1. Wall Street Journal – Climate Change Collapse – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: Environmentalists are stunned that their global warming agenda is in collapse. Senator Harry Reid has all but conceded he lacks the vote for passage in the Senate and that it’s time to move on. Backers of the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill always knew they would face a veto from President Bush, but they wanted to flex their political muscle and build momentum for 2009. That strategy backfired. The green groups now look as politically intimidating as the skinny kid on the beach who gets sand kicked in his face. Those groups spent millions advertising and lobbying to push the cap-and-trade bill through the Senate. But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus. “With gasoline selling at $4 a gallon, the Democrats picked the worst possible time to bring up cap and trade,” says Dan Clifton, a political analyst for Strategas Research Partners. “This issue is starting to feel like the Hillary health care plan.”
2. The Politico: Dems yank global warming bill – June 6, 2008.
Excerpt: Apparently three days of debate was enough for what many senators called “the most important issue facing the planet.” With little chance of winning passage of a sweeping 500-page global warming bill, the Senate Democratic leadership is planning to yank the legislation after failing to achieve the 60-vote threshold needed to move the bill to the next stage. After a 48-36 vote on the climate change bill, the Senate is likely to move on to a separate energy debate next week. The legislation collapsed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the poor timing of debating a bill predicted to increase energy costs while much of the country is focused on $4-a-gallon gas. On top of that, a number of industrial state Democrats like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio were uncomfortable with the strong emissions caps that would have created a new regime of regulations for coal, auto and other manufacturing industries. Republicans, for the most part, held firm against a bill they said would cost billions in regulations while pushing the cost of gas higher. Seven Republicans, mostly moderates, voted for the procedural motion on the legislation while four Democrats voted against it.
3. Global Warming Politics: – The ‘Global Warming’ Mad House – By UK Professor Philip Stott – June 6, 2008.
The ‘global warming’ mad house is flourishing! I have rarely known a couple of days in which so many ‘global warming’ foibles and follies have been exposed for the nonsense that they are. Here is my Friday round-up for you to savour: First, and by far the most significant, the debate on the climate-change bill, the Climate Tax Bill, in the U.S. Senate has been reduced to a farce, with even many Democrats now wanting to kill it off as quickly and as painlessly as possible. Indeed, we may have to witness the bizarre spectacle of Republicans trying to prolong the debate in order to embarrass Democrats even further. […] Sen. James M. Inhofe (Okla.), Ranking Republican Member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, is reported as observing: “‘This bill was doomed from the start. The committee process was short-circuited, the floor debate was circumvented and the amendment process was derailed. I do not see how the Democrats use this failed bill as any kind of model for future success. As I suspected, reality hit the U.S. Senate when the economic facts of this bill were exposed. When faced with the inconvenient truth of the bill’s impact on skyrocketing gas prices, very few Senators were willing to even debate this bill.’” […] Indeed. ‘Global warming’ is thus off track on every front, from the railways of the UK to the floor of the U.S. Senate. When will this ‘global warming’ madhouse be closed down and confined to the dustbin of history? Or trash can?
4. Associated Press – $45 trillion needed to combat warming – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday. The report by the Paris-based International Energy Agency envisions a “energy revolution” that would greatly reduce the world’s dependence on fossil fuels while maintaining steady economic growth.
5. The Washington Independent: Senate Kills Climate Change Bill – June 6, 2008.
Excerpt: The Senate this morning brought an early if expected end to the chamber’s global warming debate, falling 12 votes shy of the 60 needed to kill a GOP filibuster. Sixteen senators were absent during the vote, including likely presidential nominees John McCain, who opposes the bill for what he considers a dearth of nuclear power provisions, and Barack Obama, who supports the proposal, which boasts a 66 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.
6. New York Times Blog – James Hansen: Tax C02 Emitters; Pay Citizens – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: Even as Senate Republicans blocked Democrats’ attempt to move forward with global warming legislation today, other approaches to federal climate action have already begun to percolate. James E. Hansen, the NASA climate expert who has long been a bellwether for global warming campaigners, has strongly endorsed one of the less-popular options — a variant on the “cap and dividend” system for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. (This is very different from the “cap and trade” mechanism in the blocked Lieberman-Warner-Boxer bill, which would invest revenue in a host of ways, with little money returning directly to taxpayers.)
7. India News- Reality Check: ‘INDIA WON’T CUT CO2 EMISSIONS AT THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT & POVERTY ALLEVATION’ – June 05, 2008.
Excerpt: India will not reduce greenhouse gas emission at the cost of development and poverty alleviation, Minister of State for Environment and Forests Namo Narain Meena said Thursday.’India is struggling to bring millions of people out of poverty. We cannot accept binding commitments to cut down greenhouse gas emission,’ Meena said at a function to mark the World Environment Day. Though India has no commitment to reduce the global warming gases under the Kyoto Protocol, in recent climate change conferences many developed countries have said India needs to reduce the greenhouse burden.
8. Courier Mail – WORKERS UNION, BUSINESS LEADERS WARN CLIMATE POLICY MAY CRIPPLE AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIES – June 05, 2008.
Excerpt: AUSTRALIAN industries may be crippled if they are forced to meet ambitious targets for tackling climate change, the Rudd Government has been warned.
The Queensland Government, Australian Workers Union and big business across the nation fear forcing businesses to pay for the pollution they create would cause economic upheaval.The State Government fired a warning to Canberra in Tuesday’s budget, urging it not to set over-ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions for fear of destabilising the economy.
9. National Post – As Goes the Economy, So Goes Environmentalism – June 05, 2008.
Excerpt: If truth is the first casualty of war, then environmental concern is the first casualty of economic recession. Surveys of Canadian voters showed the environment to be their first or second concern in 1989-90. At that time, though, the economy was booming, pumping out tens of thousands of new jobs a month. A year-and-a-half later, with the economy locked in the worst recession in 60 years, government finances were imploding, jobs disappearing and foreclosure wolves circling, the environment vanished from the top 10. There will always be a small, hard-core voter base motivated by eco-issues. They’re not worried about losing their jobs in an environmentalist-driven recession. They know that if they get laid off from the alternative music store, they can always go clerk at the Gaia Vegan Market or Wiccans ‘R’ Us. But for most people, the environment is a luxury good — easily expendable when their livelihoods and homes are threatened.
10. London Evening Standard – CAMERON WARNS BROWN HIS OWN PARTY WILL DITCH HIM IF HE DOES NOT SCRAP GREEN TAX RISES – June 04, 2008.
