over your two GIANT cherry picks.
The point is that once again you have missed the fact that billions of dollars have been eroded to the Green Agenda of Climate Change (CAGW) and all the other disciplines have suffered.
Climate Science as a discipline is very close to being finished for good. The only way you can prevent this is start being honest instead of providing the TWO BIGGEST CHERRY PICKS of all time. You are just adding to it’s downfall.
Spangled’s example is typical of observations all around the world, you only have to visit Newstead House near Breakfast Creek, then study old aerial photos and see nothing has changed. Same for Magnetic Island off Townsville (Arcadia bay wharf), the same rocks are exposed at low tide as they were 50 to 60 years ago with the craving of a fish in them. But your love of 97% proof will ignore this fact.
Well the 97% of climate scientists haven’t even been to 1% of the worlds environment and habitats. The high moral ground is subsiding Luke. And the CAGW train is on it.
Davey I’m not angry in the slightest and I don’t do drugs, drink or smoke. But excuse my rhetorical parry – but please apply your rules uniformly to the others as well.
I made an error above and I apologise but explains my confusion – the Church url should have been http://www.oceanclimatechange.org.au/content/images/uploads/sea_level_fig2.jpg – I cut and pasted the site not the graphic in error. But yes is a Church et al map.
– sea level rise isn’t uniform – and is influenced by much decadal factors (IPO), weather and any changes that impact the hydrodynamics of the area – plenty in terms of SEQ in the 20th century !
Tomlinson gives a pretty good overview – the Qld wave height trends are variable and the impact of the IPO on sea level rise considerable. All this confounds analysis. http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/313405/Tomlinson_2007_Climate-Change-Coastal-Inundation-and-Erosion_Presentation.pdf and http://www.qldcoastalconference.org.au/2007/Speaker_Papers_Wednesday/Helman_Peter.pdf
The GA paper is quite relevant as it gives good information on 20th century sea level impacts on Cape York – beach erosion scarps, wetlands impacted by salinity RIGHT where the Church sea level maps say it should be. OK you can argue it’s quasi-anecdotal or qualitative.
You’re putting the C in the AGW not me. We’re a long way from the “C” bit – so again you’re simply dressing it up. 1995 is not that old in terms of sea level rise.
It’s not a “green agenda” necessarily – two of the biggest AGW proponents, James Hansen and Kerry Emmanuel are republicans and pro-nuclear. Have you not worked out by now that you’re one’s quoting Flannery, Gore etc. Not me. And funnily enough I don’t think green activists determine how GCM physics is modelled. The hard science is often a long ways from the political wing.
Even to the point of Gavin Schmidt questioning advocacy. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/agu-talk-on-science-and-advocacy/
Possibly Spangled is right but I think it’s easy to postulate why the example isn’t a good one. Nearby Gold Coast seaway changes drops tides 10-15cm?? ! Cape York provides a quite good example that indicates the opposite of what he saying. Yes be good to have some more up to date information.
The high moral ground isn’t collapsing at all – as it continues to play out the faux sceptics are simply getting more political and more desperate. The tactic of course will be to agitate enough to defund the research effort. Like some would like to do with all environmental research.
2013 was a bummer year for the CAGW nutters.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/
“Nearby Gold Coast seaway changes drops tides 10-15cm?? !”
Luke, please think about that.
The old sand bar that existed prior to the Seaway, dried out at low tide so the Broadwater did not empty at the rate it now does.
With the Seaway, there is still a deep, navigable channel at low tide.
Low tides are now about 30cm lower.
This made the average tide 10 – 15 cm lower but high tides being fed by a deep, wide channel, were not affected in any way.
Ole Humlum has this to say about recent SL trends.
“Note: Using the 3 year average shown in the diagram above, based on observed sea level changes, around 1999 the total sea level change from then until year 2100 would have been estimated to about 40 cm, in 2005 to about 30 cm (year 2005-2100), and in 2010 to about 22 cm (year 2010-2100). On July 14, 2012, the prognosis would be about 16 cm sea level increase until 2100. It is interesting that this simple empirical forecast has shown a steady trend towards lower values since about 2002.”
Ole seems to be saying that trends since 1999 have moved from 40cm by 2100 to 16cm by 2100 in July 2012. That’s 16 inches in 1999 to a lower estimate of about 6.5 inches by July 2012.
If he’s correct then that trend has decelerated from 40cm to 16cm in just 13 years. If that rate continued for another decade we could then expect little SLR by 2100.
So where is the dangerous SLR from CAGW we’ve been told about for the last 30 years and where is the dangerous warming?
BTW just heard that there isn’t much warming in the USA at the moment. Some parts could experience record cold temps of minus -50C in next 24 hours.
Spangled – you’d need to be a hydrodynamic whiz – but two things – IPO affects sea level in a major way (Helman, Tomlinson) – and there are major natural (Jumpinpin) and anthropogenic changes (dredging, islands, breakwaters) to Moreton Bay and the Gold Coast seaway. Some work says this makes an impact. (I made similar comments not understood also about Port Phillip Bay dredging impacts).
Do you not find it curious that a number of players have looked at the long run tidal data sets and found long term trends? e.g. Page 4 http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/313405/Tomlinson_2007_Climate-Change-Coastal-Inundation-and-Erosion_Presentation.pdf
And see above page 5 – no wave height trends for NSW but Qld upwards trends except for Cairns and Weipa which is down??
There’s a lot here to make sense of? Your personal observations and Dave’s don’t align with the data….
And the sea level maps/altimeter put the sea level rise more in northern Australia – so we need look for evidence or the lack of there ! The 1995 GA report gives some evidence of that.
“So where is the dangerous SLR from CAGW we’ve been told about for the last 30 years and where is the dangerous warming?”. Why don’t you quote the IPCC numbers?
Neville stop framing. You’ve deliberately added the “C” and the dangerous to suit your nefarious objectives with no context. Typical fraudulent denier tactics.
But more importantly you ask “where is it” – well two things (1) we’re not there yet are we – and you’re putting a linear projection through a small short run amount of data (classic Neville) (2) well gee wouldn’t it depend on future climate (3) how about you advise on paleo information like what sea levels were during the Eemian?
Geeeezzzz Luke that’s my point . There were ZIP humans around in the Eemian and earlier Holocene and NATURAL SLs were much higher. Get it.
Even 4,000 years ago SLs were much higher around OZ and globe due to the earlier NATURAL warming of the Hol optimum.
So why can Ole Humlum find such a deceleration in such a short time frame? And tell us how we can reconcile a heat wave in parts of OZ and record cold in parts of USA with your claims that the planet is too warm and will get warmer?
Do you think we should invent some soooppper doopper energy transfer with your climate adjusting knob and make those parts of the USA a bit warmer and OZ a bit cooler? But ya gotta laugh.
While that relic of the late 19th century, namely SLR, is the beat-up of all beat-ups, we have to be wary of the Ice Agers right now. Coldies don’t cost as much as warmies – who does? – but they love their extrapolations and (god help us) their “trends” just as much as warmies do.
Since around 2009 there have been major cold events in the NH, and this year’s North American cold wave is a doozie. But just remember the precedents: 1888, 1912, 1936, 1978 etc. And, yes, 1936 was also the year of the Big Heat, so don’t be surprised if the people shivering now are sweltering in a few months. (And, yes, that cold wave was preceded by the Labor Day Hurricane, still the most intense at US and Atlantic Basin landfall, so don’t be surprised etc etc.)
Meanwhile sea levels continue to dawdle upward a bit…till they dawdle down one day. Welcome to the Old Normal.
Robert I couldn’t agree more. I’m neither a coldy or a warmy, just a basic NATURE man. We just have to take what bloody rotten old GAIA dishes out. Adaptation is always the best response.
But increased co2 should add a bit of warming but probably not much.
But if Ole is right there isn’t much SLR and thermal expansion going on in the last 13 years. So why is that, probably just confirming ZIP warming over that period. Just like all the data bases tell us.
Well Neville – and how many humans in the Eemian living where vis a vis today …..
It’s the old “well the Earth’s seen it before” line – well the rocks might be here but most of the species not.
Robert and Neville probably drive way above the speed limit with no seat belts too. If they’re not kayaking in forests.
So as usual risk-free let-it-rip Neville advocating no care – no regard – she’ll be right mate. ” Just like all the data bases tell us.” well no actually – but given you only read denier dross how would you know?
