ANYONE who denies global warming is in the pay of big oil. Remember that is what the big man, Al Gore, said in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’. But like so much that Mr Gore says, it just isn’t true.
Consider the 30-odd protesters who held placards outside the breakfast he spoke at this morning in Melbourne. The scruffy-lot, lead by a farmer Leon Ashby, were not there because someone paid them, but because they are outraged by Al Gore and what he has thrust on the world. In particular, his belief that we already have a climate crisis and that the only solution is carbon trading.
It might all sound well meaning. But it is going to be expensive. Indeed, quoting Ronald Bailey from Reason magazine, cap and trade in the US will be the largest corporate welfare program ever enacted in the history of the United States. And the corporations hope government is just as generous to them here in Australia.
Indeed if there were any in the pay of big oil at Dockland Peninsula this morning, they would have been inside applauding the big man.
Has the big end of town ever taken to holding placards? I don’t think so.
A protest like the one in Melbourne this morning was about the seemingly disempowered and disenfranchised attempting to be heard. Of course history is replete with stories of such groups finding their voice and a crowd – eventually.
****************
Links and Notes
Leon Ashby heads a new political party called ‘The Climate Sceptics’ http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
The above photograph, via Leon Ashby, shows demonstrators at Dockland Peninsula this morning.
There have been other protests in the US:
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
sorry Jennifer, but the claim that a small number of protesters is a sign that big oil is not fighting AGW is at best a dubious one.
i think most sceptics would be sceptic of your logic….
Sod, You are misquoting me. I said when did the big end of town walk around with placards. Not in my experience – and according to some I am an expert on corporate Australia. 🙂
I’m doing the snoopy dance.
Gonna throw in some funky chicken to
OOORAH
The Al Gore’s check book BEFORE and AFTER is BRILLIANT.
Nothing but smiles here.
Heh
Algore is the monster of carbon footprints. He burns as much on his flock fleecing excursions as it took for 17,000 to attend church yesterday.
He is Not into science. His superstition is what drive him. Some very uneducated flock buys into his claims. Inconvenient falsehoods.
Is that you Jennifer in the pic? Too bad you have to bundle up in a coat. Warming? Not so much?
Henry, Not me. I couldn’t make the protest.
PS I live west of Sydney.
Sod, You are misquoting me.
yes. i did it on purpose, because i think you misquote Gore.
what is the source and context of
“NYONE who denies global warming is in the pay of big oil.”?
The Al Gore’s check book BEFORE and AFTER is BRILLIANT.</i<
this is going to be another embarrassement.
from a pretty short look at it, Gore finally cashed in on inventing the internet:
After his failed presidential run, a bearded and embattled Gore signed on as an adviser with a then-obscure Internet company called Google.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3281925
and the claim that his environmental activity is making him rich seems to be simply false:
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905010049
SUMMARY: O’Reilly Factor guest host Laura Ingraham presented clips of Al Gore’s recent congressional testimony that had been edited to remove his statements that he donates the money he makes from his climate-related work to a non-profit organization.
more on the Gore wealth:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0605/046.html
Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.
Children die from pneumonia and other respiratory infections every year during the winter months particularly in Peru’s southern Andes.
But this year freezing temperatures arrived almost three months earlier than usual.
Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March.
Yes it change. It is much colder and not warming. Neurotics struggle with grasping reality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8146995.stm
“Big Al” Gore is fat. When you have no better argument, I guess that has to do.
Jennifer, take my advice and put ‘sod” in your spam catcher, that’s what I do.
He’s a scurrilous troll. He used to run this website called “Seed of Doubt -Iraq” where he tried his best to debunk anything and everything the US Government had to say about Iraq, Including the “surge” needless to say he failed and his website is toast.
Yet his uncritical thinking allows him to accept most anything the government and Gore says about global warming. Lacking a mission due to his previous failure, his focus is now on bashing skeptics. He has no salient points.
He’s one of the army of anonymous cowards that do this.
Just press the delete button, once he’s been spam caught it is what I do.
Here’s a write up on Senator Fielding. You see he wanted to meet Al and do a little Q&A. I’ll bet you anything you care to wager Gore will do the quick duck and brush off, he gives to anyone who has the temerity to question the Goracle and his stable of bough and paid for scientists.
Gore is a self serving coward.
The thing that is bothersome about this ABC story is at the time I clicked the link there were 140 comments, a lot of them parroting Gore’s mantra “the debate is over”,” the science is settled”, like a herd of brain infected zombies.
By itself that’s not normally troubling, after all I live in the Capital of California so I’m used to Democrat voting zombies.
Here is what’s troubling about it. In this breakfast meeting with the kings of industry and assorted grifters this is the message Gore delivered;
In Melbourne this self serving bastard invoked wildfires as the “proof” of his climate con job.
What an incredibly irresponsible thing to do. He has a devoted cult following – (people are twittering that if Gore told them to they would jump off a bridge) and he throws out the fires are due to global warming crap. Just the suggestion alone is going to get people killed.
I hate this SOB.
And notice how the ABC is covering for him, using carefully structured language to give the impression that Gore and Fielding had a heart to heart, instead of giving the unvarnished truth that Gore couldn’t make that appointment, pulled a hasty retreat, because he doesn’t have strength of conviction.
This devil is in the process of manufacturing the evidence. The same thing he’s done to Calif the last couple years. The cooler the climate, the less it looks like congress or anybody with half a mind is taking climate change seriously, the more the fire danger from eco-arsonists goes up.
Because these otherwise semi rational people will not, can not, stand to be wrong, they’re going to make nightmares come true.
Some people just want to watch the world burn.
It won’t be hard. You see, madness, as you know, is like gravity. All it takes is a little push!
Does the skeptic pary really want to make its primary talking point that CO2 will not increase temperatures? The greenhouse effect is real, and making this the first point will just discredit them.
AL GORE: What they do say again with increasing force is that the odds have been shifted so heavily that fires that used to be manageable now threaten to spin out of control and wreak damages that are far beyond what was experienced in the past.
Obviously the Vic fires in 1851 which burnt out 5 million hectares (almost 25% of Vic) was ‘manageable’.
Jennifer, take my advice and put ’sod” in your spam catcher, that’s what I do.
i disagree with basically everything that Jennifer writes, but i think she deserves major credit fr the way she allows and handles dissent on her blog.
i am trying to honor this by showing at least a certain level of respect in my attacks on the stuff that she writes.
He’s a scurrilous troll. He used to run this website called “Seed of Doubt -Iraq” where he tried his best to debunk anything and everything the US Government had to say about Iraq, Including the “surge” needless to say he failed and his website is toast.
i will keep this short, as it is seriously off-topic.
my website is still around.
http://sod-iraq.blogspot.com/
the “surge” in Iraq had two goals: 1. security and 2. political stability
it is unclear, how much it really effected security (ethnic cleansing and contracts with the Sunnis were already taking effect before) and the surge utterly failed to produce stability. the future will show that i am right.
you are all welcome to check my posts and criticise and take apart what i wrote.
i stopped blogging, because it felt like work, and i have enough of that already. i enjoy writing comments during the times that i am online or around the computer anyway.
Yet his uncritical thinking allows him to accept most anything the government and Gore says about global warming. Lacking a mission due to his previous failure, his focus is now on bashing skeptics. He has no salient points.
feel free to check the comments that i made on wattsup. i do have points, and i have noticed that few of you defended the graphs those protesters were using…
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/images/protest-big.jpg
i think that Anthony did some good work with the surface station project (one of the few denialist works that generate real data), especially in the presentations for serious audiences. the website itself and wattsup on the other hand are often misleading (or simply making unimportant points).
i strongly believe that many fundamental errors in the articles posted there, are not pointed out, because Anthony does only tolerate a very special form of criticism.
Anthony is very angry with me, because i keep pointing out, that the categories that he is using in his project “error>=5°C” does not mean, what most people seeing it think it does. explaining this notation (which is very important for a WEATHER station, but pretty unimportant for climate data) would ruin a lot of the scary stuff he is posting.
———————-
enough off-topic. anyone found out what climate scam produced the wealth of al Gore?
SOD and SJT,
Just because Al Gore tells you that he is NOT profiting from his so-called environmental activities you believe him??? Why is that??
Al Gore claimed that he was living environmentalism, but, it would appear that his homes are consuming energy at a continued high rate. Even if he is only buying solar and wind provided power, this is an obvious lie as there is no continuous renewable power available in his area.
He continues to stamp his huge carbon butt print on the world with his jet setting from paid appearance to paid appearance where he is eating and drinking and being transported in the most energy profligate styles.
Here is a link to interesting Al Gore info:
http://www.politicallyincorrectfacts.com/Global_Warming/Al_Gore.htm
Now, to address the specific issue about the income, he claims he is donating all the profits from his endeavours to a non-profit. This non-profit is Alliance for Climate Protection. It was started by, Al Gore. Not having any details of the financials I can not say with certainty what happens to the money there.