Excerpt: Car tax hikes for millions of drivers became the latest ticking timebomb under Gordon Brown’s leadership last night. Despite mounting Labour unrest, the Prime Minister launched a stubborn defence of the plans and said they were an effective means of cutting carbon emissions. Tory leader David Cameron warned Mr Brown he was likely to lose his job if he refused to scrap what he called ‘deeply unpopular and unenvironmental’ changes to vehicle excise duty. Pointing to the growing rebellion among Labour MPs over the plans, Mr Cameron bluntly told Mr Brown during angry exchanges at Prime Ministers’ Questions: ‘If you don’t get rid of it, they will probably get rid of you.’
11. Washington Post – Vote on Climate Bill is Blocked in Senate – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: Republicans have blocked efforts to bring a global warming bill up for a final Senate vote after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would push gasoline prices higher. Democratic leaders Friday fell 12 votes short of getting the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure. The vote was 48-36. Majority Leader Harry Reid now must decide whether to pull the bill and push the climate change issue to next year with a new Congress and a new president. The bill would cap carbon dioxide coming from power plants and factories with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71 percent by mid-century. Opponents say it amounts to a huge tax increase and would lead to higher energy prices.
12. Washington Post – U.S. Senate Democrats May Pull Climate Bill – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: If this week’s Senate debate on a proposed cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases was supposed to be a dress rehearsal for climate legislation, things are not looking too good for opening night. Although parliamentary maneuvers could still extend the debate into next week, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) faced the prospect of failure in a bid to end debate on amendments to the climate bill this morning. In that event, he was expected to seek withdrawal of the entire measure, to the relief of some Democrats from coal-producing or heavy industrial states. Some Democrats were worried yesterday that the GOP might try to block withdrawal of the legislation to prolong a debate that many Democrats think no longer works to their political benefit.
13. Wall Street Journal – Climate Bill Stalls in Senate – June 06, 2008
Excerpt: Republicans have blocked efforts to bring a global warming bill up for a final Senate vote after a bitter debate over its economic costs and whether it would push gasoline prices higher. Democratic leaders Friday fell 12 votes short of getting the 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster on the measure. The vote was 48-36. Majority Leader Harry Reid now must decide whether to pull the bill and push the climate change issue to next year with a new Congress and a new president. The bill would cap carbon dioxide coming from power plants and factories with a target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 71% by mid-century. Opponents say it amounts to a huge tax increase and would lead to higher energy prices. “It’s a huge tax increase,” argued Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, a prominent coal-producing state. He maintained that the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce “the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal.”
14. NewsOK.com – Cost ineffective: Warming bill would hit Oklahoma hard – June 06, 2008.
Excerpt: This would be done through a cap-and-trade system under which businesses and industries meeting federal emissions caps could trade or sell excess capacity to those exceeding them. That means new bureaucracies, new programs — more than 40 by some estimates — and the complications that routinely go with most new government initiatives. That concerns Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa. “The climate solution should not require an overhaul of our economy and those decisions should not be made by nameless bureaucrats,” Inhofe says. As it is, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis warns of cumulative losses to the national economy of more than $4.5 trillion by 2030 — even as leading global polluter China lets its economy run unencumbered.
15. Associated Press – Economy First: EU Governments Split on Emissions Target – June 05, 2008
Excerpt: EU governments were split Thursday over the best way for the 27-nation bloc to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Germany said a plan to slash car emissions by 2012 was unfair to its automobile industry, which makes vehicles that tend to be faster, bigger, heavier and more polluting than those of other EU nations. Sigmar Gabriel, the German environment minister, said it was harder for Germany than Italy which made light, small cars that already just about meet the 2012 emission limit. “We have to be honest and open with each other here,” Gabriel said. “We have very different interests.”
16. Peanuts! Tough Climate Goals Only Cost $45 Trillion by 2050 – June 05, 2008
Excerpt: A goal to halve planet-warming carbon emissions by 2050, similar to an aim Japan is urging G8 leaders to agree next month, would add $45 trillion to global energy bills, the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday. “It’s a lot of money,” IEA analyst Peter Taylor told a meeting on the fringes of a climate conference in Germany, previewing the agency’s Energy Technology Perspectives report to be published in Japan on Friday. “It implies a completely different energy system,” he said. For example, electricity from renewable sources such as hydropower and the wind would reach close to half all power production, compared to 18 percent now, Taylor told Reuters.
# # #
this news roundup from Marc Morano, Communications Director, US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff. www.epw.senate.gov
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
All fair enough, even understandable, but the global atmosphere doesn’t really care.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23822411-11949,00.html
But you do have to smile at Marono spinning for all he’s worth “their global warming agenda is in collapse” – THEIR AGENDA? LOL.
He’s means he’s telling you it has. So therefore it must be eh? Has anyone asked the greenies what they think? I think most of us didn’t expect much would happen in terms of mitigation anyway.
“But it would appear the political consensus on global warming was as exaggerated as the alleged scientific consensus.”
Human civilization in the year 2008 dodged a bullet.
“Has anyone asked the greenies what they think?”
The greenies pulled the trigger.
Is Morano laughing with us, because we can beat those dastardly greenies, or is laughing at us, because the climate is being changed by us and we have no idea how to control our own behaviour, like an alcoholic who knows his yellow pallour indicates something serious is up, but just loves that nice feeling the alcohol gives him.
Their agenda Luke; tomorrow is certain, yesterday may change.
Repeat after me…
The world isn’t warming,
It’s going to rain,
God’s in his heaven,
Jim Hansen’s in pain.
I think I’ve never heard so loud,
The quiet message in a cloud.
===================
“The greenies pulled the trigger. ” oooooooo oooo LMAO “Human civilization in the year 2008 dodged a bullet.” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
creep; I posted a response to your sea links at Steve Short’s entry.
The key words in The Australian article are “There have not been many La Nina events during the past 30 years.” That would be because there was a -ve PDO; we are coming out of that and there have been 2 major La Nina storms in the last 2 years (Pasha Bulka anyone); this chart puts a bit of perspective on the, admittedly tough situation in the Murray-Darling;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=mdb&season=0112
Especially since the info about ocean warming is so problematic.
“The greenies pulled the trigger. ” oooooooo oooo LMAO “Human civilization in the year 2008 dodged a bullet.” zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Translation: Drooling pablum-gobbling Creepy Greenie needs his diaper changed.
Mon. El Creepo: “….Has anyone asked the greenies what they think? I think most of us…”
I seem to recall in the not so recent past a certain M. El Creepo saying words to the effect “who are you assuming to be a greenie WJP”
Maybe M. EL Creepo, if you flog yourself in a manner true, you won’t be so confused.