Well done SD; sea level is dropping where you are, CommonsenseVille.
In respect of the BOM’s claims that 2013 was the hottest summer, they also made the claim that the 2013 summer was the hottest; that was based on an extrapolation from a hit region, a statistical sleight of hand:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14784&page=0
The analysis will follow and by then the media will have moved on and whether the BOM was right or wrong will be irrelevant. It is a massive con job.
You’ve got to have a great big laugh at the sceptics – with old codger candidates having been passed over as eccentrics at the election, now with their desperate op-eds trying to do a but but but …. when it’s obviously warming to buggery in neutral year – anyone with half a brain could reproduce BoM’s work.
I’m told BoM pin these bits of peurile op-ed trash on their notice boards under humour but who would know really.
Go and give them the seminar Cohers – don’t be shy. You won’t and they know it ! They’d eat you for brekky. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Long wave doesn’t warm the ocean. Tell us when you’ve published ….. waiting ….. ROFL !
A very insightful comment luke; I’m definitely losing and there’s no welcome mat at BOM or CSIRO; and why should there be; they know the media is on their side and the current government are SCs.
Anyway, kick me while I’m down and direct me to evidence to rebut this:
“Long wave doesn’t warm the ocean.”
Before you give the rebuttal look at this NASA spectrum graph which shows the different wavelengths and their ocean penetration:
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
Or this graph of the absorption coefficients and depth:
http://klimaatfraude.info/images/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig1.gif
Forest kayakers who drive too fast without seatbelts? You can’t cure compulsive extrapolators, can you?. Those Hadley Cells will just get wider and wider and wider until…
Cohers, it’s the prediction not the event these days. Remember when NZ was heading for its hottest day evah last year? When the heat didn’t even come close to predictions there was no reportage. “My work is done here!” said each media airhead, before moving on to Miley Cyrus’s opinion of the frog shortage etc.
Brisbane’s prediction the other day made news, the actual temp achieved was obscure. Hey, 39 is better than nothing, cane toads!
I really don’t care that NZ’s hottest day was in 1973. I imagine it was pretty hot over there last summer. Had they achieved their hottest evah I can’t see what that would mean. Our hottest recorded temp evah was in 1960. So what? And so what if someone records a higher temp in Oz this year?
I doubt that Davey Jones’s creepy bolshie video announcement was supposed to coincide with Turney’s speed dating exercise with polar science, but nothing should surprise us about the klimatariat right now. If these people were sensible and scientific in their outlook I suppose they’d have beg for money and support, which is what most polar scientists, vulcanologists etc. have had to do. In fact, I wonder how many oceanography dollars are being gobbled in the hunt for the biggest SLR evah.
Giggle – goes to the heart of your silliness – the extra LW changes the whole surface flux. Get published and report back we’ll stop ROFLing ….
or or or …
Actually go and give CSIRO a seminar on ocean surface physics – HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Hey Luke you really are a fool, but we all knew that didn’t we? Comparing seat belts restraining a moving body to co2 warming is about as silly as it gets.
So explain to us (for the zillionth time) how you would reduce co2 emissions? Tell us how your mitigation could work by 2100 or 2500 for that matter?
You tell us you believe the ice core records and they tell us that the co2 lag time ensures it can take hundreds and sometimes thousands of years to decline, but a lot longer to have an impact on temp. Or don’t you understand YOUR science anymore?
The ice cores show that when the planet plunged into the glacial at the end of the Eemian it took co2 level at least 6,000 years before it started to drop. And that’s only from 275ppmv, but now we’re starting at 400ppmv, so how much longer would the decline take?
This is all using your science, so tell us how you can even start to mitigate CAGW let alone wait until 8,000 AD before you may see an impact on temp and climate? But you’re starting at 400 ppmv so 8000 AD would have to be very optimistic.
“the extra LW changes the whole surface flux.”
That’s really stupid; the graphs I link to show the ACTUAL measurement of the ACTUAL distance of penetration of the various wavelengths; the relevant LW from CO2 ‘backradiation’ penetrates:
http://klimaatfraude.info/images/MODIS_and_AIRS_SST_comp_fig1.gif
The relevant wavelengths are above 10 um; these wavelengths penetrate about 5 um into the ocean; that level of depth is entirely subject to evaporation which means the transferred energy is moved back into the atmosphere. None is available for heating the ocean at any depth.
Now look at this graph:
http://www.udel.edu/Geography/DeLiberty/Geog474/energy_wavelength.gif
This is a comparison between the energy in the incoming solar ‘flux’ and the outgoing terrestrial ‘flux’; all of the incidental solar is going into the ocean and other surfaces; the outgoing is coming from all surfaces.
The LW is constant but for a minute change in solar due perhaps to a variation in cloud cover the change and effect is enormous.
This is why I hate AGW; it’s stupid.
“Cohers, it’s the prediction not the event these days.”
Yes we live in the age of McLuhan, “the medium is the message”.
AGW comes from the BOM and is supported by the MSM, so it must be right.
Luke,
I am aware you said ‘progressive’.
The point was that re coastlines. . . erosion usually only goes one way.
You made that ‘geoscience’ comment sound like it was some type of revolutionary, amazing new information.
It is instead. . . very well known that coastlines ‘progressively’ erode.
>”Giggle – goes to the heart of your silliness – the extra LW changes the whole surface flux.”
What “extra LW”?
There is NO paper documenting LWIR in the GHG DLR range (3 – 16 microns) of the EM spectrum steadily rising commensurate with aGHGs (read CO2) e.g. P. Jonathan Gero and David D. Turner 2011, commentary:
“A study published online yesterday in The Journal of Climate, however, finds that contrary to the global warming theory, infrared ‘back-radiation’ from greenhouse gases has declined over the past 14 years in the US Southern Great Plains in winter, summer, and autumn. If the anthropogenic global warming theory was correct, the infrared ‘back-radiation’ should have instead increased year-round over the past 14 years along with the steady rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide”……”A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI)…The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.”
There are other studies of SURFRAD and GEWEX (e.g. Wang, Wild) that corroborate Gero and Turner – decadal trends of magnitude far greater than posited aGHG DLR forcing and even opposite sign, changing decadally. Changes in cloudiness completely overwhelm any posited aGHG DLR forcing (even if it were detectable – it isn’t).
Cohenite’s graph (with respect coh) is NOT the GHG DLR range of the spectrum. That graph shows IR-A and IR-B in the solar spectrum which actually goes to about 4 micron EM wavelength i.e. there’s a solar DLR-GHG DLR overlap of IR-B and IR-C. GHG DLR is IR-C in the EM wavelength range 3 – 16 microns. It has far lower energy-per-photon measured in electron volts (eV) than IR-A/B, see the table here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Light_spectrum.svg/324px-Light_spectrum.svg.png
It is the lower energy-per-photon that renders GHG DLR ineffective as a water heating agent. All it does is aid evaporation from the surface i.e. ocean cooling – NOT heating.
There’s also in-situ diurnal measurements (papers) of solar vs GHG+cloud DLR if you search really hard.
I’ve previously taken Tom Biegler to task in all this previously (but he didn’t respond) here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/when-is-the-right-time-to-abandon-ship/?cp=all#comment-546029
The part relevant to DLR water penetration was the following down to the compendium:
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:
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif
Subsequently corroborated by, among others, Segelstein and Wieliczka. See:
‘Optical Absorption of Water Compendium’
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/abs/index.html
Clearly, the H&Q73 results show only around 10 microns effective LWIR water penetration in the 3 – 16 micron range of the EM spectrum corresponding to aGHG IR-C DLR. Most effective penetration by IR-A and IR-B in the solar range is around 1m. Obviously solar penetration is down past 10m in Visible and UV but the most effective IR heating occurs at about 1m depth.
So apart from the wrong graph, cohenite is correct: “Long wave doesn’t warm the ocean.”
The IPCC cites no science whatsoever to support their “expected air-sea flux” speculation. Read about that here:
‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism’
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE/edit?usp=sharing
Following on from a comment currently in moderation (long, links) relevant to posited anthro ocean heating (Luke, cohenite). Quoting comment:
>”Most effective penetration by IR-A and IR-B in the solar range is around 1m”
This refers to a results graph from Hale and Querry (1973), not cohenite’s graph (see comment to come when Jennifer digs it out of moderation). I point out that cohenite’s graph does not include the GHG DLR range of the EM spectrum 3/4 – 16 microns.