Of course, there may be an applicable parallel. Michael Moore claimed that he never personally owned stock of any companies that he bashed. This is, technically, the truth. Of course, the writer of a book, “Do as I Say, Not as I Do”, researched the federal tax records of the non-profit run jointly by MM and his wife and found they indicated that the stock of most, if not all, of the companies slammed by MM were bought and sold by the non-profit.
I wonder if someone is going to research Al’s non-profit and let us know where the money is going??
Just as a note, a tax-exempt non-profit in the US only needs to give away about 10% of the funds every year to keep the Gubmint happy. That leaves a huge amount to PLAY WITH. I should also point out that many of these non-profits contribute to each other. It is one of the biggest scams in the US. Probably similar in most other Western Countries.
Sod,
“Anthony is very angry with me, because i keep pointing out, that the categories that he is using in his project “error>=5°C” does not mean, what most people seeing it think it does. explaining this notation (which is very important for a WEATHER station, but pretty unimportant for climate data) would ruin a lot of the scary stuff he is posting.”
So, please explain to us what the problem is again?? I read WUWT and I still don’t remember!!!
So, please explain to us what the problem is again?? I read WUWT and I still don’t remember!!!
i don t think that this is the right place to discuss this. just go over to surfacestations and try to find out the meaning of that important notation.
Just because Al Gore tells you that he is NOT profiting from his so-called environmental activities you believe him??? Why is that??
i consider Al Gore to be rather unimportant to the AGW science. but when i saw the picture, i did a quick google search.
and i think the most obvious explanation for his wealth is his work for the google company.
i am 100% sure, that he could earn a lot more, if he was working for the other side.
and i have not seen any evidence for him cashing in on an environmental scam. but i am a sceptic and open to the sources that you will provide…
“Just because Al Gore tells you that he is NOT profiting from his so-called environmental activities you believe him??? Why is that??”
WTF does Al Gore have to do with the science?
SJT says: “WTF does Al Gore have to do with the science?”
Indeed – that’s the point, isn’t it?
At the end of the day, AGW proponents have to explain why the planetary temperature [using satellite data] is approximately the same as 30 years ago while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has risen about 13%.
If real consideration was being given to the science, this fact alone would kill the AGW hypothesis.
My view is that nature is now providing an object lesson in solar physics, and the current desperately quiet sun presages a major cooling event. Within 5 years the AGW hypothesis will simply look idiotic, as will the scientific institutions which supported it..
Al Goredoff is making money hand over fist.
His wealth has increased by over $100m from when he left office in 2001 to 2006 and increasing as we speak, and is now probably nearer $200m.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pubs.html?id=654
This link explains it all and how he is in bed with all the ex Goldman Sachs con artists, and has a clear connections back to the architects of the USA Treasuries handouts.
Make no mistake, as the reference above makes clear, Goredoff will make huge amounts of money for himself and his investors if he succeeds in getting sucker Governments of the world to agree to massive investments in alternative technologies through cap and trade and other forms of ETS.
Thats whats this is all about. One con on top of another, being peddled by yet another yank con artist.
The BIG LIES that we have been told by the media are terrible and it is getting worse fast . Global warming is one of them , the war on terror is another BIG LIE that led us to wage war on people overseas for pipelines , oil and gas – we are brain-washed by BIG MONEY and we have lost our principals for the sake of money. We do not have a democracy, we have a corptocracy and it will kill us and our children if we don’t stand up to it. We live in a corporation and we don’t count – it is totally ruthless.
Whatever you do DON’T TAKE the vaccine for swine flu – I do not trust the WHO and the UN
“”He worked for the American Petroleum Institute and in January of 2001 he was put by the president in charge of environmental policy. He received a memo from the EPA that warned about global warming. He had no scientific training whatsoever, but he took it upon himself to overrule the scientists. I want to know what this guy’s handwriting looks like. This is the memo from the EPA. These are his actual pen strokes. He said, “No, you can’t say this. This is just speculation.” This was embarrassing to the Whitehouse. So this fellow resigned a few days later. The day after he resigned he went to work for Exxon-Mobil.”
Excerpt from AIT.
BTW Exxon has large interests in natural gas the belief in AGW does help to sell it. Big business has no moral imperative strangely they just want to accumulate wealth and power. This means the green movement and it’s disciples should look very closely at where their funding is coming from. Any person or organisation which fervently follows a narrow agenda without examining it with skepticism is easily manipulated. I have noticed those who squawk the loudest usually have something ulterior to gain.
Big business I am sure looks on AGW as an opportunity and is probably directing funds towards it. Certainly the belief AGW is the only way you could sell solar cells and wind turbines in worthwhile quantities. As for individuals except for AGW would we know the names Hansen, Gore, Schmidt, Flannery, Mann etc? Publicity in academic life means fame and fortune it creates tenure! If you look at climatology as a profession it has become a growth industry from relative obscurity in a few decades.
Also don’t forget this whole thing has a lot of the fervour of the efforts of communism in the past. For China it could be ideal since they are taking over our manufacturing they will sell the west wind turbines and solar equipment. At the same time pay lip service to the stupidity of AGW. All the while this will diminish the western countries economies while they are ascendant.
Next we will be getting quotes from the little green book http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/wasnt_it_once_red/#commentsmore
Great to see you guys doin’ the hippy/leftism/feral protester thing. I expect you’ll all have dreds soon! Now if you can just start putting you energies into addressing the real issues.
“Jennifer, take my advice and put ’sod” in your spam catcher, that’s what I do”
Whoops, look like Tony Watts don’t like debate. And oh yes, the war in Iraq has been a great success. Seems old Tone like a bit of shock and awe particularly if it’s viewed on Fox from the comfort of his own lounge room. I have no idea who Tony is BTW, but I’ve seen the type, no regard for the lives of others, sociopathic really … and disgusting.
And I’ll say one positive thing for Jen, she has not in my experience censored anyone on ideological grounds, so sod off Watts.
“By itself that’s not normally troubling, after all I live in the Capital of California so I’m used to Democrat voting zombies.”
That would be the California with the Republican Governor?
In April of this year, Investor’s Business Daily reported the following:
“Since leaving office [in 2001], Gore’s personal net worth has gone from $2 million to $100 million [in 2007].”
On April 24, Al Gore testified before the House Energy and Environment Subcommittee about cap-and-trade legislation. During that hearing, the lovely Marsha Blackburn (Rep. Tennessee) asked Fat Albert about his involvement with Kleiner Perkins. Kleiner Perkins — stop me if you’ve heard this — is an environmental “venture-capital group,” with whom Fat Albert partnered up, circa 2007.
Ms. Blackburn noted, among many other things, that Kleiner Perkins “had invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation which we are discussing here today.” She then directly asked Gore:
“Is that something that you are personally going to benefit from?”
“The transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us,” said Al Gore, sententiously, predictably, generically, “and I have invested in it, but every penny that I have made I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.”
Yet in March of 2008, during a convention in, of all places, Monterey, California, Gore had disclosed in no uncertain terms that “he had a stake” in these environmental enterprises.
Investor’s Business Daily also reported that Gore “encouraged investment” in these profligate green schemes (my term), rather than what Gore called “subprime carbon assets.”
In May, Kleiner Perkins suddenly announced that it would “invest $500 million in the Green Growth Fund,” which will increase what Gore calls “his stake.”
Just recently, Steve Scalise, a Congressman from Louisiana, asked Big Al Gore if he had interests with Goldman Sachs.
“No,” Big Al said.
“That’s what’s been reported,” Scalise said. “Is that not accurate?”
“No,” Big Al said. “I wish I did, but I don’t.’
In 2004, however, Big Al indeed became the chairman of Generation Investment Management (GIM), a company which he also helped found. This company participates in cap-and-trade by purchasing carbon credits. And, as you have probably already guessed, among it’s other founders are three Goldman Sachs officials:
Mark (“Bad Boy”) Ferguson, the joint head of European research for Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
Peter (“Peter Meter”) Harris, international research director for Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
And of course, as everyone knows, Henry (“Handkerchief”) Paulson, quondam Goldman Sachs chairman and President George W. Bush’s Secretary of the Treasury, who, along with George W. Bush, began the process of destroying the American economy with his $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).
There’s also, of course, one David (“Boiling”) Blood, GIM’s managing director, who has also worked as CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
In fact, Goldman Sachs, with whom Fat Albert has “no interest,” are giants in the cap-and-trade racket.
As Deborah Corey Barnes put it:
“GIM [exercises] considerable influence over the Chicago Carbon Exchange (CCX) and its British equivalent, the Carbon Neutral Company” — both of which transform these so-called carbon credits that their members purchase into “investments” to those companies that do not promote fossil fuels, which fossil fuels, incidentally, have brought the world a greater standard of living in a shorter span of time than the world has ever seen before, and which environmentalism is a complete parasite of, living off its luxuries while simultaneously denouncing it and all that made it possible.