BTW, it might have been a dry May, but it’s sure caught up by 6/6/08.
Also I recall my dad having said when I was a young’n “best time of the year to do roof work is generally in May”.
Tomorrow is more uncertain, yesterday changed
It’s quite clear our farmers are in pain
Our world has warmed
And the Murray a drain
And on it goes, unless the rain falls
Morano goes soprano
As reality gnaws at his balls
Let the denialists have a pink fit
To not see the signs you’d be a half-wit.
So as we sit and watch the flow trickle
It appears the world will do very little.
El Nino has won
La Nina’s a flop
The clouds gave gone
And we still need a drop.
But she’ll be right
Coz we’ve got Wes and Hissink
Fear not the future
And please don’t think.
El Creepo,
you do realise that La Nina is accepted to mean drought in certain areas?? Like here in California where AHHHHHHNULD the Guvernator has just declared one!!
I do not know if the area you are speaking about historically is a drought area or not during La Nina conditions. You may want to check that out!!
Creepo has difficulty with La Nina and EL Nino.
This is why he calls himself EL Creepo, and for why is any one’s guess, least of all himself.
El Schtupido would be more apt.
Shouting drool-filled shouts;
Creepis Non Compos Mentis
Telling us to think
“historically is a drought area or not during La Nina conditions.” … mmmm … two guesses – yes it would normally get a tad wet (albeit every event being somewhat individual)
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninacomp.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/ninocomp.shtml
Read’em and weep denialist dills
So while Morano is leading you round by the nose you haven’t kept up with your local reading have you. Norty norty.
If you haven’t worked out by now that something is going down Down Under you’re either illiterate or thick. Louis you’re excused.
David W. J. Thompson and Susan Solomon (3 May 2002) Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Chang, Science 296 (5569), 895. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1069270]
Shindell, D. T., and G. A. Schmidt (2004), Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724.
Cai, W. (2006), Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03712, doi:10.1029/2005GL024911.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2006), SAM and regional rainfall in IPCC AR4 models: Can anthropogenic forcing account for southwest Western Australian winter rainfall reduction?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24708, doi:10.1029/2006GL028037.
Cai, W., T. Cowan, M. Dix, L. Rotstayn, J. Ribbe, G. Shi, and S. Wijffels (2007), Anthropogenic aerosol forcing and the structure of temperature trends in the southern Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14611, doi:10.1029/2007GL030380.
Power, S. B., and I. N. Smith (2007), Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El Niño both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030854.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2008), Evidence of impacts from rising temperature on inflows to the Murray-Darling Basin, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L07701, doi:10.1029/2008GL033390.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2008), Dynamics of late autumn rainfall reduction over southeastern Australia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L09708, doi:10.1029/2008GL033727.
Trimbal et al. (2008) Final report for Project 1.1.2 for the South East Australian Climate Initiative – Compare documented climate changes with those attributable to specific causes” http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/seaci/Final_report_for_Project_1.1.2.pdf
Rainfall increases in northern Australia http://www.science.org.au/events/australiajapan/rotstayn.pdf
Rotstayn, L. D., et al. (2007), Have Australian rainfall and cloudiness increased due to the remote effects of Asian anthropogenic aerosols?, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D09202, doi:10.1029/2006JD007712.
How Morano and the Republicans with their war on science wants the world to emit more CO2 to keep Aussies in semi-permanent El Nino, with a dislocated SAM, fractured IOD topped up with fizzer La Ninas. To ruin our agriculture.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/impacts/warm.gif
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/impacts/cold.gif
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/209479main_elnino1_080128_HI.jpg
USA – Warmer wheat belts – more growth CO2 fertilised – more water in the south !
I see that El Creepo (formerly Luke in his better days) is in denial of the last years cooling trend that is in total contradiction of the much ballyhooed warming predictions of the past.
Not only that the absurd governmental proposals to deal with CO2 emissions are way too costly.So costly that economies could collapse in trying to keep up with those hairbrained Kyoto emission goals.But funnily enough these european nations are not keeping up becaue their economies are struggling and that there has been no warming trend for a decade now.
There has NEVER been a paper published showing solid evidence that CO2 increases creates temperature increases.It has always been the other way around.
There has NEVER been a paper published showing that even 1000ppm CO2 levels is of any harm.Most of earths history has been above 1500 ppm and life goes on.The big exinctions seems related from something that came in from OUTSIDE the earths sphere.Not from high CO2 ppm levels.
You need to stop being infatuated with the CO2 connection to any warming cooling cycles.They are so minimally important to get all that excited over.
Thank you sunsettommy, although I don’t agree with; “…It has always been the other way around.”
I like your choice of the word “infatuated”.
BTW, in the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Admin (OSHA) says 5000PPM is the upper limit for 8 hour work exposure, and I believe there was a degree of “Jeez, we can’t find much bad about CO2, but we can’t make the number too high” involved in their decision.
It seems to me those discounting the skeptics fit into the following categories:
a) Those who accept the public pronouncements because they have great trust.
b) Those at level 1 of this “game” who think they understand the science, but have yet to get to the second level.
c) Those who are in a mindless religious mode about this.
d) Those who have doubt, but feel that the impacts are so great that we can’t not do anything
e) Those who know there is no proof, and that the likelihood is microscopic, but stand to profit,
f) Techncial folks who did shoddy work and are embarrassed to come clean and the worst of all,
g) Technical folks who may have been fraudulent with data (???)
I’m afraid though that the carbon tax industry/Gov’t/Environmentalist power brokers may end up getting their way, unless Global temperatures continue to drop, and we might need a big one, because the data fraudsters will find a way to adjust the data again, if it doesn’t go their way.
Pete it amazing that this has been pushed so far in the public thoughts of the chattering classes. The greens need to sell it by saying it won’t cost much. In a time of economic downturn it is increasingly difficult particularly since it is becoming clearer how much it will cost. I look with interest on the UK government, will they be thrown out over evironmentalism? Rudd’s dropping of the solar cell subsidy is also interesting. A political party who says that at AGW’s height we are facing 1.7 degrees rise and 200mm sea level rise in a hundred years is on a winning ticket. Other arguments about storms, drought etc., are politically untenable. Greens do not accept nuclear power as a solution when it is the only possible known solution other than poverty. This is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. What Morano is saying is that the Media is turning and in this that is the end game. Finally does Climate Change cause sun spots? It must, it is closely correlated and the greens say the opposite cannot be true.
The Rudd government still seems bent on providing a carbon trading scheme, despite the same being thrown out in the US and having a very hard time in Europe [i.e not working very well].