However, H&Q73 does correspond to water penetration in cohenites graph of the solar spectrum. Graphs side-by-side:
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif (solar only – cohenite’s)
http://omlc.ogi.edu/spectra/water/gif/hale73.gif (solar and GHG DLR – H&Q73)
Most effective penetration by Near Infra-Red in the solar range is around just a bit less than 1m at about 1 micron wavelength.
GHG DLR on the other hand, is only about 10 micron effective penetration i.e. not a water heating agent.
“Arguing over CO2 and “down welling” IR is just arguing about how many Angels fit on pinheads.”
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/static-vs-dynamic-scored-air/
Where’s the publication in Nature ! Here you have major heresy – get together with Jo, Dave, Dave and Bob and publish. The killer paper it will be. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA give it up Cohenite – what a shonk.
Zero idea on energy balance and surface flux. But we won’t be seeing it will we?
Debs “erosion usually only goes one way” errr nope ! (sheesh) Fail beach geomorph 101 for Debs
sp joined the slayers – keeps getting better.
Again sp – where’s Chieflo’s killer paper in Nature ! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
what rot !
Joe D’Aleo crunches the numbers and finds that the 2010’s could be the snowiest decade for snow storms in the USA east coast record. Even surpassing the 1960s and the 1970s ice age scare as well.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/latest_storm_likely_to_make_2010s_snowiest_decade_in_noaa_nesis_data_base/
Remember when they told us in 2000 that kids wouldn’t know what snow was and that Robert Kennedy jnr looney claimed that kids wouldn’t have snow to play in anymore?
Luke,
It isn’t about who got papers published or how complicated and ‘sciency sounding’ it can all be made.
That’s nonsense.
I am all for geomorphic studies. That is NOT the issue under discussion here.
If AGW fuelled SLR is a problem then it should be clearly manifesting itself in at least ONE of the oceans. It’s clearly not manifesting itself where SD had been observing for approx 60 years.
If people are sooking that coastlines erode. . . and attempting to blame it on AGW. . .then that has to be one of the biggest ‘cop outs’ around.
BECAUSE…coastlines ERODE. . .and unless we build something to mitigate erosion. . .or of course if there’s some dramatic event like a volcanic eruption . . .the SEA will always ERODE coastlines and move stuff around.
But if you want to play semantics with that comment just go right ahead. . .it doesn’t PROVE anything relevant about the topic under discussion here.
The global sea ice area is now the largest ever recorded.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/december-31-global-sea-ice-area-was-the-largest-ever-recorded/
I just wish that Christy’s graph showing the models versus REALITY could be used as a central theme of a debate on CAGW.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/73-climate-models_reality.gif
But it wouldn’t be allowed and the MSM would never allow it to take place in a forum where millions of viewers could learn for the first time what BS they had been fed over the last 30 years.
Personally I give SD’s obs a significant vote of relevance and I’ve said so many times before. The thing with an average of sea level is that it doesn’t tell us anything about practical on the ground effects. We already know the historical range of tides, from lowest annual tide to highest annual tide. By and large we do not build anything below the highest tide point and of course we plan for waters reaching that level.
Thus, it can only be when sea levels consistently exceed that historical range that we know we have a problem from rising sea levels. Yes, if the average has increased by 10cm over time we can expect some increased erosion etc, but we should not expect significant impacts until we exceed the historical range.
To see if that’s happening, we need a good look at effects against a permanent structure, and that’s precisely what SD observes.
Average sea level MAY have increased (personally I doubt that too), but the historical range has not changed.
What of the impact of SLR if that’s not happening? SD’s obs cover something like 50 or so years so if SLR is going to have a catastrophic impact (rather than a statistical curiosity) then right there is where we should see it.
Maybe a little OT?
Had a spare half hour and followed the link below.
It’s about allowing different views on MSM.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/jan/04/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism#comment-30456795
My conclusion is that any discussion/argument between the ‘believers’ and ‘deniers’ is a waste of time.
Model prediction for one side is seen as indisputable fact while clearly observed and documented facts are ignored as ‘cherry picked’.
It’s enlightening in a way how bigoted both sides can become, but I think the zealots are overwhelmingly on the alarmist side.
Read some of the comments from the warmists and some from the sceptics the poster ‘ericworell’ seems to quite a reasonable chap and talks good sense. never came across him but then I don’t usually follow blog talk much.
Neville, that Christy graph comparing models with ‘reality’; do you have a primary source because I’m not sure if its Troposphere or land temp?
Cohers here is the tropical troposhere graph from Spencer’s site, but I’ll get the other link in a short while.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/06/still-epic-fail-73-climate-models-vs-measurements-running-5-year-means/
Cohers this is where I linked the graph from, No Tricks Zone.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/02/sherwood-publishes-latest-climate-horoscope-climate-science-continues-its-stark-divergence-from-reality/#comments
Thanks Neville, I was aware of Spencer’s Troposphere comparison; Christy’s appears to be the same.
Incidentally Ken Stewart has graphed UAH’s lower troposphere temps for Australia for 2013, and while less than BOM’s, still gives 2013 the title as AUSTRALIA’s hottest year in the satellite era.
Gee I wonder what Ken Stewart is going to do now. Maybe the satellite data are flawed. Chip away.
Any some typical Neville (well he doesn’t know what he’s doing) and Cohenite shonkery.
What you’d expect from the lads – no error bounds.
View it and weep chumps. http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/~ed/bloguploads/UPDATED_11-25.png
But hey keep coming up with your confected nonsense.
Very nice graphic there. And if obs turns out to track along the very bottom of that indicative range? Wherefore then for CAGW? You might note the trend of obs since 2005 compared to the trend of that indicative range too.
like we’ll need to wait a few more years to see just how that particular bet turns out. But luckily you’ve made a very clear stake in the sand with this one. We can just check back in say 10 years eh?
Luke, you bonehead, the question you and the BOM lads need to be asking your selves is why Aussie is relatively hot right now while the rest of the world is freezing.
Simple – circulation patterns will change as energy balance changes. I’ve been telling you for years about uniformitarianism. Cold air outbreaks will occur in a greenhouse world. Global climate has teleconnections. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1301/pdf
But there may be more – latest research slow down in the AMOC.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2013/amoc-decline/#more-1880
Ed may be a bit high brow for you !
@luke
I read it.
What you still don’t seem to fathom is that while these things are happening, no definite connections can be made to AGW.
Unless I’m not reading it properly nowhere in that blog post does Jon Robson make that connection.
He simply states a fact, we keep telling you that we agree with all of this but not yet able to name AGW as the cause.
You on the other hand start from the premise of AGW as given and take everything from there, as I posted above, with attitude like yours never the twain shall meet.
Well JW – you don’t just wish basic radiative physics away.
But the AMOC link is quite nuanced and isn’t overclaiming at all.
e.g. “As Smeed et al. point out, such a decline is larger than might be expected from anthropogenic forcing alone, which might suggest that the current trend is largely due to natural variability. However, the record is also very short. Given that there are many drivers of AMOC change, including short-term wind changes, it begs the question, is this only a short-term temporary change, or is this part of a larger, more persistent event?”
The simple added point for Cohers that is the AMOC is up to something (for whatever reason) a new layer of complexity is added with possible counter-intuitive outcomes. Was an aside ….
Let’s look at Luke’s argument and see where it leads. In 1990 world human emissions of co2 were 21.4 bn T, 11.6 from the OECD and 9.8 from the non OECD.
So let’s assume the OECD agreed in 1990 that they would REALLY reduce emissions by 10% and definitely hold it at 10.4 BnT p.a until 2040 or the next 50 years.
So by 2010 OECD emissions would be 10.4 bnTp.a and non OECD would be 18.1 bn T p.a or a total of 28.5 bnT p.a. (Actual total emissions were 31.2 bnT p.a by 2010.)
By 2040 OECD emissions would be 10.4 bn T p.a and non OECD 31.6 bn T p.a for a total of 42.0 bn T p.a. ( REAL projections by 2040, OECD 13.9 bn T and non OECD 31.6 = total of 45.5bn T p.a.)
So by this exercise 2.7 bn Tp.a were saved by 2010 and 3.5 bn T p.a were saved by 2040. But this is nonsense because the OECD countries would have just bought more from China etc and their emissions would have been higher as a result.
Whatever way you look at this fraud it is a con game on steroids and we are wasting our time and intend to waste endless trillions $ until 2040. And there will be ZIP change in the weather/climate/temp for our wasted trillions.