Deborah Corey Barnes continues:
Whatever its impact on the environment, the cap-and-trade carbon scheme is sure to boost the economic and political prospects of people and groups that are behind it. Before the company collapsed under the weight of financial scandal, Enron under CEO Ken Lay was a key proponent of the cap-and-trade idea. So was BP’s Lord John Browne, before he resigned last May under a cloud of personal scandal.
But there’s more, much more:
CCX’s members include Ford, DuPont, Dow Corning and the states of Illinois and New Mexico. CCX also owns 50 percent of the European Climate Exchange, which features such members as Shell, British Petroleum, Barclays – and Goldman Sachs. In 2006, Goldman Sachs paid $23 million for 10 percent of CCX’s shares. Also that year, Goldman Sachs supplied $2.3 billion in grants to study ways to regulate or reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, and $1 billion to projects designed to generate energy without petroleum” (Discover The Networks dot org).
Here, however, is the real kick in the face:
Gores relationship with Goldman Sachs extends even to investing in oil exploration! Kleiner Perkins, where Gore works as a partner, combined with Goldman Sachs last year to invest $65 million in Terralliance, which develops software to make drilling more efficient. As a Kleiner Perkins partner, Al Gore must have known, if not approved of the Terralliance deal, and that it involved Goldman Sachs. At the very least, under partnership law, such knowledge is legally imputed to him as a partner. Naturally, companies would have to join CCX (if they had not already done so) and purchase credits from the organization that Gore and Goldman Sachs helped establish. Those credits, in turn, would help finance projects that could make even more money for Gore and Goldman Sachs. (Ibid).
I guess it really all depends upon whose ox is being gored, and, ultimately, as SJT sagely says:
WTF does Al Gore have to do with the science?
“SJT says: “WTF does Al Gore have to do with the science?”
Indeed – that’s the point, isn’t it?”
Al Gore is not a scientist, he is basing his work on the science. No one person is the science, despite the repeated attempts of sites such as this to personalise the issue.
What do we have instead?
“Big Al” is fat, is just doing this to get rich, the list goes on and is only there because the arguments against AGW are so weak, they do not stand on their own.
Please Jennifer, I admire what you do but I was at the Gore protest and I DO Not consider myself “scruffy”. I am a 68 yr retired chemical engineer and I was there just out of that picture to the right because I am concerned at the mishandling of science by the alarmists and what their mad policies will do to the welfare of my children and their children. I can assure you that the heavy somewhat unattractive clothing was needed! You have done our cause and Leon Ashby a disservice by being a bit dismissive even if it was unintended. Keep up your work.
Rubbish SJT
Gores scamming of investors is additive to the fact that the science is so poor, and his exagerrations are so way off the scales.
Gore stands to make a poultice once he has played his part in Govts of the world signing up to transferring their weath, to ill conceived cap and trade and ETS schemes.
Gores portayal of the science in his AIT is absolute rubbish, and has been shot down in flames by any number of people and organisations, including courts of law.
The sad part is how many Australian scientists in the AGW game have been caught out supporting his AIT as being sound. They should be ashamed of themselves
Public confidence in this branch of science in Australia, will probably not recover, when there are so many speaking out against it, eg Raiche, Kinninmonth, Evans, Carter etc
HI everyone; just got back from a brisk Melbourne; Mr Gore is wealthy;
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a7li9Nhmhvg0&refer=exclusive
But as little will rightly says let’s not waste time on Gore or sod for that matter. I will make one comment about Gore and that is his linking of bushfires with AGW; this is both ill-informed and cowardly; the Victorian bushfires have an equivalence with the Black friday fires with the only difference being an UHI effect consistent with Jones et al findings. Gore really is a disgrace.
The protest went well and it was a good opportunity for Leon and other guys like Steve Murphy to hone their speaking skills ahead of the coming election; the group was a very representitive group, farmers, business people, engineers, a couple of lawyers including myself and sundry average citizens. At first the media were not going to cover us but after listening to Leon and Steve and being encouraged by yours truly they conducted fair and reasonable interviews of Leon; the consequent coverage was also fair and reasonable. It was a small step on the way to getting the real story about the dearth of credibility of AGW out there to the general public.
luke; thank you for the Tsonis paper on breaks; it has some good points but it is still Keenly side lite. You and other commentators miss the point about David Stockwell’s paper; David has statistically analysed the temperature data; his findings are rock solid; the data, particularly in Australia, has a step trend; the coverage of PDO and the oceanographic effects, which are correlated with the steps, is not the point, although they are very suggestive; the point is the statistical analysis so a more detailed coverage of the PDO literature was not necessary.
Yes there’s a step change. And statistically significant until looked at by another statistician. Haha !
“Rock solid” test # 1 = “get published in GRL”. Test #2 = “Get Folland to review it”.
A step change mean PDO explains all of it. Hence Parker et al. You need to model it ! (with no CO2 forcing).
You’ll learn that stats is not everything. You do need good climate mechanisms as well. Hopefully the obs explained mechanistically by a model. And a well reviewed argument.
Betcha you can’t get it in GRL ! A challenge !
Tsonis paper is very subtle. Needs a very considered read. The implications are almost incredible.
“does not mean PDO” I meant
I will make one comment about Gore and that is his linking of bushfires with AGW; this is both ill-informed and cowardly; the Victorian bushfires have an equivalence with the Black friday fires with the only difference being an UHI effect consistent with Jones et al findings. Gore really is a disgrace.
you are in denial of facts. Gore is right, cohenite is not.
Bushfire index ratings compared between extreme fires are:
* 100: Black Friday in 1939
* 120: Ash Wednesday in 1983
* 140 to 190: Black Saturday. These figures have never been seen before and are regarded as in the “catastrophic” range.
“Controlled burning for fuel reduction
—-
However, the argument presented here is that megafires are emerging as more of a land management issue than the more commonly perceived fire issue. Forests that have been protected by minimum disturbance and by fire suppression over the years have built up huge fuel-loads that are now, together with increasingly hotter and drier conditions, fuelling the hottest fires. “—
Nice try Sod but only a moron would not include fuel load and how that came about in ones assessment –and in case you missed the point it has bugger all to do with AGW.
Only you and that lard arsed yank would be stupid enough to say other wise.
luke; I gave you this summary of the step paper before I read Tsonis, but here it is again;
Comment from: cohenite July 10th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The paper is in review, how about a comment? Anyway, here is my take on it; in Australia there is no discernible AGW effect on temperature trend during the 20thC; the 1978 step up generates the temperature difference; prior to the break-point the temperature is flat because there was a -ve and +ve PDO which in effect nullified each PDO’s effect on temperature; the 1978 step-up is the entirety of the new +ve PDO; this is not a stored or accumulated heat build up but, imo, a product of the oceanographic effects which occurred in 1976; on this basis the contrary oceanographic effect in 1998 should produce a gradual decline in trend from the plateaued trend from 1998.
The global temperature history is more complex; there is a gradual trend from 1910 to 1976 of about 0.3C; the trend after the step-up in 1976 is about 0.2C until the 1997 break; after 1997 the trend declines. For what its worth my take on that is the pre-1976 trend is solar; the trend between 1976 and 1997 cannot be natural variation because the PDO effect is in the break so the problem for CO2, which is monotonically increasing, is, if the CO2 post 1976 caused the trend to 1997, after 1997 with the PDO effect also at 1997 there cannot be a Keenlyside type masking of AGW to explain the flat to slightly declining post 1997 trend because the masking effect stopped at 1997; so there is no amplification of AGW between 1976 and 1997 and no depression of AGW post 1997. My best bet for the 1976 to 1997 trend is UHI with some measurement hiccups thrown in and for post 1997 a declining sun.
In regard to Tsonis; I think David points out the defects of the paper;
http://landshape.org/enm/swanson-and-tsonis-2009-on-regime-shifts/
Again I say to you that I agree the step change does not mean PDO explains all; PDO is an amalgam of other parameters and a barometer of other processes; but you miss the point; temperature trends during the 20thC are strongly correlated with indisputable empirical events; the step change also strongly shows no correlation with AGW, particularly in Australia but also globally; the paradigm of AGW is that the increase in CO2 causes temperature increases; this quite simple hypothesis has of course now been ripped to shreds in the pipeline, ECS, Keenlyside grotesques; but Keenlyside has no statistical basis as I explain above; you can’t have masking without amplification and there is no amplification.
sod; humour me; where did you obtain these comparative ratings of the respective bushfires and how do they generate support for AGW?
Actually Al Gore does have a science degree – Political Science was his major.
Doesn’t that rather say it all….
The fact that he has bought a $4 million dollar condominium at Fishermen’s Wharf in San Francisco would seem to say more about his belief in rising sea levels, than his public utterances.
Brian Crew,
“Scruffy-lot” was intended with much affection!
And that you were a group or individuals and down-to-earth, genuine.
Nothing contrieved or pretentious.