Penny Wong seems to have no concept of the economic damage the scheme will cause – yet alone have any idea of the collapsing theoretical basis of CO2 induced global warming. [ i.e. The planet is now cooling fast while CO2 is still rising].
Like the Bourbons, the Rudd Givernment seems to have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing.
45 TRILLION DOLLARS!!! That my friends is the reason the bill in the Senate never had a chance. It is also one of the reasons that we “deniers” still have hope that politicians will come to their senses.
Doug on the face of it yes but the change in the Solar cell subsidy is not consistent and will break many green businesses. That is why I find it interesting. If you go save the planet way then it will not take much for an opposition to throw you out! It will be 2 degrees and 400mm anyway if it is to be what OZ does will not have an effect. So vote for a tenuous morality and poverty or do the best we can for the voter in an increasingly uncertain world.
Pete; I’m trying to fit Clive Hamilton and Tamino into your list of categories; good as your list is we may need a few more categories to marry the interesting psychology and philosophy of those characters.
creep; the SOI over the last 13 months has been a tad over +ve6; it hasn’t been a big La Nina; a bit of a nuisance really; and for all your links and references the patterns are still within the PDO/IPO boundaries.
Read them ? Course not.
PDO isn’t everything. Doesn’t explain the major changes in the Walker circulation, super-gyres, and Antarctica.
PDO modifys El Nino and La Nina impacts – but does not remove them. You’re into wishful projection.
The IPO may not even exist …
You’re not thinking. Try again.
Sunset – PETM mate ! And major extinction events on climate shifts.
And the way ice core science is going, perhaps CO2 doesn’t lag temperature after all.
Luke baby,
You may be right but I suggest my cantata is more of a lullaby than yours.
Or you could sing…
Mix de lahme wid de coconut,
Shake it all togedder,
Mix de lahme wid de coconut,
Make you feel bedder.
….and call me in de mornin.
The climate outcome would be exactly the same as this multi-trillion madness and you’d sleep a lot better.
sunsettommy,
I changed my mind. I do generally agree with your statement; “…It has always been the other way around.” (I was thinking too precisely)
The primary driver to CO2 increases in the air (excluding one time events like volcanoes/asteroids) are changes in ocean temperatures. Ocean temp goes up then CO2 goes up and ocean temp goes down, CO2 dissolves back into the ocean.
I read that the total contribution of man produced CO2 during the the last 100 years increase from something like 280PPM to 380PPM is only 3%. It seems that the public impression is that all 100PPM is from fossil fuel burning. I don’t recall if the 3% was of the total 380PPM or of the 100PPM increase. That means that man has gifted to the biosphere between 3 and 11PPM of life giving CO2 that had been sequestered for millions of years. I know, most people don’t think of it as a gift because when they hear CO2 they see dirty coal smoke pollution.
I also read that carbon has over the millenia been getting sequestered from the air by natural processes like shells, limestone, fossil fuels and that in the very long term, we need to be worried that CO2 levels go too low for plant growth to be sustained. No CO2 for the plants, no O2 for us animals.
Not to try to sound too wacko, but after we use all our fossil fuels, won’t we need to find ways to produce CO2 from shells and limestone and wherever else it is locked up?
Lastly, after all the bickering, and I admit I get spun about this, will we collectively have the energy to address the real problems of energy security, sustainability, environmental improvement, etc?
“..f) Techncial folks who did shoddy work and are embarrassed to come clean and the worst of all,
g) Technical folks who may have been fraudulent with data (???)
…find a way to adjust the data again, if it doesn’t go their way.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print.html
Pete, why the past tense,they have already done it courtesy Hansen and his cohorts, as the above URL readily portrays, as but ONE example.
creep; that’s very unkind; I try to read everything; often my wife has to come out and find me because I’m stuck somewhere reading graffiti; you know, global warming is nature’s revenge; pithy little things like that.
IPO may not exist; that will disappoint Stewart Franks who thinks PDO/IPO’s drive the EL/La combo.
The CO2/temp lag is an important skirmish point; skeptical science has a shot at it and intones;
CO2 warming explains how the relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age. It begins with high southern latitudes (eg – Antarctica) warming and releasing CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This is why warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~ 1000 years (Stott 2007)
Now, he’s wrong about the weak forcing from Milankovitch, but we’ll let that pass; what he has said is that the MIlankovitch cycles are what kick off CO2 increases; we are at the tail end of the strong part of such a cycle, so there is your explanation for current high levels of CO2! The CO2 is rising due to previous solar effect. Now sol is on the decline we will get decreasing temps, and in a couple of hundred years CO2 will drop.
Hay Creepo. It sounds like we may be in for some more rewriting of history, from your last post.
Have they found a crystal ball that sees the past now, or is this yet another desperate con job?
A crystal ball should be right at home, in this hocus pocus science.
Looks like the scientists and politicians are abandoning AGW now…. You always know when something has run it’s course. The Politicians start abandoning the sinking ship along with the rats.
I imagine poor ol’ El Creepo will have his self firmly lashed to th’ mainmast as he sinks defiantly into a cold and bitter sea. Raging as waves of mirth crash upon him.
Or maybe he’s like Cap’n Ahab… Tangled in the twisted lines of logic as the Great Moby Dickhead of AGW Theory sounds to the depths, mortally wounded.
: ) LOL.
Well J Hansford – as I said before the global atmosphere doesn’t give a rats whether we do anything or not. It’s our call. It will just integrate the physics over time.
But what cooling trend – do wank on? all you have is statis at worst and noise. You’re so into following every wiggle that every bit of fly speck and dust on the graph now has divine messages.
You guys are “channeling” noise.
That is if you’re not praying to Sun Gods. Oh might Ra ! Creator of all – lead us not to an ice age underworld. LOL.
Why be obsessed with a single warming metric such as global temperature (which you all don’t believe anyway but love to talk about) – when you have REAL local effects to take about.
Real papers on real effects. Haven’t read them. (apologies to hard working cohenite) Well you’re talking through your hat then then and recycling denialist blog mantra as a substitute for any serious personal thought.
But back to CO2 lags temperature stuff.
In the recent literature (e.g. http://www.clim-past.net/3/527/2007/cp-3-527-2007.pdf ), as well as in the supplementary information in http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06949.html#abs , the infamous “CO2 lag” may be overestimated by some hundreds of years, so the 800 year lag at Termination V may be something like 300 years.
An interesting case is during MIS 14.2 (~550 kyr BP), CO2 PRECEDED temperature by about by a little over 1,000 years.
So the old CO2 lags temperature story is falling apart.
Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere — the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.