Let’s look at Luke’s argument and see where it leads. In 1990 world human emissions of co2 were 21.4 bn T, 11.6 from the OECD and 9.8 from the non OECD.
So let’s assume the OECD agreed in 1990 that they would REALLY reduce emissions by 10% and definitely hold it at 10.4 BnT p.a until 2040 or the next 50 years.
So by 2010 OECD emissions would be 10.4 bnTp.a and non OECD would be 18.1 bn T p.a or a total of 28.5 bnT p.a. (Actual total emissions were 31.2 bnT p.a by 2010.)
By 2040 OECD emissions would be 10.4 bn T p.a and non OECD 31.6 bn T p.a for a total of 42.0 bn T p.a. ( REAL projections by 2040, OECD 13.9 bn T and non OECD 31.6 = total of 45.5bn T p.a.)
So by this exercise 2.7 bn Tp.a were saved by 2010 and 3.5 bn T p.a were saved by 2040. But this is nonsense because the OECD countries would have just bought more from China etc and their emissions would have been higher as a result.
Whatever way you look at this fraud it is a con game on steroids and we are wasting our time and intend to waste endless trillions $ until 2040. And there will be ZIP change in the weather/climate/temp for our wasted trillions.
I’m sorry about the double post, grrrrr. But here’s a quick link for those numbers.
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/table20.cfm
Let’s look at Nevilles argument. Make some shit up. Verbal someone. Cut and paste anything. Don’t read the papers you cite. Basically sprout anything and graffiti threads off topic non stop. Froth rant and screech.
Luke is left like a very dumb and very wet shag on a rock. No answers just more abuse, and until I first linked to the REAL numbers on co2 emissions he didn’t have a clue.
And he still doesn’t, I’m giving the REAL historical info on co2 emissions and he can’t fight back with any real arguments, just more stupid abuse.
But lets forget this silly fantasist. Here’s a good post by John McClean in the SMH that tells the story on the IPCC and alarmist scientists plus stupid journalists and politicians. Add in ZIP logic and reasoning and an inability to understand kindy maths and we have the mess they have created.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/lack-of-accountability-clouding-the-climate-change-debate-20140102-307ja.html
errr Luke?
Neville linked to EIA to verify those figures.
That is not ‘making some s**t up’
Neither is it off topic re the influence of CO2 as any effort to mitigate AGW (at this thread it’s AGW fuelled SLR) is definitely relevant because ACO2 or ‘carbon pollution’ or ‘fossil fuels’ is claimed to be a ‘key driver’ that we urgently need to DO SOMETHING(!) about.
Strong and/or emotive language is not unique to Neville or even the sites he links to. . .far from it wouldn’t you reckon?
Some more commons sense writing from Don Aitkin
http://donaitkin.com/was-2013-a-record-breaking-year/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DonAitkin+%28DON+AITKIN%29
Along with Professor Michael Astens’ piece of last week in the Australian there may be a semblance of proper analysis and writing at last…
despite the bias of the MSM in general, and in particular the cretins in their ABC ..who cant even handle the “ship of fools” saga in balanced way.
Let’s look at LUKE’S argument. Make some shit up. Verbal someone. Cut and paste anything. Don’t read the papers you cite. Basically sprout anything and graffiti threads off topic non stop. Froth rant and screech. Abuse people – play the man and not the ball.
@luke
it begs the question, is this only a short-term temporary change, or is this part of a larger, more persistent event?”
That’s more like it Luke, an open mind is all we ask.
Whichever way it turns out it’s too early to tell for certain and in my opinion the “science is settled” cry did more damage than good to the warmists’ case.
I read most of the referenced links on that page and while very interesting and informative they are not sure of the cause/s.
Remember all the lies Wong, Gillard, Combet, Milne,Rudd, Albanese etc etc use to tell us how China was changing over to renewables IN A BIG WAY?
Here’s the latest pie chart info from the IEA ( another group for dumbo to look at) showing China’s energy sources.
http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/CHINA4.pdf You’ll note that Nuclear is 0.8% and so is geothermal, solar and wind at 0.8%. This is for 2011.
Facts conquer BS every time, just a pity silly groupthinkers listen to these liars and numbskulls.
The IEA is mainly a pay site and is very expensive. I just wish it was as easy to get the numbers as is the EIA.
But here is USA co2 emissions in 2011 and you can change the years back to 1990 at top left shutter.
You’ll find that the USA had reduced emissions by 2011 to within about 9% above the 1990 levels.
By 2013 I’m sure that reduction would be close to just 5% above 1990 levels. Amazing results due to uptake of much cheaper gas replacing coal and oil etc.
http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?country=USA&product=Indicators&year=2011
I know it’s a bit off topic but relevant to much of the recent discussion:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-06/leader-of-ill-fated-antarctic-voyage-defends-trip/5185666
‘However, writing for the British Observer newspaper, Professor Turney says the expedition was not a “jolly tourist trip” but represented serious science, which had two years of planning behind it and achieved much before it became stuck.
“During the expedition we pioneered a new route into the huts and were able to deliver two large teams to work in the area, including undertaking important conservation work on the huts,” he wrote
“The AAE is not a jolly tourist trip as some have claimed, nor is it a re-enactment
The AAE is inspired by Mawson but is primarily a science expedition; it will be judged by its peer-reviewed publications.”
I don’t see how he can make those claims Debbie. He comes across as just a very messy publicity seeker and had journos and camera men on board as well, plus his kids.
Here’s AA Boretti’s study on SLR 2012 showing high deceleration over the last 10 years. He asks how this deceleration is possible if AGW is supposed to be a factor, something that has a lot of people asking the same question.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2012/aug/8aug2012a1.html
” Cold air outbreaks will occur in a greenhouse world. Global climate has teleconnections.”
Alternatively greenhouse warming outbreaks will occur in a cooling world.
The decline in the AMOC would be astounding since there was a resumption in the Pacific upwelling in about 1998 according to Stockwell, or about 2002 according to Tsonis, roughly corresponding to the plateauing of temps which had increased when the upwelling had declined around 1976 causing the GPCS.
The AMOC’s lateral transfer of heat cannot be pigeon holed with AGW when the vertical transfer of heat works counter to alleged CO2 increase and AGW.
The IEA site has more interesting stuff. Globally for every dollar spent subsidising renewables, $6 is spent subsidising carbon intensive fuels. How would the projections go if the numbers got reversed.?
@bazzer
Much repeated, never demonstrated with cold hard facts.
Numbers please!
Ps road tax is paid on diesel fuel if it used on the roads!!
Therefore miners, farmers and fishers using it off roads, are exempt.
And also?
Please supply a comparison of subsides for renewables vs carbon intensive fuels in Australia.
BTW. . .was that $1.00 vs $6.00 on that IEA site?
“$6 is spent subsidising carbon intensive fuels.”
Oh, that’s only if you count Turney and Flannery’s biochar operations.
bazza,
Globally renewables represent less than 0.5% of the energy source (you cannot count hydro), so why even give them $1.00 in $6.00 spent. They’re all totally useless, unreliable, intermittent, expensive, land use intensive and down right ugly.
Bazza is not here for facts but to spread the usual AGW ipse dixit declarations and mantras, one of which is that the fossils receive more subsidies than renewables.
This rubbish is so nonsensical it could be incorporated in a Mary Poppins musical without breaking the mood. To substantiate this gibberish the usual complaint is that the fossils are permitted to offset their tax liability by depreciating their capital investment and to hold off capital expenditure to productive periods to reduce their tax liability. The horror!
Slightly off topic – but worth reading new lies from loopy Prof Lew – the man has no shame:
An icebreaker gets stuck in the ice, photos are used to mislead
https://theconversation.com/an-icebreaker-gets-stuck-in-the-ice-photos-are-used-to-mislead-21736
Oh – and Prof Lew uses SKS for his “science” – just like Luke!
>”you don’t just wish basic radiative physics away”
No we don’t – when it’s valid.
Go back up-thread here Luke:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/01/king-tides-at-cleveland-point-and-sea-level-change-over-the-holocene/?cp=all#comment-546858
Starts (quoting you first):
>”Giggle – goes to the heart of your silliness – the extra LW changes the whole surface flux.”
“What “extra LW”?”