Hugs!
a few months ago my house was nearly burnt down in the Victorian bushfires. This event happened because of unprecedented weather conditions that had not occurred in living memory. Two and half years ago I visited northern Sweden at Christmas time. I was there for 2 weeks. During that time there was one day of snow for the rest of my 2 weeks there was no snow anywhere in Sweden. Look at the satellite pictures, the ice caps are melting! Glaciers that water millions of people are disappearing. The evidence for global warming is direct, real and right in front of you. I don’t understand what the people on this blog think they are trying to achieve but it smells of deceit.
“The sad part is how many Australian scientists in the AGW game have been caught out supporting his AIT as being sound. They should be ashamed of themselves”
The judgement in England concluded he was mostly correct, and only a few points may have been wrong.
That would be the California with the Republican Governor?
No, that would be the California with the actor playing Governor who wants to go down in history as leading the fight against global warming in the “post-partisanship era”.
In California we don’t have government of the people, it’s government vs the people on all things.
Here look at this chart of the legislature broken down by party. (can you see the gleeful anticipation of the SF newspaper contemplating the complete veto proof democrat take over of the State? – they didn’t get that senate seat by the way)
Interesting side note, back in 1968, Johnson appointed 2 US Supreme Court judges, making the balance 5-4 in favor of the democrats. We promptly got the infamous Roe v Wade, ruling abortions, legal free and often, by a 5-4 vote, but more importantly to California specific, this activist radical court ruled California’s constitution unconstitutional.
This is sort of strange because the Cal constitution is a mirror of the United States constitution.
Each county had one State Senator, (just like in the country each State has 2 Senators), the assembly was apportioned by population.
The SCOTUS by another 5-4 decision split straight down party lines decided this was unfair to SF and LA, whose bloated population of illegal aliens, potted out drug addicts, drunks, derelicts, and welfare cases were being under represented in the State Senate.
Never mind that the SS wasn’t meant to be a direct vote but rather to afford each county with a voice on the direction of state.
Never mind that drugged out hippies aren’t generally interested in voting.
Never mind that ex cons, and Mexican nationals aren’t allowed to vote at all.
Never mind that this high proportion of non voting residents in SF and LA give the entrenched Democrat activists of those cities their votes by proxy.
Naturally this led to majority for democrats in the State Senate to match their long standing hold on the assembly.
Seems like there would have been more a fuss over the obvious implication of a radical activist SCOTUS ruling the system of government that they are sworn to uphold unconstitutional.
Maybe there was. 1968 is a long time ago.
this comment and on July 14th, 2009 at 1:41 am , both would have been snipped at WUWT. Why?
Because I called Al Gore a self serving bastard SOB and the devil, and his followers mind numbed zombies.
This one would have been snipped for being off topic.
quit playing martyr. Watts is an equal opportunity snipper.
“The judgement in England concluded he was mostly correct, and only a few points may have been wrong.”
Oh yeah
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
Protest, what protest?
Where was the riot police? Where was the tear gas? Where was the violence that marks all good protests? No police brutality, no gratuitous damage to private property, not even an arrest!
What a well groomed bunch. Well presented arguments and a dash of wit. All clearly marks of the modern day skeptic.
I bet they even took a tram.
So why is Watts peddling bunk? Why haven’t the sceptics sceptically checked Watts out.
Why? Coz yo all are what we call “deeenyers”.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/all/uploads-all/0/dcxVwEfq4bM
“Climate denial crock of the week”
INCOMING !
Anyway moving on – have you heard of the new party “Peer Guardian” currently in formation to take on climate deniers. Funded by WWF, Greenpeace and approved by govt – should be good stuff!
Luke et al: I am still waiting breathless (before i publish) for your point by point rebuttals – and only those, no ad homs or armwaving please – of the following:
NATURE’S NEW THEORY OF CLIMATE CHANGE
There are some misconceptions in the recent papers by Meinshausen et al.1 and Allen
et al.2. These authors argue it is cumulative anthropogenic emissions of carbon
dioxide (CO2) since the industrial era began that produce rising global mean
temperature (GMT), rather than the net emissions, that is, after allowing for new
global biospheric absorption of manmade CO2 emissions through increasing Net
Primary Productivity (NPP). Previously, rising GMT was believed to be the result of a
growing atmospheric concentration of CO2, henceforth denoted as [CO2]11.
None of Nature’s 7 articles3,4,5,6,7,8,9 supporting Meinshausen and Allen mentions that
since records began in 1958 less than half of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions has
remained airborne13. Thus the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (i.e. [CO2]) has
increased by less than half of cumulative emissions. In the world of finance, this
would qualify as omission of material facts. Nature’s editorial9 claims the carbon
“burden swells by at least 9 billion tonnes a year”, yet the increase in [CO2] as
measured at Mauna Loa between mid-2007 and mid-2008 was just 4.33 GtC12.
The conclusion of these articles is that whether twenty-first century warming will
exceed 2oC relative to pre-industrial temperatures “depends on limiting cumulative
CO2 emissions over 2000-50 to 1,000 GtCO2” (11581). Their authors appear not to be
aware that cumulative emissions over the period 1958 to 2008 were actually 25%
larger than their benchmark, at 1,253 GtCO2, for an observed increase in GMT of
only 0.46oC over that period, and they do not explain why a lower cumulative
increase in emissions from 2000-50 than in 1958-2008 would raise GMT by over 4
times more than that12.
Multivariate linear regressions (Table 1) show that GMT from 1959 to 2007 are
negatively correlated with gross, and positively with net, cumulative anthropogenic
CO2 emissions, contrary to the claims in Meinshausen et al.1. They also show that the
fertilisation effect of CO2 on world cereal crop yields is directly associated with
terrestrial biospheric uptakes of CO2. Those in turn depend on the partial pressure of
CO2 at plant level14. This is directly dependent on [CO2]15 but that is what the EU,
USA, and Australia amongst many other countries are planning to reduce, to as low as
350 ppm if the advice of NASA’s James Hansen is adopted10.
The incorrect attribution of changes in GMT to cumulative total anthropogenic
emissions is clearly aimed at encouraging the drive for stringent reduction targets (of
up to 90% of the 2000 level). Even if the target adopted at Copenhagen 2009 (and
implemented) means that anthropogenic emissions are reduced to only 40% of the
2000 level by 2050, i.e. to 3.26 GtC p.a., that is far below the 5.8 GtC of incremental
annual biospheric absorption of anthropogenic CO2 emissions by NPP in 2007-08 and
still rising. The resulting reduction in the partial pressure of [CO2] at the world’s
surface will produce a significant decline in growth of global NPP and food
production15.
A correct appreciation of the role of NPP and of its determinants would lead the
Copenhagen Conference to focus on steps to raise global NPP rather than on reducing
CO2 emissions, giving it a much greater chance of success in securing a global
consensus, especially from developing countries if they were offered help to boost
their NPP rather than reduce their consumption of cheap energy. Raising NPP could
lift annual new biospheric CO2 absorption to as much as 80% of ongoing rising
annual emissions and obviate any need for reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
1. Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S.C.B., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., Frame,
D.J. & Allen, M.R. Greenhouse gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 oC.
Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1158-1162 (2009).
2. Allen, M.R., Frame, D.J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C.D. Lowe, D.A., Meinshausen, M. &
Meinshausen, N. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth
tonne. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1163-1166 (2009).
3. Parry, M., Lowe, J. & Hanson C. Overshoot, adapt, and recover. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April
2009, doi:10.1038, 1102-1103 (2009).
4. Schmidt, G., & Archer D. Too much of a bad thing. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009,
doi:10.1038, 1117-1118 (2009).
5. Monasterky, R. A burden beyond bearing. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038,
1091-1094 (2009).
6. Jones, N. Sucking it up. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1094-1097 (2009).
7. Morton, O. Great white hope. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1097-1100
(2009).
8. Schneider, S. The worst-case scenario. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1104-
1105 (2009).
9. Nature. Time to act. Nature, vol. 458, 30 April 2009, doi:10.1038, 1077-1078 (2009).
10. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., Beerling D., Berner, R., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pagani,
M., Raymo, M., Royer, D.L. & Zachos, J.C. Target atmospheric CO2. Where should
humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, 217-231. (2008).
11. Solomon, S. et al. (eds). IPCC Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis. (CUP,
2007)
12. NOAA, www.ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/
13. http://www.globalcarbonproject.org.
14. Farquhar, G.D., von Caemmerer, S. & Berry, J.A. A Biochemical Model of
Photosynthetic CO2 Assimilation in Leaves of C3 Species. Planta 149, 78-90 (1980)
15. Lloyd, J. & Farquhar, G.D. The CO2 dependence of photosynthesis, plant growth
responses to elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their interaction with soil nutrient
status. Functional Ecology, 10.1, 4-32 (1996).