Excerpted from Larry Solomon’s In praise of carbon dioxide.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/06/06/in-praise-of-carbon-dioxide.aspx
Why am I reading about this first and only from Larry Solomon?
“Looks like the scientists and politicians are abandoning AGW now…. You always know when something has run it’s course. The Politicians start abandoning the sinking ship along with the rats.”
Strictly speaking, if you read the articles it is the politicians that are abandoning the sinking ship — ahead of the rats (as usual).
I can’t see any sign of the ‘scientists’ abandoning AGW just yet — and why would they? After all, AGW is “Government Science”. No serious, credible scientists are involved with this rort – only those who are sucking a salary from a government or a government-funded body. So, if these ‘scientists’ abandoned AGW, they would also be abandoning their livelihoods.
Why would they, when they’re handing in useful quality research work like I have tabled above. It’s only shonks and superflous scocietal parasites like marketers and other scam artistes judging reality by their own dubious moral standards such as grandma trading that would come to that sort of conclusion.
AC,
Having read some, not all, of the stuff you linked to, I have to agree with them.
But I read other papers, with opposite views and I am sorry to say, I had to agree with them as well.
I am moron you say, fair enough, I had to agree because I just don’t know enough to make a valid judgment.
Do You know enough, or do you just go with your feelings?
You see, that’s the problem with pointing to endless links of articles, I dare say, at least half of us here, haven’t enough knowledge in the right disciples to make an intelligent decision one way or the other.
“Why would they..”
Which, as usual, completely misses the point. Why would they, indeed? Sitting in comfortable, well-paid positions, doing no useful work – who would want to make a moral statement and give that up voluntarily?
The looming problem for all these parasites is that in due course it will not be optional. As it becomes increasingly obvious that AGW is a complete scam, public opinion will turn against this ‘science’ and governments will have no option but to terminate all this useless work and cut funding. We all live for the day …
“when they’re handing in useful quality research work…”
Was there ever an egg-head that didn’t think they were doing ‘useful, quality research’, I wonder? I’m likewise sure that Josef Mengele considered that he was doing ‘useful, quality research’ as well. This is really a value judgement for society as a whole to make, not just the co-religionists.
Why James – coz you’re easily impressed with right wing spruikers like Solomon bashing an agenda. But it’s been long reported in the science news if you had kept up with your reading. Hardly a secret like you’re trying to scam.
Net primary productivity: The rate at which an ecosystem accumulates energy or biomass, excluding the energy it uses for the process of respiration. This typically corresponds to the rate of photosynthesis, minus respiration by the photosynthesisers.
The algorithm that provides the satellite-based value of NPP assumes a direct relationship between absorbed solar energy and the indices of vegetation, followed by biophysical restrictions such as temperature and water availability.
But anyone who has doen any work with NDVI (normalised difference vegetation index – the measure of greenness – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NDVI ) knows that although you might map what’s green, you have little idea of biomass. A half inch green lawn appears the same as 3 feet of grass pasture. Forests stay green. Savannas green up as it rains and brown off as they dry. Hs NPP increased. Can you tell me what the shoot/root biomass ratio is doing?
You’d be desperate to show that Australia’s Murray Darling Basin had an NPP increase of late – ROTFL.
And all this assumes they have done the multi-satellite adjustments, bi-directional reflectance calculations and cloud removal correctly.
And where has the NPP increased – anywhere useful to humans. Wouldn’t be the thawing tundra would it? Wait till the inevitable fires liberate it all again.
I reckon global NPP (global rate of biomass accumulation) – it’s pretty iffy stuff – what’s their error bars. You’re easily bluffed James.
Scum and Creep; great sobriquets at 380 ppm.
Despite all the references there can be no doubt that CO2 is the stumpy tail on the body of the oceans; first a longer perspective;
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Monckton2.jpg
The isotopic sourcing of CO2 is also taking a hit:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/double-whammy-friday-roy-spencer-on-how-oceans-are-driving-co2/
That link to Roy ID Spencer and Steve Short’s thesis about declining CO2 in the SH got me shunted at deltoid BTW.
That aside, the Luthi paper on extremely low CO2 levels, 172 ppm, between 65000-750000 years ago,is about a time when glacial temps were not lower than other glacial periods; no assistance there for the CO2 forcing theory; The Loulergue paper tentatively suggests that in one period the CO2 lag after temp rise was less than 800+- 500 years; none-the-less there was still a
lag. Temps in the 20thC increased before CO2 levels started to rise. It just seems odd to me to assert something causes something when the cause cocnsistently happens after the event; quantum superposition perhaps (incidentally Louis, is superposition still possible in an electric universe?)
The ocean effect is becoming more obvious;
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002784.html/
The evidence of ocean warming from Survostral is problematic despite readjustment of ARGO and XBT equipment, as indicated in the Johnson papers; also this;
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421111622.htm
And, as I have squawked before, O’Neill’s ocean mantle recycling thesis makes the ocean an infinite sink; the process doesn’t have to be regular; maybe the GPCS of the 70’s, much hated by the AGW crowd, was a manifestation of some water going down the gurgler; now that would be a natural secular trend which dwarfs the furiously wagging CO2 tail.
Wall Street Journal…The Politico…Associated Press…The Washington Independant…India News…Courier Mail…Londong Evening Standard…Washington Post…
Been expecting this. What the media creates the media destroys. Remember Diana?
Cohenite – Of course there should be lag. It’s a question of how much. Unless you’re involving new volcanism spewing vasts amounts of CO2 – CO2 is not going to awake the Earth from a Milankovitch orbital cold sleep – why would it? CO2 can only be a feedback.
The earlier modelling work by Berger et al says you cannot get into an ice age without CO2 being low. You need to lose some more forcing.
Anyway as above – the lags may have been overstated which further supports the notion of feedback warming. There ARE some examples of CO2 leading ! (volcanism most likely).
There’s a lot of good science about CO2 being sunk into the ocean. Sabine et al – http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5682/367
And of course the temperature was rising for other reasons than CO2 in the early 20th century. Who’s ever said otherwise. And that doesn’t apply in the last 20th century.
And you have summarily ignored all the good work done in the Australian region on AGW and rainfall – tabled above.
And ignored the massive warming with all associated science from 1980s to 2001.
So all this stuff about AGW being over is just Morano-speak and astro-turfing.
Marcus – agree – all I ask you t do is to remain curious. Most curious and not knee jerk.
However sitting on the fence is not an answer for farmers or water managers in the Murray Darling. They have to make some decisions – SO they need to make some plans on investment and allocation – do they assume the next 30-50 years rainfall probabilities are the same as the last 120 years. Or go with the new climate science.