“There is NO paper documenting LWIR in the GHG DLR range (3 – 16 microns) of the EM spectrum steadily rising commensurate with aGHGs (read CO2) e.g. P. Jonathan Gero and David D. Turner 2011,…………”
And,
“There are other studies of SURFRAD and GEWEX (e.g. Wang, Wild) that corroborate Gero and Turner – decadal trends of magnitude far greater than posited aGHG DLR forcing and even opposite sign, changing decadally. Changes in cloudiness completely overwhelm any posited aGHG DLR forcing (even if it were detectable – it isn’t).”
I can add screeds to that comment because it’s been raked over already elsewhere extensively in some looong threads. This should suffice for now:
The CO2/aCO2 forcings I’ve calculated up-thread (0.2/0.06 Wacker et al. 0.84/0.34 Wang and Liang, 0.18/0.07 Philipona et al) DO NOT CORRESPOND with the respective measured DLR forcings (3.5 Wacker et al, 7.9 Wang and Liang, 5.2 Philipona et al).
Tabulated (Observed, CO2, aCO2):-
3,5, 0.20, 0.06 – Wacker et al
7.9, 0.84, 0.34 – Wang and Liang [SURFRAD]
5.2, 0.18, 0.07 – Philipona et al
I could add Francis and Hunter (Arctic), Gero and Turner (US Great Plains) along with the Antarctic equivalents but the story is the same; far greater forcings are in operation than CO2. It takes 10x feedback CO2 amplification (not humidity and not disclosed) to reconcile the deficit in Philipona et al. That is frankly outlandish.
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/10/met-office-agrees-with-global-warming-stasis/#comment-127941
Up and down-thread from that link you will find much more of the same and see following comment re BSRN.
That lewandowsky article at the conversation clearly shows this is not a rational discussion; alarmists are emotionally connected to supporting AGW as an act of faith.
AGW science [sic] is the greatest perversion of the scientific process and method since Lysenko.
It is outrageous that people like lewandowsky are paid by the public and sites like the conversation are funded also by the public.
>”you don’t just wish basic radiative physics away”
Continuing on from my previous comment which was re SURFRAD, this comment re GEWEX BSRN.
‘Surface radiative fluxes as observed in BSRN and simulated in IPCC-AR5/CMIP5 climate models’
Martin Wild, Doris Folini, Ellsworth G. Dutton
BSRN meeting Berlin, August 1-3, 2012
http://www.gewex.org/BSRN/BSRN-12_presentations/Wild_FriM.pdf
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Part 2: decadal changes in surface radiative fluxes [page 34]
Observed changes downward longwave [page 37]
Observed changes at BSRN sites since early 1990s:
25 longest BSRN records (totally 353 years) covering period 1992-2011 [20 years]
• 19 stations (76%) with increase in LW down (9 significant)
• 6 stations (24%) with decrease in LW down (3 significant)
Change: 2.7 Wm-2/decade
————————————————————————————————-
BSRN SW down versus CMIP5 Models [page 48]
CMIP5-simulated changes at 23 BSRN sites since early 1990s:
Max. model slope (MIROC): 2.1 Wm-2/decade
Minimum model slope: -2.7 Wm-2/decade
Mean model slope: 0.5 Wm-2/decade
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/10/met-office-agrees-with-global-warming-stasis/#comment-128168
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, these observations have no relation whatsoever to posited CO2 forcing, See next comment for a specific example.
>”you don’t just wish basic radiative physics away”
Following on from my previous comment with a specific observed DLR vs CO2 forcing example:
First from http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/10/met-office-agrees-with-global-warming-stasis/#comment-128014
SURFRAD Data Display Page
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Table Mountain (Boulder Colorado) DLR:-
01 January 1996
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_5083545f4fd0f.png
Compare to same location 16 years later:-
01 January 2012
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/tmp/surfrad_50835477b3d72.png
Next from from http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/10/met-office-agrees-with-global-warming-stasis/#comment-128014
Some perspective. Table Mountain DLR 1 Jan 1996 vs 1 Jan 2012 varies between 193 W/m2 minimum (2012) and 300 W/m2 maximum (1996) – a 107 W/m2 range.
By comparison, the CO2 forcing (according to the IPCC) over that period is:
dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)
C: 391.57 (2011)
Co: 362.59
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
dF = 5.35 ln()
dF = 0.4 W/m2
aCO2 0.16 W/m2 (0.4*0.4)
# # #
I really don’t think 0.16 W/m2 (or 0.4 for total CO2) is relevant in a 107 W/m2 range especially when that range is inverse to the direction of (supposed) CO2 forcing.
Are you sure it’s not you that might want to “wish basic radiative physics away” now Luke?
>”See next comment for a specific example.”
“Comment from: richardcfromnz Your comment is awaiting moderation. January 6th, 2014 at 6:34 pm”
Dang, too many links again but it’ll be dug out eventually. Jen’s getting good at this.
This is a very interesting interview of prominent German Physicist and Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls. A quote from the interview is most damning of the IPCC.
“factum: You’ve been criticising the theory of man-made global warming for years. How did you become skeptical?”
“Puls: Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power”
Here is the link to the full interview http://notrickszone.com/2012/05/09/the-belief-that-co2-can-regulate-climate-is-sheer-absurdity-says-prominent-german-meteorologist/
The links to the Table Mountain DLR gifs above don’t work. Just a matter of making the following settings at the link below (works, I’ve tried it):
SURFRAD Data Display Page
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/grad/surfrad/dataplot.html
Table Mountain, Downwelling Infrared, 01 January 1996, 01 January 2012
Cherry picking a couple of dates is meaningless. Very norty … tsk tsk
From your own cite:
• Significant decadal changes overall observed in both surface
longwave and shortwave BSRN records updated to 2011
• BSRN records indicate an increase of downward longwave
radiation of 2 Wm-2 per decade, in line with CMIP5 simulations
and expectations from an increasing greenhouse effect
• Surface shortwave radiation also undergoes strong decadal
changes (“dimming/brightening“)
So we have an increase in downward longwave and decadal variability ! Gee whiz ! and lots of daily variability. Clouds, aerosols….
But anyway …. a recent paper on the AIRS platform shows just what we’d expect from an increasing greenhouse effect – they simply must publish more formally http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262
Speaking of Philipona, Rolf wrote an amusing 2005 paper in GRL about greenhouse forcing and water vapour feedbacks. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL023624/abstract
Then here was Rolf’s adventures in aerosols and why it’s all so complex. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL036350/abstract
But all I meant as an aside to dear Johnathon was again thanks to Rolf – the interesting journey of two up and two down pairs of pyranometers and pyrgeometers through the atmosphere. Fascinating really -http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/IMOP/publications/IOM-109_TECO-2012/Session3/P3_07_Philipona_Radiation_profiles.pdf What a lovely little paper and for Johnathon – all that radiation going this way and that. The radiation profiles illustrated in the actual paper make the paper well worth acquiring.
Richard methinks you’re the one trying to wish basic physics away ! An unconvincing Tisdale-esque style analysis. Sigh …
Here is a quick summary of the Port Arthur “Isle of the dead” SLR study by Hunter, Coleman and Pugh, 2003.
They found there had been a steady rise of 0.8mm year between 1841 and 2002. That’s about 12.8 cm in 161 years or about 5.1 inches. And that’s about 3 inches a century.
http://co2science.org/articles/V12/N9/C1.php
I made presentations of their science without first checking it.
I know I’m not making any friends here by saying this, but I can’t take seriously anyone who neglects to check the data first.
Not a layman and spec. not a scientist.
JW you haven’t lost me and that’s why I chose that quote. Like you I can’t understand how educated people can behave in that way.
I’m not an educated person but I consider myself unconnable by most liars, rogues and ponzi scheme operators. Some have tried but I can usually suss them out very quickly.
But he admits he does feel shame now, so at least he admits this gross error in the past.
What I find hard to understand is that the sceptics “climate masters of the universe” guffawed at the 2011 floods and that the PDO had flipped and that they knew all that in advance. I thought it was going to rain for the next decade as we were told …
Well where’s the sceptic web site to warn about this severe drought – record in patches !
http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain/index.jsp?colour=colour&time=latest&step=0&map=decile&period=18month&area=nat
I must have missed it? Cohers? Bob? Stewart? Jen?
“But he admits he does feel shame now, ” what bunk ! hohoho ! I’m sure he can’t sleep….
nah it’s OK Neville.
I just get frustrated sometimes.