Further to above here is Table 1 with WordPress’ ineffable formatting:Table 1
Carbon dioxide, temperature, and cereal yields
Dependent variable – Independent Variables – Basic Statistics
1. GMT 1959-2007 Cumulative Gross Cumulative Net
CO2 Emissions CO2 Emissions Adj R2 F Durbin-
Beta Coefficients (standardized) -3.946 4.84 Watson
t-statistics -2.039 2.501 0.812 104.349 1.989
2. dYield, cereals 1962-2002kg/ha Terrestrial Changes in GMT
CO2 Absorption Fertilizer Usage 1962-2002
Beta Coefficients (standardized) 0.388 0.173 -0.116
t-statistics 2.635 1.184 -0.784 0.145 3.255 2.688
Sources: NOAA; http://www.globalcarbonproject.org; FAO, ProdStat.
There is nothing that would anger Aussies more, than some foreign visitor who doesn’t know the first thing about Australia coming down and preaching to them about how it is in their own country.
For this bloke to take advantage of a national tragedy for financial gain is not lost on most of the public. Even the folk up at Lukesville could harbour a little resentment.
Big Al chose the wrong place, at the wrong time of the year to push his propaganda.
sod; humour me; where did you obtain these comparative ratings of the respective bushfires and how do they generate support for AGW?
well, when you made a comment about fires from different periods being comparable, i assumed that you know the basics on that subject. well, looks like you do not.
http://www.csiro.au/products/Mk5ForestfireDangerMeter.html
the forest fire danger index gives a specific value to the different situations,. your claim about Black friday and the latest fire being similar (apart from UHI) is simply false.
but it is also interesting to see, what Gore really said on the topic:
“The odds have been shifted so heavily that fires that used to be manageable now threaten to spin out of control and wreak damages that are far beyond what was experienced in the past,” Gore said. “This crisis is gaining momentum and the reason why is not that complicated.”
again: Gore was correct. you are not. just look at the FFDI.
So Timmy – are you – (giggle) – writing a rebuttal letter to Nature perchance. Tell me it’s true.
Won’t be E&E will it? And you’ve even got ya T-tests smokin’ too. Timmy – mate – you’re on a roll.
Tim you’ll have to wait till Luke Inc. carbon inventory specialist clocks in. Depends on time in WA. After all this is multi-state consortium.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6l1Cp3MYCQ&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fsheikyermami%2Ecom%2F2009%2F07%2F14%2Fal%2Dgore%2Dsued%2Dby%2Dover%2D30000%2Dscientists%2Dfor%2Dglobal%2Dwarming%2Dfraud%2F&feature=player_embedded
Well this will stir them
A proposal from 30000 scientists in America to sue Al Gore
Hilarious.
You’re an idiot sod; that link proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt; the relevant articles on the comparison of the respective bushfires in Victoria are;
http://mises.org/story/3343
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/#comments
The temperature difference btween the 1939 and 2009 conflagrations was ~ 0.7C in Melbourne; the time difference between the 2 fires was 70 years; the Jones et al paper on UHI gives a UHI effect of ~ 1C per century; Melbourne tripled in size over the 70 years; in every other respect, climate patterns, time of year etc, except for pre-burning of/hazard reduction and casulties [largely due to larger populations now living in the area] there was equivalence; Gore is an opportunist and a carpet-bagger and his supporters are either fellow leeches or fools.
Tim; ignore luke; he is being especially defensive; your CO2 analysis looks good; I would appreciate a copy when you get around to it.
Sod, you are skeptical of people AND big oil being against bad and incomplete science but not about humans controling the planets climate?
RIGHT!
Let us know how that works out for you…..
Timmy – boy you wouldn’t be trying to regress crop yields against CO2 would ya? Coz if you were I might just have to have one of them thar giggle attacks.
Tell me you’re not Timmy.
Coho – like most denialist tarts you’d hop on anything. Gonna get ya little paper with Stockwell “peer reviewed” or are you CHICKEN !
Coho – Don’t try to pin a Melbourne UHI diversion on a record regional heatwave with records smashed in Tasmania and Flinders Island. FFDI off the scale !
You lot are the carpet baggers – all little 30 of you (woo hoo) with ya little bag of sophistic posters .
You’re an idiot sod; that link proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt; the relevant articles on the comparison of the respective bushfires in Victoria are;
http://mises.org/story/3343
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/victorian-bushfires-the-result-of-human-folly/#comments
proof beyond doubt. blog posts and a right wing think tank. great sceptisism!
i don t agree with those fuel load theories, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. the FFDI index of the Victoria fires was significant higher than on black friday. temperature, humidity and drought factor where all scoring records. fact.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/02/bushfires-and-climate/
(but don t thrust my source. look at the data!)
The temperature difference btween the 1939 and 2009 conflagrations was ~ 0.7C in Melbourne; the time difference between the 2 fires was 70 years; the Jones et al paper on UHI gives a UHI effect of ~ 1C per century; Melbourne tripled in size over the 70 years; in every other respect, climate patterns, time of year etc, except for pre-burning of/hazard reduction and casulties [largely due to larger populations now living in the area] there was equivalence;
this is complete nonsense. according to you, temperature was SINKING. (as UHI is bigger than the temp increase). that is obviously nonsense, as satellite data and biological indicators confirm the increasing temperature.
the condition during the Victoria fires was scoring records in rural sites as well. UHI was NOT the reason for the high temperature on that day.
apart from that, you show a complete lack of understanding of UHI. (and you are confusing weather and climate, of course)
UHI effect is strongest during windless nights!. it increases night minimum temperature and DECREASES day maximum temperature. so the record temp measured i Melbourne that day was most likely too LOW. (in comparison with 70 years ago)
————————
i don t think that Al Gore is the perfect messanger of the science message on AGW, but on this point, he was simply right.
In 2007, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report WGII chapter “Australia and New Zealand” concluded
An increase in fire danger in Australia is likely to be associated with a reduced interval between fires, increased fire intensity, a decrease in fire extinguishments and faster fire spread. In south-east Australia, the frequency of very high and extreme fire danger days is likely to rise 4-25% by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050.
Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman.
She is no conservative.
See her unconstitutional votes at :
http://bluecollarrepublican.com/blog/?p=614
Mickey
Sod
‘Bushfire index ratings compared between extreme fires are:
* 100: Black Friday in 1939
* 120: Ash Wednesday in 1983
* 140 to 190: Black Saturday. These figures have never been seen before and are regarded as in the “catastrophic” range.’
So what was the BIR for Thursday, 6th Feb, 1851? The temp in Melbourne was 47.2C (higher than Feb 2009), the winds were so strong they blew embers 30km out to sea and smoke thickened the sky over N Tasmania . Almost 25% of Victoria was burnt out over 4 days. And all this with no high CO2 levels and no UH effect!
So ‘these figures have never been seen before’ doesn’t necessarily mean a thing.
Source: http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/fire1851.html#3
Malcolm you say SJT is talking rubbish I really wonder if he knows what he is saying. For instance.
“You can be so wrong so instantly. AGW is only one reason among many for climate change, no one has ever claimed other wise.”
SJT “Explaining the Protest against Al Gore” July 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
WTF that certainly is Worse Than Failure. I accept that the climate changes to state the damn obvious but AGW means Anthropogenic Global Warming doesn’t it? The last time I looked Anthropogenic meant caused by humans and Global Warming was what was being caused. This in turn it is argued causes all the climate change that is going to kill Gaia.
So now I ask SJT to explain what is he saying.
So now we should concern ourselves with climate change that humans don’t cause? I see SJT you are changing sides. So please quantify. How much climate change is caused by other factors? What percentage is due to humans? There are a myriad of other causes that is what is being argued by the side that opposes you.
Ian to reinforce what you are saying I have read of a fire at about 1860 where practically the whole of the great dividing range caught alight. The smoke was so intense ships were using fog horns at midday of the NSW coast because of the smoke. The smoke reached NZ. The laws on wood cutting were changed after a Royal Commision on it. Ignorance of the past is endemic amongst the AGW crowd. Or is it that they deliberately ignore it? BTW I note with some amusement the criticism of Plimer. If you criticise H & E you are also criticising possibly a thousand other scientists and long established science.
“So now we should concern ourselves with climate change that humans don’t cause? I see SJT you are changing sides. So please quantify. How much climate change is caused by other factors? What percentage is due to humans? There are a myriad of other causes that is what is being argued by the side that opposes you.”
Can people really be that thick?
If we are causing climate change, we can change our behaviour and stop it changing to the extent that we are making it change. If it is changing and we aren’t causing it, then there probably won’t be much we can do to stop it changing.
Just filing this here:
“Sponsors had to be rustled up quick smart. In just seven weeks, VicSuper, the Environmental Protection Agency, Mercedes-Benz Australia and Pacific Hydro were signed on to foot the bill for the event.
At the table at the very front was David Blood, the former Goldman Sachs executive who runs London-based fund manager Generation Investment Management with Gore — a fund also known as “Blood & Gore”.
VicSuper boss Bill Welsh also sat nearby — hardly surprising, as his company invests in Generation, and he helped foot the bill to get Gore to Melbourne.