What would you do? Whatever you do is a decision one way or the other. Even going with the last 30 years is starting to be AGW-ish.
If you assume lower rainfall or more evaporation – i.e. less available water – you have defacto endorsed AGW influence as “possible”. (note this doesn’t automatically equal carbon tax – but does raise the issue of “should anything else be done”).
And also Marcus – it wasn’t “endless lists” – it was THE hand selected case articles. No random trawl.
Speaking as someone in the process of installing a largish photovoltaic system, I thought the Government restriction on the availability of the subsidy was both inconsistent and stupid.
The reason I am installing a system is that I work from home, and I think air conditioning [i.e. electricity] prices are going through the roof on hot summer days. At some stage I will also install a battery backup system to insulate myself from the grid, when power supplies become unreliable in about three years time.
This will be a logical consequence of carbon trading.
creep; I haven’t ignored the papers on Australian rainfall and temp; you have;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rain®ion=aus&season=0112
Have a look at the rainfall anomaly chart; there is no AGW effect there. In respect of temp, BoM use a 1961-90 base period; will someone tell me why Quirk and McLean’s paper on the Pacific Climate Shift pointing to a tainting of this base period is wrong?
In any event BoM are notorious for abusing UHI weighting as Warwick Hughes has shown; so why should anyone accept their temp record as indicative of a warming, let alone one caused by CO2?
“Or go with the new climate science…”
Exactly what would these plans on investment and allocation ‘based on the new climate science’ look like, do you think?
Wait until 2050 until CO2 emissions reach some magical number and hope that the rainfall patterns return – at some undefined point? Work on rain dance method in the meantime, perhaps? I wonder how many farmers can afford a 40+ year investment plan like this?
“you have defacto endorsed AGW influence as ‘possible'”
Only in your strange mind.
“should anything else be done”
Like f’rinstance? What other ideas do the Alarmists have?
AC
re. “endless lists”
It was a general remark not aimed at anyone or any thread in particular.
I only mentioned it because they are posted all the time, and I have my doubts about their value as an argument, when nearly every one of them can be countered by an opposite slant.
So it finally boils down to whom we believe.
Look, I have no doubt the climate (at least the micro climate around our place) changed since 1972 when we bought our property.
Not an irrigation property.
The dams haven’t filled for years, but looking back in BOM and local records, there were worst times before, so I’m not yet panicking, not too happy either.
Incidentally both water bores are working, and we had one cleaned out recently and the record shows, that the water table only dropped 1 foot 8 in. from the original, in more than 60 years, not bad, I would have thought, considering the amount of rainfall in the last twenty odd years and also the number of new wells in the area!
I know it will take a lot of years to fill the aquifers again.
As to making decisions?
What choices do we have as farmers?
If grass is the only thing you grow, you are somewhat limited in your options.
At the moment we still doing well enough to stick it out, and ‘wait and see’.
We are in a lucky position really, because of our distance to Melbourne (NW), we can subdivide some land into 40HA lots an walk away, but that would be the last resort as far as I’m concerned.
El Creepo I read one of those links (Luthi, Le Floch et al). I have to agree with Cohenite, this letter does not seem to challenge the fact that the sharp temperature rise at the end of a glacial precedes the CO2 rise. Luthi, Le Floch et al concentrate mainly on pretty small CO2 diferences between different glacial periods. Hardly surprising – CO2 and temperature will not be precisely the same from cycle to cycle. Nothing in climate behaves with precision.
Even if the lag betwwen sharp warming and CO2 increase is less than 800 years and more like 500 years – well so what? That wouldn’t change the picture in any important way.
Seems like a straight forward enough process, using satellite imaging to measure changes in vegetation over the world. It was ecologists back in the 80’s who insisted on NASA measuring the amount of plantlife “on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre”.
It was Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA who analysed the data and found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by 6.2%.
Solomon is just a reporter, albeit an honest one who doesn’t sidestep inconvenient facts.
Creepy, if you have some basis for doubting Steve Running or Ramak Nemani’s work please feel free to post your evidence of how the Earth has become a dried out husk over the last 28 years.
Cohenite – after all this discussion for you to actually put a time series of Australia as a whole as some sort of evidence is unbelievable. I give up.
Warwick Hughes wouldn’t have a clue mate. Sheesh. Yet another NZ denialist who should go back home.
DS – idiotic response – stay with marketing. Have a look at Landline and establishment of a new peanut industry – do you think these guys do this on a whim for a few years. For heavens sake mate – turn the brain switch to on eh?
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2260753.htm
James – try reading what I’ve written with the light on.
Marcus – yes hard stuff decisions.
“As to making decisions?
What choices do we have as farmers?”
Stay put, sell out, move elsewhere, change farming systems maybe, invest, diversify, off-farm income?
Not easy making decisions but need to made on some basis.
Kidmans are shutting down till it rains. Amazing stuff.
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s2267560.htm Good video on issues.
James – just tell me this – satellite sees greenness (NDVI) – if one inch of green grass looks like 3 feet of green grass – so even for you – is there a difference.
The forest was green last year and green this year.
What’s the new biomass?
NDVI does not equal biomass. (and that’s without all the satellite issues listed above)
BillC – the lags have reduced. Point one. Not all CO2 curves follow temperature in every paleo event – Point 2. You can’t get the temperatures experienced without CO2 – Point 3.
So the whole CO2 in ice cores stuff is pretty irrelevant to the present.
“Have a look at Landline and establishment of a new peanut industry ”
Yeah – I saw it, but it beats me what it has to do with your ‘new climate science’ — not that much of your ‘logic’ makes any sense to anyone outside of your asylum, that is.
In fact, I couldn’t help but think at the time: Here’s some guys with brains. Instead of just sitting around moaning “woe is me — all you SUV drivers are ruining our industry”, they have faced up to reality: It’s the climate – it’s a natural cycle – let’s move to where there is some water.
Had they have taken the ‘new climate science’ path I guess they would be waiting for your cap-and-trade to be introduced so they could join the government handout conga-line.
Question is: How many CSIRO or other government-funded ‘scientists’ were involved in this decision-making process? Too busy doing ‘useful, quality research’ to be involved in anything productive, I suppose.
Creepy
You’re putting a lot of energy into repeating yourself, but so far no evidence that Running and Nemani’s 6.2% of growth is wrong.
Wouldn’t root growth just make it worse for your argument?
If it’s new grasslands sprouting up – well heck little house on the prairie. That’s good eats for prairie dogs, coyotes, pronghorns buffalo, garter snakes, meadowlarks, prairie chickens, owls, hawks, eagles, grasshoppers, butterflies, badgers, bobcats, ferrets, bumble bees, jackrabbits, voles, gophers, squirrels cranes, mice, toads, frogs, lizards, beetles, foxes, … /turing word is good.