People don’t realise the enormous amount of money we are pouring into this farce of a ‘science/research’ and aiding and abetting it on an “it feels right’ spur of a moment is wrong.
Apologies after are of little comfort to me.
As you so often ask, what good denying the benefit of cheap energy is doing for us?
“What I find hard to understand is that the sceptics “climate masters of the universe” guffawed at the 2011 floods and that the PDO had flipped and that they knew all that in advance. I thought it was going to rain for the next decade as we were told …”
While this is garbled (deliberately, I’m thinking) it gives an insight into the warmist mind. They seem to think skeptics must be as dogmatic, mechanistic, extrapolating and literal-minded as they are, only in the opposite direction. Perhaps they don’t know what skepticism is.
I’ve never met a skeptic who thought it was going to rain for the next decade, or one who guffawed at the 2011 floods etc etc. None of it really makes any sense at all. There are only a couple of years in the whole record without severe drought over some or even all of Australia. It’s almost impossible not to know that.
So who are these climate masters of the universe? Who is he talking about?
Not back radiation again!?
Pavlakis et al”s seminal 2003 study calls it Down welling long wave fluxes [DLF] and concludes it’s all about, or at least from water:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/4/127/2004/acp-4-127-2004.pdf
As do Zhou et al in 2007:
http://asd-www.larc.nasa.gov/~kratz/ref/p31jgr.pdf
AGW is so stupid.
Robert – I dont ask who Luke is talking about, I ask what is he talking about.
I have noticed that recently he talks more rubbish than usual, tries on bigger bluffs (and fails), provides more dodgy links, and rants a lot more. Perhaps it is due to the tail end of festive cheer?
richardcfromnz,
so I’ve reset the spam filter so you can post a maximum of eight links with a comment.
The latest Atlantic hurricane season was the lowest since 1994. Yet the forecasters were very sure that it would be an active season.
But not one single major hurricane for 2013.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/12/23/german-scientists-noaa-2013-hurricane-predictions-completely-missed-the-barn-not-a-single-major-hurricane/
Matt Ridley compares the latest Tamiflu drug fraudsters to the Hockey stick fraudsters exposed by the gutsy Steve McIntyre.
Both contained hidden data to further betray proper science and the general public. But hey Lukey loves it.
But why don’t these liars and con merchants face criminal proceedings after costing the taxpayers many billions $ around the world?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/cherry-flavored-climapsychotamiflugate/#more-100609
Frank Lasner has found a lot more data that was not used for the BEST data construction. It seems that a lot of modern warming is the result of ignoring some of the off shore cooler sites around the world.
This seems to be the case everywhere and I suppose OZ may have similar results.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/the-original-temperatures-project/
Sorry Frank Lansner aove not Lasner. Grrrrrr.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/highly-significant-heatwave-smashes-australian-records-20140106-30dx5.html
HAHAHAHHAHAA
(More disinformation from Wattsup by misery guts Neville – Ridley needs to read Pages2k – just more bellicose op-eds from random spruikers )
Sydney and Melbourne largely dodged the extreme heat
What weasel words, ‘largely dodged’?
We didn’t have a decent hot day yet this summer.
I take it you don’t live in Melbourne Luke?
My wife turned the heater on this morning, I kid you not.
Millions hit by deadly chill in US
It was the first time in 17 years that Minnesota schools have been closed due to snow and dangerously low temperatures, reports said.
“Life-threatening wind chill,” the National Weather Service warned.
“The coldest temperatures in almost two decades will spread into the northern and central US … behind an Arctic cold front,” the government forecaster said.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/20627114/millions-hit-by-deadly-chill-in-us/
JW – the magnitude of record busting in a neutral year is somewhat extraordinary don’t you think !
Yes JW,
We all still have jumpers on this morning out here in the MIA. . .yet over the last few weeks the temps have gone over 40 on several occasions.. (The rice much prefers the over 40)
I have close family in Melbourne who have complained about the lack of decent Summer weather there.
Also family on the Gold Coast who are absolutely sweltering at the moment.
IMHO. . .That’s why those Australian average/mean/median figs are almost meaningless. They’re continually bandied around as if they mean something highly significant. . .and half the time we could be forgiven for thinking the BoM are reporting on some type of exciting Olympic ‘world record’ race or other sporting event!
It’s all very interesting and clever to produce nationwide averages/means/medians. . .but in what specific ways are they particularly useful (other than simply averaging and summarising National Australian climate/weather for a calendar year?).
Even if there is a nationwide average/mean/median ‘trend’ . . . if it’s not manifesting itself somewhere specific . . .what is the purpose of making such a media fuss about it?
Well if your so convinced humans are to blame for OZ temps in some areas give us your solution.
Remember though we need to see the how, when and why?
This is Luke’s cue to howl babyish abuse and then take a powder. Ya gotta laugh at these con merchants though.
>”Cherry picking a couple of dates is meaningless. Very norty … tsk tsk”
That was merely instructive. I didn’t mention any trends, just the magnitudes – far greater than any “greenhouse forcing” i.e. CO2 forcing is unidentifiable, fractions of 1 W.m2 completely lost in 100s of W/m2 DLR.
E.g. Table Mountain DLR 1 Jan 1996 vs 1 Jan 2012
230 – 300 W.m2 DLR 1 Jan 1996
193 – 233 W.m2 DLR 1 Jan 2012 (around 50 W.m2 less on average than same time 1996)
0.4 W/m2 CO2 forcing 1996 – 2012 (aCO2 0.16 W/m2)
The CO2 forcing (even if valid) is of no consequence.
>”• Significant decadal changes overall observed in both surface
longwave and shortwave BSRN records updated to 2011″
Yes, “• 6 stations (24%) with decrease in LW down (3 significant)”
>”• BSRN records indicate an increase of downward longwave
radiation of 2 Wm-2 per decade, in line with CMIP5 simulations
and expectations from an increasing greenhouse effect”
This is an average, the actual measurements are both positive AND negative. That is NOT “in line” with simulations and expectations. Neither is the 2 Wm-2/decade “in line” with posited GHG (let alone aGHG) forcing in the order of 0.25 Wm-2/decade.
Do you see the difference Luke?
2 Wm-2/decade – Averaged DLR, 24% of which is negative in BSRN (similar in SURFRAD)
0.25 Wm-2/decade – CO2 forcing
CO2 forcing is a needle in a haystack – impossible to isolate.
And please explain the negative decadal DLR trends in terms of CO2 forcing i.e. isn’t CO2 forcing ineffective in those cases?
The Herald’s Environment Editor has that classic Fairfax head tilt. Wonderful stuff to go with all those new browns and maroons from our BoM colourists. At the bottom of the page you get “melting” records as well the real “science” (stuff that hasn’t actually happened) about temps in 2100.
There’s a website called Ice Age Now which does nothing but report cold events, disasters and “records”. Obviously, it has plenty to report right now and I would not make light of yet another NH cold wave. Yet you’d think with many parts of Oz experiencing high heat our present summer would be worth a mention, just for balance. Ice Age Now is like the Herald in reverse, a place where believers can go and feel safe. But avoiding contradiction is like lying in a wet nappy…that comfy feeling quickly turns to something else. It really is getting like the Wars of Religion, dogma versus dogma.
I’ve been through two soaring heat waves (1960 and 2004) and a couple of those summer nor-westerly events (early 1980s and early 2000s) and the nor-westerly events were the worst, regardless of temp readings. Even though I haven’t been touched by the present heat (nice cool day), I know that this is Australia and that the number one prob will always be drought, even if it hides its face for a few years (as in the 1970s and post 2006 around here.) How does the klimatariat get away with pretending otherwise? How can they welcome someone to a New Normal which is just like the Old Normal? And how did so many people die in the heat of 1939, which was a La Nina year? Easy. Drought and heat in Oz don’t care about no fancy rules.
Hello. It really is hot in much of Oz right now. Duh.
Hello. There really is a lot of sea ice down there, Chris. And continental ice. You’re not being attacked by a crumbling polar cap. Duh.
Regardless of AGW the Aussie weather in the past few weeks has been interesting. It is a curious thing to me and I have spent a few hours thinking about it – the extent to which temps depend on winds (or weather systems).
For example, the heatwave was caused by hot air being pushed out of the centre by the confluence of systems. Had there not been that cyclone, I suspect it would not have happened.