After perusing the guest list, it was hard not to note that the majority of people at the lunch were representatives of super funds or renewable-energy companies — those who put money into Generation, and those who look to it for investment.
Perhaps the best seating arrangement was the strategic placement of Senator Steve Fielding, Australia’s carbon naysayer who wouldn’t have looked out of place holding a placard at the front door.
To Fielding’s right sat Don Henry, executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and to his left Mick Bourke, EPA chairman.
They took it in turns to give Fielding an ear-bashing on the latest scientific research into carbon in the atmosphere, but it seemed not much of it sank in. Such was their focus on Fielding, Planning Minister Justin Madden, who was at the same table, was barely noticed.
Fielding took notes during Gore’s speech, but the only line he wrote down entirely was when Gore quoted Voltaire: “While men argue, nature acts.”
The Senator also attempted, unsuccessfully, to get an audience with Gore, but was given the brush-off. That honour instead went to 50 “elite” guests who were given a private audience with Gore after his speech. Much like the general audience, that guest list was dominated by representatives of super funds and renewable-energy companies…
http://business.watoday.com.au/business/greenies-have-a-field-day-at-brekkie-20090713-diva.html
“Can people really be that thick?”
Well SJT certainly is beyond thick.
If one agrees that there are other causes of climate change than anthropogenic ones you must quantify it. Otherwise cause and effect cannot be determined. So lets say we decrease human emmissions by 50% then what effect does it have. GW decreases or increases which is it? To put it another way suppose we have a car with dual controls. If driver one puts their foot on the brake how do they know the car will slow down? They don’t because driver two may accelerate at the same time.
luke; “denialist tart”? When in Melbourne I availed myself of some of the pastries and tarts from Ackland st; a plain Polish cheesecake was good as was a passionfruit cream and vanilla custard tart; is that what you mean? Also saw the best busker in the world; Michael Wetzel; his guitar talks.
sod; double dumb; UHI makes days colder and nights warmer but only if they are still; great stuff; and the 0.7C UHI effect [according to the Jones et al formula] would mean that Black Saturday was the same temperature as Black Friday; fancy that; no AGW effect; flat trends before and after 1978; you ought to go to David’s post on steps in the temperature record and enlighten all with your insights.
If you check the ice core data, you will see an ice age period followed by a very quick rise in temperature as we head towards an interglacial. So we are heading towards a 3 – 4C increase over the next few thousand years. Then temps start to drop off slowly towards another glacial period over say 80 000 years. We have had 4 such cycles in the past 400 000 years and this will be the fifth peak.
Temp differences appear to be about 14 – 15C between the glacial trough and interglacial peak – and with no help from CO2.
Luke, sod, SJT et al. I still await your point by point point rebuttals of my posting above. Meantime this from Britton Stephens et al (including Philippe Ciais, Pieter Tans, Philippe Bousquet, Jon Lloyd) in Science 22 June 2007, p.1732 is confirmation of my thesis: “During the summer in the Northern Hemisphere, midday atmospheric CO2 concentrations are generally lower near the surface than in the free troposphere, reflecting the greater impact of terrestrial
photosynthesis over industrial emissions at this time”. The rest of the paper shows with observations the importance of low level CO2, which is why emissions are more important for photosynthesis than the general atmospheric concentration of CO2, and that is why the G8 targets for emission reductions will be devastating for all of us if acted on.
Tim – I asked you a question above.
For others:
http://jer-skepticscorner.blogspot.com/2009/04/its-just-common-sense-after-all.html
kasphar – what else would you expect?
Luke: I will answer your question after I get your response to my initial challenge. If you can show why I am wrong there I will not proceed, thereby answering your question.
SJT
‘If we are causing climate change, we can change our behaviour and stop it changing to the extent that we are making it change. If it is changing and we aren’t causing it, then there probably won’t be much we can do to stop it changing.’
We can’t do much to change it due to natural cycles which show up in ice core records. See my post at 12:05pm today.
Tim – Nope – have wasted too much time on your past flights of fancy and after observations at Deltoid to invest any time. I’ve asked you a simple yes/no question. Let me answer for you – if that’s what you have done – I’m just rolling on the floor laughing. When you separate out the agronomic and genetic improvement from CO2 get back to us. Makes me disinclined to then work out what slick shell games you’ve probably done with fluxes and nett.
Luke,
As a PETM quoter for our future scenarios, can you shed some light on this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/there-appears-to-be-something-fundamentally-wrong-with-the-way-temperature-and-carbon-are-linked-in-climate-models/#more-9347
So what was the BIR for Thursday, 6th Feb, 1851? The temp in Melbourne was 47.2C (higher than Feb 2009), the winds were so strong they blew embers 30km out to sea and smoke thickened the sky over N Tasmania . Almost 25% of Victoria was burnt out over 4 days. And all this with no high CO2 levels and no UH effect!
So ‘these figures have never been seen before’ doesn’t necessarily mean a thing.
Source: http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/fire1851.html#3
i always wonder, why you “sceptics” are completely uncritical of such historic stories, while at the same time deny accurate modern measurements.
apart from that, this does NOT change the comparison between black saturday, black friday and ash Wednesday at all.
sod; double dumb; UHI makes days colder and nights warmer but only if they are still; great stuff;
this is a fact. every source on UHI will give you this information. with wind speed up to 100 km/h, there isn t any UHI effect at all. but if you assume there was one, then the maximum temperature will be LOWERED by the UHI effect, not increased!
i am astonished. you made a claim about the Al Gore comment about the fires and UHI. it turns out, that you don t know anything about the forest fire danger index and the hard number comparison between the events. you don t understand and know the basics about UHI either.
and the 0.7C UHI effect [according to the Jones et al formula] would mean that Black Saturday was the same temperature as Black Friday; fancy that; no AGW effect; flat trends before and after 1978; you ought to go to David’s post on steps in the temperature record and enlighten all with your insights.
this is logically and mathematically false. if the the average temperature of last week was 1°C higher than the one of this week, you simply can NOT conclude that if you subtract 1°C from the top temperature last friday, you get the top temperature this monday.
your approach is wrong, even when we ignore the rural temperature data and the specific effect of UHI on maximum temperatures on a windy day.
sod; I’m beginning to think Anthony Watts has you pegged; you’re a time-waster and a distraction; fire requires oxygen not CO2; even if CO2 did make things hotter this heat does not assist fire intensity; fire intensity depends on oxygen and combustible material not ambient temperature; in respect of combustible material, with hazard reduction minimised through limitations on controlled burn-offs there was a greater availability of dry material to fuel the Black Sunday fires. As to your claim about days being cooler due to UHI; this is garbage; on clear days the urban surface temperature is always warmer than surrounding rural areas and in cloudy conditions a night-time inversion equivalent occurs in the UHI area. As for the effect of wind; wind cools or removes heat from any area not just an UHI affected locality.
sod; I’m beginning to think Anthony Watts has you pegged; you’re a time-waster and a distraction;
i am dealing with facts here. your claims about UHI are simply wrong. and if you would look at any article or data on the subject, you would see that.
fire requires oxygen not CO2; even if CO2 did make things hotter this heat does not assist fire intensity; fire intensity depends on oxygen and combustible material not ambient temperature;
if “heat does not assist fire intensity”, please can you explain to me why this is a factor in the forest fire danger meter?
http://www.csiro.au/files/images/pjtq.jpg
what do you know about this subject, that those who deal with it daily do not know?
in respect of combustible material, with hazard reduction minimised through limitations on controlled burn-offs there was a greater availability of dry material to fuel the Black Sunday fires.
this might be true or might not be true. but it is irrelevant to the comparison between those big fire incidents, because we know, that even the other fire indicators (temperature, humidity, drought) were significantly stronger (about a factor 2) during the victoria fires.
any fuel effect is in ADDITION to fire index effects that i have described multiple times now.
As to your claim about days being cooler due to UHI; this is garbage; on clear days the urban surface temperature is always warmer than surrounding rural areas and in cloudy conditions a night-time inversion equivalent occurs in the UHI area.
well, you are simply wrong, while Al Gore is right.
just look at any data set on this topic, and you would notice the different effect of UHI on daily minimum and daily maximum temperature.
for example: “The tale of two climates—Baltimore and Phoenix
urban LTER sites”
http://www.ottokinne.de/articles/cr/15/c015p123.pdf
The relation of the urban versus rural minimum temperatures (Tmin) to population changes is pronounced and non-linear over time for both cities. The Tmax data show no well-defined temporal trends.
and
Daytime temperatures are cooler in the Phoenix urban area than in the surrounding rural desert locales.
what part of “cooler” do you not understand?