You still want to focus on the bad, try looking at http://www.co2science.org/ I guess. Aw drat. They say their Data section is still offline due to a terrorist-like Denial of Service Attack from a couple months back. No luck there dude.
Guess you could try NASA, but that’s the Goddard section in charge of the weedfinding satellite. Bound to get a little prickly finding something to believe.
Can’t help you, buddy. You’re flying solo.
DS – if you had listened they need to determine the hydrology and water licences using NT scientists who just might need some climate input. Really you are great nong mate if you missed that – the entire viability is on this. And if you had listened, perhaps just moving there and ploughing a few paddocks up just isn’t that simple. But it would be too much to ask a marketer for an intelligent comment. Just throw the switch to vaudeville eh?
SO DS as a typical unhelpful marketing denialist when asked to help with a very practical climate issue – you fade.
To highlight your total ignorance CSIRO have done massive amounts of work in that NT environment actually. Go back to content free marketing mate.
James – what evidence do YOU have that it’s actually right except Solomon’s rant. Surely you’re not accepting some leftie scientists’ work are you?
And what new grasslands are sprouting up – your proof is what?
Alas for you some of us might know few things about the NOAA satellite series and NDVI – you clearly don’t. And isn’t it fascinating that normally you would automatically say the science is bunk and all the scientists are corrupt if the message didn’t suit you. But anything you like you’ll gobble it TOTALLY uncritically. hmmmmm
Marcus, here’s a clue to help dissect the science. Analyze the rhetoric of those who do understand the science discussing it. Pretend they are not discussing science, but rather the placement of a new bike path or something else from which you can divorce your emotions. Then watch the tone and logic.
The warmistas are struggling with the rhetoric now. They have found their settled science unsettling and are mostly reduced to abuse, now.
======================
El Creepo. Lag is lag mate.
Also, since you mob are right into proxies, Bristle cone pines an’ other arcana obscura….
How about takin’ a gander at Sediments from Anoxic fjords instead, which show better correlation with solar activity than CO2….
Ice cores, after all are fraught wi’ problems, as we all know. Contamination, compression problems, leakage, chemical reactions, etc.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M
Trees as thermometers! could never figure the logic in that one meself….. as Rain gauges maybe?…. anyways, Speakin’ of trees Creepo.
…You figured out a position on that hockey stick thingy of Mannes? Or are you still clutching it Golum like to yer bosom?
I never claimed that it was new grassland sprouting, I am just pointing out that even your hypothetical “iffy” interpretation is a boon for the world.
The real advances were tundra transforming into boreal forest.
It’s a shame really that you and your fellow boof heads main thesis about co2 is a crock. It would’ve been nice for Canadians to have more living space, instead of all that miserable cold tundra.
Loved this one.
“They’re not worried about losing their jobs in an environmentalist-driven recession. They know that if they get laid off from the alternative music store, they can always go clerk at the Gaia Vegan Market or Wiccans ‘R’ Us.”
“Kidmans are shutting down till it rains. Amazing stuff.”
Getting plenty of rain here in Colorado. I thought you warmers insisted on calling this kind of stuff “weather”. Or is it weather when it contradicts your purpose and climate when it serves it?
I love the mileage (that would be kilometerage for you I suppose) that creepy gets out of one wiki page. Quite the manure spreader he is.
Creepy you would have made one heck of a preacher. You missed your call mate.
Some of my best online buds are scientists. I would never make the sweeping claim, that they are corrupt bunk peddlers.
You will have to watch that tendency toward putting words in your opponent’s mouth. That sort of behavior tends to boomerang, and lead to your discredit. Then you might be forced to start wearing disguises just to show your face in public.
Or start over altogether, with a new identity.
Creepy: “So the whole CO2 in ice cores stuff is pretty irrelevant to the present”
This *is* funny as the ice cores get dragged out time and time again by the AGW crowd.
So the ice cores aren’t relevant. What else you got Creepy? Oh yes some simplified computer models of the air ocean system. That ignore biological effects. The 23 different models differ from each other. Mind explaining why if they are all physics based? Are there 23 different kinds of physics?
Tilo your last comment is idiotic.
J. Hansford, Tilo, James and Eyrie – here’s a threshold test of your intelligence.
There’s some obvious deception and doggy doo in http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M that J. Hansford gullibly listed.
You get a point for each porkie. We’ll see how dumb you hillbillies are.
Eyrie modelers describe their creations as quasi-realistic models of a virtual world. So once we are convinced models are an absolute truth the next step is to convince us that “Second Life” is the true reality. Perhaps soon we will believe the Earth is flat and rides on back of four elephants which are on the back of a giant tortoise. We just have to have the right equations and consensus and there we all go. As for the entity of many names it offers essentially a religious argument. Do not ever question, or try to understand here is the holy writ believe or face everlasting damnation and burn in everlasting hell. Hmmm Satan also has many names I wonder.
“Creepy you would have made one heck of a preacher. You missed your call mate.”
Funnily enough – either that or marketing. In his more lucid and sane moments, he does have one or two essential maketing molecules: namely, not being put off by the fact that the ‘product’ is complete and utter bull$shit – he keeps plugging away, no matter what. So you have to give him “E” for effort on that score.
However, most successful marketers know when a cause is lost and when to engage in ‘tactical retreat’ – no sign of that molecule here – and as a result, I suspect that no-one is listening much any more. You will notice that his two poodles that come in and go “woof woof” occasionally seem to have disappeared as well.
And finally – every successful marketer knows how to ‘close the deal’. Definitely no sign of that molecule at all.
The global atmosphere doesn’t know about markets or deals.
“The global atmosphere doesn’t know about markets or deals.”
Are you serious? Have you cleared this outrageous statement with Blood & Gore?
http://www.efinancialnews.com/homepage/content/2350035784
Scum, you didn’t understand what Creepo said at all, did you. Of if you did, you just followed the standard MO, blame Gore.
D Scum, your reference to Gore’s fund raising is bit dated. He actually raised about US$680m, and is the Chairman of this new fund. There was an article about it in ” The Economist” about three weeks ago.
Not a bad scam is it,run around the world beating up the AGW scare, produce a film full of half truths and exagerations,( and found wanting by a court of law and forced to make 9 corrections).
Is supported by Hansen who just happens to be a top official of the NASA unit, which cooks the climate record to suit, ie all corrections made to the record have conveniently been in the direction of hotter.