Without that effect, the temps have been decidedly cool. Here in Canberra it was bloody cold this morning! Two weeks ago I drove across the Hay Plains in 45 degrees, on Saturday I drove back across the same place in 25 degrees. On both days, it was a sunny day with a little high level cloud.
Here today in Canberra, it’s a clear sunny low humidity day. Temps are around 18C, while this morning it was 10 with a wind chill reducing that to 6C apparent. Yet some years ago on a very similar day in January we had a howling westerly and temps were close to 40C – a disastrous fire was driven before those winds and we had the Canberra firestorm.
So, how much does an event like the recent heatwave tell us about AGW? Personally, I’d be interested in seeing how much the track of lows/highs have changed over time, and the extent to which windiness has changed.
Frank Lansners data is intriguing – especially the data for those sites sheltered from ocean wind influence. What does data from sheltered locations tell us I wonder.
I treat these ‘breaking records’ as an interesting but more or less meaningless statistical items.
The main limit to their usefulness, as far as I’m concerned, is the the period of time they cover, climate wise very short, and the selective use of locations.
Good politics but, I have admit it, slogans like ‘hottest ever’ sticks in ppl’s mind, never mind that it only goes back 40 years or less.
Heh!
‘A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS’
D. Chapman ; P. Nguyen ; M. Halem
“Observed decreases in BT [Brightness Temperature] trends are expected due to ten years of increased greenhouse gasses even though global surface temperatures have not risen substantially over the last decade.”
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262
Herein lies the problem, viz, “global surface temperatures have not risen substantially over the last decade”.
About NCAR-RAP multi-spectral satellite products
Brightness Temperature Difference:
The subtraction of channel 5 data from channel 4 is referred to as Brightness Temperature Difference. Channel 5 is referred to as the Split-Window IR channel and is centered at approximately 12 microns in wavelength. Channel 4 is the more standard IR channel and is centered at approximately 11 microns. Optically thin clouds emit different amounts of energy at these two wavelengths. Optically opaque (optical depth = 1.0) clouds emit the same amount of energy at these wavelengths. By subtracting these two channels, regions of thin clouds (usually high, thin cirrus) can be displayed very prominently. Also, because of the chemical composition of effluents from volcanic eruptions as well as the emitting characteristics of ash clouds, these data can be quite useful at locating plumes of ash from volcanic eruptions.
http://weather.rap.ucar.edu/satellite/multispectral.html
“Clouds emit …..energy”? Well, well. In fact, the major component of downwelling LW energy is from clouds (Pavlakis, Zhou – see cohenites links above) i.e. DLR = clouds(water)+ghgs.
So if, coincidentally, there’s a decadal (“ten years” – Chapman et al) cloudiness change manifesting as BT change that coincides with “increased greenhouse gasses” (but not the magnitudes of the respective fluxes – observed vs posited) then BT change can be attributed to GHGs?
I don’t think so.
The Chylek, Dubey, Lesins 2006 study of Greenland temps show some very interesting results. The 1995 to 2005 increase in temp is similar to 1920 to 1930 period but the earlier trend occurred at a 50% higher rate.
But many more points are made about the earlier Greenland temps that show that the recent warming is not unusual or unprecedented.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Chylek/greenland_warming.html
Frank Lansner has included the Chylek study graph at his site showing temps from 1880 to 2005. Certainly nothing unusual about recent temps at all.
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/greenland-temperatures-63.php
The Zwally et al 2005 study of Greenland shows a small mass gain of ice and Antarctic ice loss in the peninsula and mostly gains elsewhere.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000175/art00001?token=004a14828f227b76504c486646257023442f247a4259316a332b257d7241255e4e6b63318c
Just seems to agree with a deceleration in SLR found in most of the recent studies.
Weather Is Not Climate
Antarctic ice doesn’t discredit the warmists, but they should dial down the death-cult drama.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367613/weather-not-climate-charles-c-w-cooke
>”so I’ve reset the spam filter so you can post a maximum of eight links with a comment.”
Thanks for that Jennifer. I’ll try not to spam your blog in future but I’ve raked over these same issues with Luke-equivalents at other blogs so many times over several years that it’s not necessary to start from scratch each time. I can just link to what’s already been written.
There’s a number of underlying radiative/thermo concepts that are very difficult to communicate without a long write up. That’s why I wrote up and now just link to my 3 part ocean heat series (linked up-thread) because certain CC factions (including IPCC) are suggesting anthro ocean heating in the absence of anthro atmospheric heating. Parts 1, 2, and 3 of that series accessible via Part 2 here:
‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism’
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S91YV1Z8aT-qD9Ydj_kn8JAM3R-l-H5eK9LZwMuAsOE
/edit?usp=sharing
I know it’s “blog physics” but I urge a read to get a handle on the multiple thermo concepts that the IPCC and others are corrupting.
Unfortunately I haven’t got around to doing the same for DLR.
Yes well don’t feel bad Richard you can always get yourself straightened out with some good text books.
And herein doesn’t lie the problem at all. The results are quite specific. Don’t try to divert or conflate.
Anyway you can always publish your peer reviewed killer paper in GRL or Nature – funny how that never happens. I guess there’s always E&E too. LOL
Speaking of publishing luke no doubt will be fascinated by this little gem which deals with the unit root characteristic of temperature and shows in rigorous statistical analysis that CO2 cools:
http://scientificadvances.co.in/admin/img_data/535/images/%5b3%5d%20JSATA%200202006%20Terence%20C.%20Mills%20%5b49-65%5d.pdf
Say something sensible luke or at least pass it on to some of your more numerate acquaintances.
Spot the CO2 forcing (0.25 Wm-2/decade approx).
Outgoing longwave radiation above Equator
http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Equator%20NOAA.gif
>”you can always get yourself straightened out with some good text books.”
That was (some of) my education years ago Luke – applied heat, involving “good text books” i.e. the thermo concepts I highlight in ‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating?’ are fundamental and the basis of thermodynamic education everywhere. The IPCC’s and climate scientist’s (e.g. Rahmstorf, Schmittner) mechanism for ocean heating is contra fundamentals.
>”And herein doesn’t lie the problem at all”
Oh yes it does. No statistically significant global warming for 17+ years is the ONE BIG PROBLEM for anthropogenic global warming.
So how are some of those famous forecasts of dangerous SLs going?
ABC science????? presenter Robyn ‘100 metres” Williams told Bolt a few years ago that yes 100 metres by 2100 was possible.
Geeezzzz I don’t think so Robyn, I mean you need well over a metre rise every year for the next 86 years. Wadda ya reckon?
GAIA brain Flannery thought that 9 metres was possible but I think he’s gonna be disappointed as well.
But the Gore Hansen big guns estimated 6 metres by 2100 but they’ll miss out by about 5.8 metres at least.
But don’t forget that Graeme Pearman ex CSIRO was/is an expert consultant for Gore as well and the CSIRO and BOM thought that Gore’s AIT had “got the science about right. ” But what a bummer that clueless govt’s listen to these fools and throw billions $ at these non problems?
Luke, I challenge you to fault (feel free to use “some good text books”) the fundamental thermo concepts that I elucidate in Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part’s 1, 2, and 3 and the respective rationales I use to demonstrate that the IPCC mechanism is both improbable and contra fundamentals i.e. put up, or shut up.
Something on-topic for a change.
Given SL trend up North of Australia is generally a marked rise then Spangled could expect his lawn to be covered now by a king tide with even more water than 50 years ago (pressure being similar etc) – yes?
Not necessarily according to Aviso (see map below). Apart from the Peninsula, Queensland hasn’t had SLR 1992 – 2013:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Map_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
What does BOM/CSIRO say about tide guage SL nearest to Cleveland Point?
I note that on the other side of the Pacific off Mexico there’s a sea level fall (SLF ?) over those 20 years i.e. SLR is not a global phenomenon in that time scale let alone over the last few thousand years.
>”…you can always publish your peer reviewed killer paper in GRL or Nature – funny how that never happens”
I would point out Luke, that the IPCC doesn’t publish any papers either. All they do is write a narrative with selected embedded citations.
As do the NIPCC in ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’, except including all the papers that the IPCC neglect.
As do I in ‘Anthropogenic Ocean Heating’, except it’s a critique of the IPCC Luke.
The NIPCC – is that some sort of joke? Let’s stay in the realms of serious science with serious domain expertise.
Op-eds and self published bloggery are so indulgent.
I look forward to your killer paper in Nature, J Climate OR GRL – will probably be a Nobel winner. I hope I’m not waiting long.