As for the effect of wind; wind cools or removes heat from any area not just an UHI affected locality.
urban sites can only have an effect on temperature, when the air remains over the urban area. at a wind speed of 70 km/h, the air will be outside the urban area again, before it could be effected.
there exists a lot of literature on this subject:
For wind speeds greater than ∼0.8 m s-1, the maximum UHI intensity decreases as the wind
speed increases (Fig. 1a). For very strong winds, thermal contrast between the two sites becomes small. This suggests that there can be a critical wind speed beyond which the UHI phenomenon is virtually not noticeable.
http://ces.snu.ac.kr/activities/journal2.1/baikjj.pdf
Luke: cretinous as ever you said: “When you separate out the agronomic and genetic improvement from CO2 get back to us”. ALL improvements in agronomic and genetic performance of crops fail in the absence of near-ground-level CO2. But I forgot, Luke still believes in Jack & the Bean stalk, whereby the beans keep reaching for CO2 at 8 km up. That really is the level of his science. It also explains why Luke cannot see that Nature is wrong to claim that “implicit” accounting for net carbon uptakes apparently raises the actual net increase in CO2 at Mauna Loa (3.56 GtC from May 2008 to May 2009, according to NOAA, at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) to Nature’s and the Meinshausens et al ad lib “at least 9 GtC a year”.
“ALL improvements in agronomic and genetic performance of crops fail in the absence of near-ground-level CO2. But I forgot, Luke still believes in Jack & the Bean stalk, whereby the beans keep reaching for CO2 at 8 km up. That really is the level of his science.”
I can’t believe you said something that utterly stupid. The plants use up all the CO2 at ground level, and stop growing.
Timmy Tiddler exposed as being a doofus chucks a wobbly. Jeez you’re an amateur mate.
Who’s talking about zero CO2. Are you actually that thick? Actually it was I who introduced Jack & the Beanstalk – as you believe CO2 is pixie dust that has no limits. Like Jack’s Beanstalk.
And “limits to growth” affect all plants – whether it be photosynthetic, genetic, hydrologic or nutrients. Perhaps you need to take basic biology Tim. As you were told over at Deltoid.
And we haven’t even got started on CO2 and frost sensitivity or C3/C4 dominance effects in tree/grass dynamics in savannas or C/N effects.
Tim – if you have made such an elementary error – well not even elementary -just frigging dumb somehow I feel disinclined to even read the rest of your crap.
Anyway – don’t argue with me. Dazzle us ! Get published in Nature – but somehow we may be waiting SJT.
hahahahahahahahahaha
Psst – SJT let’s just walk away very quietly and pretend we didn’t see this – we’ll never speak of it again.
Coho – I find it incredible that you’re arguing about Melbourne UHI when you have a regional record breaking heatwave. Give it away …
Spanglers – well article doesn’t say. But if it is the case you should be even more worried. Not less. Unknown positive feedbacks? Methane clathrates?
“Well this will stir them
A proposal from 30000 scientists in America to sue Al Gore
Hilarious.”
Pack lies. The science was not invented by Al Gore, it has been developed for over a century. The debate has been going on that whole time among the scientists, the rest of us weren’t interested.
Sod
‘i always wonder, why you “sceptics” are completely uncritical of such historic stories, while at the same time deny accurate modern measurements.’
Simple. Because you make statements and don’t check the history.
And don’t get me started about Luke’s statement – ‘I find it incredible that you’re arguing about Melbourne UHI when you have a regional record breaking heatwave’. Is he talking about 1906 or 1908?
Sod
‘while at the same time deny accurate modern measurements.’
Check
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/14/giss-for-june-way-out-there/#more-9349
and then repeat that statement. How can the four big ones be so wrong if all the modern measurements are so reliable?
luke; I’m not arguing, your little mate sod is; he should look at how BoM and GISS adjust for UHI effects, ie down urban and/or rural up, which probably explains GISS’s shameful outlier position now. Anyway sod is a distraction; this thread was about Gore’s defects; and incidentally David Stockwell’s paper is being reviewed, who knows, maybe by Fallon, so I don’t understand your beef with the paper’s thesis that there is no AGW temperature trend in most definitely Australia and arguably globally.
Coho – well there’s reviewers and then there are reviewers eh? It’s Folland too -which shows your lack of regard for the hard won current literature and says it all to me. Your case is statistical and anecdotal. It wouldn’t survive a quality climate journal. We’ve already seen Stockwell’s style dismembered by a previous reviewer on the drought business and he didn’t learn.
Just because you have a inflexion point shown by some stats. And a PDO going on does not make a clinching story.
BoM adjust their rural up eh – oh please do tell !
Let us not get diverted onto GISS – we’re Aussies here.
So adjusted up rural ? … where’s this?
SJT with his amazing erudition said “The plants use up all the CO2 at ground level, and stop growing”. So (1) deforestation is OK as the trees have stopped growing, (2) all plants are perennial (3) there are no data showing enormous increases in the globe’s biota pro rata with CO2 emissions. Believe SJT and you are a Gorist, as he believes the same garbage.
==”this thread was about Gore’s defects”
This blog is not big enough
–anyway isn it about time the lard arse was told to bugger off.
His press comments are all designed to advance his own position and that of his finance mates Its no accident that they were prominent at the Melbourne Break Fast.
Remember also all this comes a country that gave us the GFC triggered by his Goldman Sachs types lending money to people who had non income/job, and no assets, aided and abetted by a compliant govt -of which Goredoff was part.
Only the terminally stupid would do that -and now this shonk is down here drumming up more business for the next great con.
“SJT with his amazing erudition said “The plants use up all the CO2 at ground level, and stop growing”. ”
I was just trying to put into words what you had just claimed.
Tim Curtin,
It’s a little like observing bacteria in a petri dish – warm it up and they flourish, cool it and they die off or go in hibernation. Simple observation shows that increased temperatures cause a flourishing of life which, being a carbon based, then start emitting more CO2 and from metabolism, warmth.
Except the AGW belief (it cannot be elevated to an hypothesis) is that it’s the emission of CO2 that is causing the warming.
I understand basic chemistry and physics are not taught at school anymore, as well.
You AGW fundies clear this up, please: is CO2 a well mixed gas or not?
At the local scale, it may not be, as Beck discovered, but did not realise. At the macro level it is, as the consistent readings from test stations around the globe testify.
Luke doyenne of the elegant academic discourse school asked “Who’s talking about zero CO2?” . Well your heroes Jim Hansen and Al Gore for starters – as without the zero emissions they call for, the atmospheric level will decline as they intend – to 350 ppm or less (see Hansen et al 2008). What does that mean for growth of global biota?
luke; I’m not arguing, your little mate sod is; he should look at how BoM and GISS adjust for UHI effects, ie down urban and/or rural up, which probably explains GISS’s shameful outlier position now.
why not admit that you were wrong on UHI effect on maximum temperature, while i was right?
your claim about rural adjustments is irrelevant to my position. the effect of UHI on maximum temperatures is small. the UHI effect during windy days is non-existing.
UHI had NO effect on the temperature anomaly, that increased the damage of the 2009 fire. fact.
Anyway sod is a distraction; this thread was about Gore’s defects;
yes, and you decided to highlight one of those “defects”, and it turned out that you were wrong on it. i think that this was very much on topic.
———————–
has anyone found a quote, supporting this claim so far?
ANYONE who denies global warming is in the pay of big oil. Remember that is what the big man, Al Gore, said in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
Where do I get one of those C.R.A.P. t-shirts!!!???
THE WEATHER. ( from the Melbourne “Argus” Newspaper Feb. 8.1851 )
” Thursday was one of the most oppresive hot-days we have experienced for some years.”
Interesting that it was only “one of the most oppresive hot-days ….” – no mention of it being a record, nor extraordinary. Seems almost to be expected now and again.
Sod,
Anthropogenic global warming or global warming? The two are quite different. One is a nonsense, the other scientific fact.
Sod: Here’s Gore being interviewed by Der Spiegel 21 July 06 as promotion for AIT: “Exxon Mobile is pretending to say something positive about the environment. They call it “green-washing.” They are the worst of the opponents when it comes to trying to solve this crisis. They spend millions of dollars a year to spread false information about global warming. It’s shocking, really. It’s what the tobacco companies did to deceive people about the science connecting smoking with lung disease. It’s the same thing. They should be ashamed of themselves”.
luke; adjustments of rural temperature for UHI;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/gissbom.htm
Getting back to Al’s defects and what garbage AGW is; here is a wind chart and an AIRS map of CO2 mixing in the atosphere;
http://www.pool.org.au/image/peter_ravenscroft/how_ya_gunna_cap_this_lot_kev
The conclusions are as follows;
The satellite data released by NASA from the AIRs program, after long delays, completely invalidates the AGW hypothesis. The map officially released, for CO2 anomalies at 8 km altitude, for a single a day in July, 2003, when viewed against other NASA map data such as global temperature anomalies and wind velocities, shows several things beyond dispute.
First, there is incomplete CO2 mixing, where complete mixing has been assumed in the GCM’s used by the IPCC.
Second, there is no warming where the CO2 levels are anomalous. The warming that is happening is at much higher latitudes. It relates closely to deep geomagnetic shifts, but not at all to atmospheric CO2 increases.