Well luke, have you read it:
http://scientificadvances.co.in/admin/img_data/535/images/%5b3%5d%20JSATA%200202006%20Terence%20C.%20Mills%20%5b49-65%5d.pdf
Look at Figure 3; does it assist or work against AGW?
Well luke, have you read it:
http://scientificadvances.co.in/admin/img_data/535/images/%5b3%5d%20JSATA%200202006%20Terence%20C.%20Mills%20%5b49-65%5d.pdf
Look at Figure 3; does it assist or work against AGW?
JW and Graeme M,
My observations and questions are similar. . .
When we think about the massive ranges of temps that can occur in just a few weeks in this country…here in the last few weeks the maximums have ranged over 20 degrees. . ..what is the significance of an average for the whole nation for a whole year in terms of something that could be harming either the Australian people or the Australian environment. . . and how would mitigating it so that the national average stays static or somehow at a perfect level, lessen whatever that harm is?
I think it unreasonable to demand others publish per reviewed papers to be considered a serious scientist, but never publish oneself.
Your tactic of deny, delay and obfuscate is obvious. But in the end you say nothing sensible.
Luke – publish a paper yourself before you demand others do. Put up or shut up you hypocrite.
I look forward to your paper.
Well sp you might accept some un-peer reviewed assertions on the internet against the opinion of learned science academies but I don’t – BTW the moon landing were faked – someone on the internet assured me and had a report to back it up. Only a sneaky little rat like you would prefer un-refereed material of unknown qualiity. And if the material is already written up – get it through the publication loop. sp this is an evidence based blog – shape up !
Cohers – Mills representation of CO2 effect on climate is a trivialisation.
Simple Luke – practice what you preach. Hypocrite.
BTW – I have been enjoyed watching richardcfromnz tearing you a new one on a daily basis, and your response has been sub-standard to say the least.
Weasel words and contradiction is not refutation – you really are a second rate obsessive-compulsive.
And I think you dont understand science fully – especially thermodynamics.
Publish Luke – just like you demand of others. Or shut up.
>”The NIPCC – is that some sort of joke? Let’s stay in the realms of serious science with serious domain expertise.”
Equally, by the same rationale of writing a narrative from serious domain expertise (as NIPCC has) and embedding citations of serious science (as NIPCC did, in fact many more citations than IPCC in some cases):
“The [IPCC] – is that some sort of joke? Let’s stay in the realms of serious science with serious domain expertise.”
The IPCC’s treatment of solar was pathetic, they don’t even have a specific solar section. NIPCC does:
Chapter 3. Solar Forcing of Climate
http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Chapter-3-Solar-Forcing.pdf
And just in 2013 alone:
’71 new papers reported in 2013 demonstrating the Sun controls climate, not man-made CO2′
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2014/01/71-new-papers-reported-in-2013.html
The IPCC are so far behind on solar they’re irrelevant.
Yes Richard – all very interesting if you’re into fringe blogsphere theories (like sp)
Looks like sp is a devotee to the fringe – moon landing a hoax, flat earth, …. and it goes on.
Time to change your nappy Luke – you stink.
When will you publish?
What is your plan to save us from CO2?
I am asking a very similar question of Luke elsewhere.
What’s your solution Luke?
Let’s hear it.
And please add WHO or WHAT is currently providing that solution and with WHAT funding sources.
Filing this here:
NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 319
OCTOBER 30TH 2013
IPCC SEA LEVEL EXAGGERATION
Chapter 13 of the IPCC 5th WGI Report claims that sea level will rise by
an amount between 0.26 to 0.97 metres by 2100 according to which of their
new scenarios actually happens
Relative Sea Level,the distance between the level of the sea and the level
of neighbouring land is what matters to most of us. The Level of the open
ocean is only of minor importance. This Report tries to mix the two up in
a single chart.
Relative Sea Level is measured by tide gauges which measure the distance
between the level of the sea registered on specialist equipment and a
supposedly constant benchmark location on the neighbouring land. carried
out in over 1000 coastal locations all over the world. The records are
averages, over a day, week, month or years
Both the level of the sea and of the neighbouring land constantly vary
from place to place.and from time to time
The sea changes level constantly, diurnally and seasonally. It is
influenced by winds, storms and hurricanes and also by earthquakes. The
level of the sea may be influenced by breakwaters and harbour works. The
equipment may be damaged or its location altered by storms. Severe storms
may prevent correct measurement and give a false reading which interferes
with claims for “change
Land surfaces may change. The land may subside by weight of buildings, and
removal of minerals and groundwater.The Report illustrates the problem of
measurement near land covered in iceGeological change (Isostasy) may
result from plate movements and earthquakes. Many of these effects cause
an upwards bias to the readings
Long term trends may as much show these changes as any other influence. As
a result they are not a reliable guide to the future.which should be
based on a recent period of reliable measurements.
The recent installation of GPS levelling equipment on m,ay sites has
greatly improved the reliability of the land-based benchmark. It has
resulted in a nearly constant sea level change for many records it is
therefore wrong to place reliance on older readings in order to assess
future behaviour. It should be based on the most recent measurements which
are the least likely to be affected by previous bias.
The records are publicly available at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea
Level (PSMSL) website at at
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html which features a very
convenient map of the world from which all the records can be obtained.
Many records are defective in one way or another. Many have gaps or sudden
changes, Few have a long-term continuous record. Frequently there is
little sign of change during the recent decade. evidence. that currently
there is little or no change in sea level. The following figure from
Chapter 13, FAQ 13.1 Figure 1. illustrates this error.
It shows six tide gauge records compared with the supposed global average..
The actual current records, which are shown (rather small), disagree with
this supposed trend
San Francisco is unchanged since 1990.
Charlottetown is unchanged from 1995 to 2010.
Antofagasta is unchanged from 1980 to 2012
Pago Pago is unchanged since 2000.
Stockholm is actually falling.
Manila is a rogue record.The following website states that the gauge is
subject to subsidence
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.shtml?stnid=660-011
The following records from the Philippines .show no recent rise.
Cebu Port Irene
I have published a study of the Pacific islands which also display no
recent rise at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/south_pacific.html
Recently there was a Pacific Forum meeting in Kiribati attended by our
Prime Minister which complained that the islands were sinking. And we must
take action
This is a recent tide gauge record from Kiribati
. These figures and also those from Australia continue to show little
change. He same is true for many islands as shown at
http://www.contrepoints.org/2013/10/01/140868-les-oceans-montent-dangereusement-sauf-autour-iles
Future projections for different places from the latest IPCC Report
Chapter 13 are shown in their Figure 13.23 .
Every one of these actual measured sea levels have shown no sign of change
for at least ten years, yet all the projections claim that this settled
behaviour will suddenly change to an upwards level of around half a metre
by the end of the century.
This is based on models which have failed to predict the lack of a global
temperature increase for the past 17 year,.yet it is claimed they are
causing melting of ice, particularly in the Arctic
All the models assume that any temperature rise will be least at the poles
and greatest at the tropics because the water vapour feedback is lower at
the poles..They do not mention Antarctica where the ice is currently
increasing
There are no measurements of temperatures on ice anywhere, on ice caps,
oceans or glaciers. In all cases there are other influences.on their
behaviour. In the Arctic it is the temperature of the ocean and the
behaviour of the ocean oscillations.
The ice in the Arctic is beginning to grow now
The satellite measurements do seem to show a steady increase in sea level,
but it seems to be little known that the instruments are subject to drift
and they have to be calibrated on tide gauge measurements,
This is described in the following web address
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=DcXZF9vogtkC&pg=PA121&dq=sea+level+rise+satellite+measurements&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c4BoUtXJA82fiAeX0IDoCw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sea%20level%20rise%20satellite%20measurements&f=false
which can be bolied down to
http://tinyurl.com/ljt4w5m
These satellite measurements have only been going since 1992. There have
been several calibration problems and it is uncleasr to what extent it
incorporates errors from tude gauges
CONCLUSION
.Models based on an assumption of a temperature change that is not
currently happening, and on melting ice which is absent from Antarctica
and which appears to have ceased in the Arctic, are poor guides to
practical sea level changes near a coast. These need to be judged from
tide gauges measuring recent local behaviour with reliable equipment,, .
The IPCC “projections” are thereby grossly exaggerated
Vincent Gray
75 Silverstream Road
Crofton Downs
Wellington 6035
New Zealand