Third, as the oceans contain some 50 to 80 tines more CO2 than the atmosphere, and as deep ocean water at 30 bars can contain perhaps 15 times more dissolved CO2 than surface ocean water, and even water at 10 metres can hold twice as much as surface water, it should come as no surprise whatever to anyone, that where ocean water is warming is exactly where, and upwind of where we find all the CO2 anomalies on the planet. The list is long. The Chilean coast and downwind over the Andes, the Pacific off Vancouver and downwind over the Rockies, the west coast of South Africa and downwind, the North Atlantic Drift mixing zone, the Mediterranean and Black Seas and downwind. There is a belt of anomalous CO2 right round the southern hemisphere, just on the northern edge of the Roaring Forties, or 9 m/sec wind zone, where cold and warm water mix by Coriolis Force affecting the West Wind Drift ad pushing cold surface water northwards . There is a CO2 anomaly to the east of Australia, where seismic velocity data shows we have the largest warm patch of seafloor on the planet. The anomaly over Australia itself may be the result of up-welling in the Indian and Southern oceans, but it may be the result of drought or fires. It is the one major question mark. .
There is no sign whatever, in the AIRS CO2 data, of the industrial efforts of China, the eastern USA, or Europe.
Hence the anthropogenic CO2-driven climate model is scientifically invalid.
I LIKE IT-will Al Gore to comment on
MODERN EPOCH AIR TRADING: The WILL for TRIUMPH
http://www.articlesbase.com/politics-articles/modern-epoch-air-trading-the-will-for-triumph-1033657.html ?
Of course, its non-Nobel-prize author Michael Kerjman hardly supposes for such a privilege.
Cohenite,
Oh very good – and coupled with the disconnect from backward modeling to the PETM event, CO2 and Temperature assumptions are wrong. rising CO2 is an effect from rising temperature, and the cause of that rise in temperature? The only force not ever considered is electricity, and its operation in the plasma of space. If not electricity, what other natural physical process could explain it, I wonder.
I wonder when the veritable spark of recognition occurs (we can’t use and Edison light bulb anymore as these seem to have disappeared off the shelves).
A couple of typos above and sloppy grammar 🙂 Any Edison and the second sentence should have not been a sentence, but another phrase tacked to the end and separated with an “and”.
Sod
Global temp anomalies for June 2009 (Hadley not out yet).
GISS .63C
RSS .075
UAH .001
Wow, what a difference. And we rely on these groups to give us reliable information.
Anthropogenic global warming or global warming? The two are quite different. One is a nonsense, the other scientific fact.
whether the reason of the higher temperature during the 2009 fires was anthropogenic warming or natural one is unimportant.
First, there is incomplete CO2 mixing, where complete mixing has been assumed in the GCM’s used by the IPCC.
the incomplete mixing you are talking about is in a range of 5-10 ppm over the majority of the planet. that is about the range of the annual “wiggle” that we all know from the Mauna Loa chart. this is well mixed.
your claims about the oceans being the source of CO2 are simply false.
Sod
Global temp anomalies for June 2009 (Hadley not out yet).
GISS .63C
RSS .075
UAH .001
we have all read the wattsup article and comments. multiple people there have pointed out good reasons for this discrepancy. please read the comments. (especially the woodfortrees ones..)
Sod
Sigh, yes we have (satellites measure slightly higher up, satellite drift, GISS takes in the Arctic, etc, etc.) And all land-based weather stations are accurate and some have no UH effect out there at the airport.
But an O.63C difference – almost the entire warming for a century. Did you also note the GISS av temp graph and how it has changed after ‘corrections’.
And why has Hadley taken so long? Hedging bets? Manipulating takes longer? I await their report with baited breath.
Remember you were the one who posted that ‘I always wonder, why you “sceptics” are completely uncritical of such historic stories, while at the same time deny accurate modern measurements.’
So sod, which one is correct?
Also, have a look at NOAA’s attempt to tell Americans that June 2009 in the US was above average.
And you wonder why we are skeptical.
But an O.63C difference – almost the entire warming for a century. Did you also note the GISS av temp graph and how it has changed after ‘correctio
as has been pointed out over during the wattsup discussion on GISS june (notice how it is a really good idea to let some other opinions post..), several readers pointed out that UAH will most likely show a very warm July.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+001
and there are also some good ideas, about why and when satellite and surface data will diverge.
your ideas about “entire warming of the century” are false, and show a serious limited ndersatnding of the subject and statistics.
Remember you were the one who posted that ‘I always wonder, why you “sceptics” are completely uncritical of such historic stories, while at the same time deny accurate modern measurements.’
So sod, which one is correct?
modern measurement.
Also, have a look at NOAA’s attempt to tell Americans that June 2009 in the US was above average.
And you wonder why we are skeptical.
you are not sceptical, you are ignorant. “feeling” the temperature will often give a badly false impression. for example the wet weather we are experiencing here at the moment, is feeling like a horrible summer: no pool days, no barbecues. weather is completely unpredictable and people get a “cold” feeling of the weather.
but most of them neither experience nor measure night time minimum temperature, which will effect 50% of the calculated average.
in short, your feelings are wrong, NOAA is right.
sod
Read the comments at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/13/noaa-june-near-average-in-the-usa/
Not all of the observations are based on ‘feeling’ but on temperature records and observations.
We’re not all silly!
1910 – – 0.32 2008 – +0.43 Around 0.7C since 1910. (GISS)
Sod, it is quite clear who is ignorant!
Not all of the observations are based on ‘feeling’ but on temperature records and observations.
We’re not all silly!
1910 – – 0.32 2008 – +0.43 Around 0.7C since 1910. (GISS)
could you be a little bit more specific? what comments are you talking about? NY central park?
the question is a simple one: does NOAA have the better data or some random blokes posting their impression on a blog.
if you were a sceptic, this wouldn t be a hard choice to make…
Sod, it is quite clear who is ignorant!
i think this is a funny claim. why not contradict the “ignorant” things i said? about UHI and wind, for example?
or finally quote Al Gore on saying:
ANYONE who denies global warming is in the pay of big oil. Remember that is what the big man, Al Gore, said in his movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.
i am here to learn!
—————
ps: i respect Anthony and his moderators for their decision to not allow the fraud claims against NASA GISS. the majority of you would also be better off, with some more caution on the claims you make..
sod says NOAA is right;
http://landshape.org/enm/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/optical-depth-trend-1.png
Ergo no greenhouse effect for the last 50 years; well done sod; remind little will to pat you on the head at the next family reunion.
No wonder Anthony Watts uses the auto troll remover.
Something I read last night from the Mariner 2 data collected from Venus during the early 1960’s showed 15 miles of dense cloud covering it, Venus that is. So there goes the runaway greenhouse idea.
i nearly fell from my chair laughing a minute ago.
note this comment on the current spike in satellite temperature:
‘John Christy sends in this note:
“Roger:
Please note that the temps on our “real-time” website are not considered calibrated against the full record as they are derived from NOAA-15 (a drifting satellite) rather than AQUA (a non-drifting satellite). NOAA-15 has been drifting into a warmer part of the day, so its
anomalies will be slightly too warm – but on a daily basis it is not really possible to say what the error really is. Our calibrated daily values will be out after the end of the month.
John C.”
so the “uncalibrated data” is too warm. i wonder how you guys would react to a similar (but going the opposite direction) statement by GISS…
2nd attempt:
Just the basic science on CO2 is enough for me to spot the phoney greenie fascists aka Al Gore & crew.
My question was to Leon Assby as to why he is trying to reinvent the wheel, when the C.E.C. party of Australia have been blowing the lid on this fraud for the past twenty years!!!
sod
1910 – – 0.32 2008 – +0.43 Around 0.7C since 1910. (GISS)
That’s off the official temp graph at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
What’s the World Meterological Organisation Up To?
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on Thu Aug 21, 2008 reported: “The first half of 2008 was the coolest for at least five years. The whole year will almost certainly be cooler than recent years, although temperatures remain above the historical average.”
Yet on 5 December 2009 they reported at the Copenhagen Summit: “This decade is the warmest on record and 2009 is likely to rank as the fifth warmest year since the beginning of instrumental climate recordings in 1850.”
Vicky Pope, head of climate change advice at the Met Office, said the Office analysed land temperature data using a computer code developed by the University of East Anglia CRU (of Climategate infamy). She said CRU also supplied the Met Office with original data from some remote weather stations which had a significant impact on the global average.
This sudden backflip for the IPCC and Copenhagen Summit is making many wonder if the WMO are the latest to have adopted Michael Mann’s “trick” of massaging data to suit a preconceived agenda!
PS: See these sites re alleged corruption in WMO: http://screwtheun.blogspot.com/2007/02/audit-report-alleges-corruption-at-un.html
http://reformdesa.blogspot.com/
Go here for a temperature chart and more detail: http://www.biz-at-home.biz/climate/wmo.html
Cheers,
Denis Maclaine
Brisbane, Australia