There are only a few questions remaining:
1. On what is the Gore fund going to invest this money.
2. How many shares does Gore himself have and/or bought, and at what price.
3. Why isnt this fund and Gore’s involvment in it illegal. After all his AIT film was a prospectus writ large,designed to induce people to later invest in a scheme that he makes very material gains out of.
So the global atmosphere and the leading AGW mouth pieces know a lot about the markets and deals- just ask Gore and Hansen
Woof! Woof!
“So the global atmosphere and the leading AGW mouth pieces know a lot about the markets and deals”
Yeah — it’s amazing how hypocritical these AGW fruit-loops are about marketers. If it wasn’t for the self-promotion marketing efforts of their #1 pin-up boy, all these parasites would have to get a real job and do some real work.
“Have a look at the rainfall anomaly chart; there is no AGW effect there. In respect of temp, BoM use a 1961-90 base period; will someone tell me why Quirk and McLean’s paper on the Pacific Climate Shift pointing to a tainting of this base period is wrong?”
Australia is the size of continenal Europe of the USA. To say that rainfall hasn’t changed because the NW is getting more rainfall while the SE is getting less is stupid. It’s just the same as saying that if Italy is getting more rain and Germany less, it doesn’t matter.
The rain in the NW is no earthly use to wheat farmer in the Mallee.
“Woof! Woof!” Apparently, apart from simple minded attacks, you have nothing to offer.
“The rain in the NW is no earthly use to wheat farmer in the Mallee.”
Go back and re-read Marcus’ post – I think you’ll find that he wasn’t referring to the NW of Australia — not that facts are important in an AGW rant, of course.
“Woof! Woof!” Apparently, apart from simple minded attacks, you have nothing to offer.
Come on — you can’t keep just turning my arguments back at me. Be original, for a change!
Marketers – what a great waste of space – sub-prime floggers and con artistes.
Anyway all these prospectuses and devices are only of interest to a few of the naked apes inhabiting the planet. The global atmosphere doesn’t give a rats.
As usual when the boys bum out on the science – gets too hard for marketing brains we retreat to beating up the familar AGW celebrities. Yawn. Substitute for real thinking I guess. Throw the switch to vaudeville again.
SJT maybe we can open up a New Idea magazine equivalent for denialists – so instead of Brad and Angelina we can have the latest on Gore and Hansen. Is Gore having and affair with Angelina – I heard a rumour he was. Yes folks you heard it here first. We could flog this crap at the supermarket checkouts after appropriate marketing – lots of gun adverts, cross-bows, survivalist gear, white hoods and gowns, banjo music promotion, hillbilly grits recipes on page 4 – but on second thoughts let’s not – we’d have to deal with slimeball marketers and other grease merchants.
Hansford
A buddy of mine sent me this link where YOU CAN SEE the ever-changing effect of planetary orbits on the Sun and their relative positions at any point in time.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Solar
So for instance you want to see what the alignment of the outer planets was at various points along the the 75-90 year Gleissberg Solar Cycle, the 200-500 year Suess Solar Cycle, and the 1,100 year Bond Solar Cycle, you just plug in the dates. Then it shows you the effect this would have on the relative position of the sun in it’s orbit around the center of gravity of the solar system.
Could be a neat thing to tinker with.
“Marketers – what a great waste of space – sub-prime floggers and con artistes.”
That may all be true — but of course in your rush to simply spew venom, you miss the point (yet again).
The sub-prime floggers and con artistes wouldn’t last for a nanosecond if it weren’t for the maxim attributed to P.T Barnum: “there’s a sucker born every minute”. For every con-job to succeed, there has to be a whole lot of gullible morons out there prepared to subscribe to it.
And so it is with AGW — Al Gore (like you) must spend a whole lot of time ROTFL – albeit at a much higher rate of remuneration.
If there werent so many weak-minded, gullible idiots out there prepared to lap up all this AGW nonsense, he would be just another failed politican.
So you admit being a con artist then – even approve it seems.
So if you know AGW is nonsense why are you wasting your time on it? Isn’t there some marketing to be done?
Just watching the freak show …
El Creepo… Hmm can’t you find a better Internet handle than that?…
I feel slightly soiled every time I am forced to indulge you in your sadomasochistic self flagellation when addressing you… But I’ll press on regardless….
Anyway, read this by Keith Windshuttle the editor of the Quadrant magazine. Also a historian of good renown.
http://quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=3936
…. also Creepo there is the huge problem for the AGW hypothesis… indeed Green house hypothesis… In that the Satellite and Radiosonde data does not support the computer models as relates to Tropical Tropespheric warming, it’s rate and magnitude… Indeed it’s observable reality…
Lubos has an interesting piece on that.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radiosondes.html
Ok El Creepo… I’ll leave yer to readin’ that.
hmmm that Nom de Plume o’ yours! It’s just terrible… How about Dearhart or something? That way I can feel kindly towards you.
DS the depth of the stupidity just shown by EC is profound. I have met boulders who were more intelligent EC is really not worth the bother.
Ray Evens wrote that Quadrant piece that I attributed to Editor Keith Windshuttle…. Oops and D’oh!
“DS the depth of the stupidity just shown by EC is profound. I have met boulders who were more intelligent EC is really not worth the bother.”
You’re right – and I suspect that most people contributing to (and reading) this blog are all well aware of that.
It’s unfortunate that he choses this blog as a forum for his anti-social intimidation tactics, which just turns people off and prevents them from contributing. Presumably he gets something out of it – although I shudder to think just what that might be.
Thanks fer that link James Mayeau. I’ll play with it.
DS I have lots of people complaining to me that your style is actually the intimidating one and your persistent refusal to make an intelligent comment is repulsive like your non de plume.
J. Hansford esq (and must we be so formal) – whaddya reckon about the new moniker – eh eh? Are you going to ask DS to change his tag too? How about “Boofhead” perhaps? No James has the copyright on that.
Lordy me – not Ray Evans – I thought he wass extinct. Is he still banging on. He must miss the Cold War and the Western Mining days. Ah yes.
And would it not be par for the course for Pielke to have a comment immediately on absolutely everything. I mean he is God after all ! And all Lubos can do is parrot it?
Hey DS what contribution does string physics make to society anyway? More than marketers at least.
Feel better now ?
Tantrum all done is it — or have we been into the red cordial again?
Grow up!
El Creepo lift your game Ray Evans is infinitely more convincing than you are. What you are writing is not winning the argument so why continue? Are you really the ignorant yobo you appear to be?
SJT; you’ll have to do better than call people stupid, gadfly, especially when you’re looking into a mirror; since you and creep, Sweety pie, tinker-bell, have trouble reading a chart, let me spell it out; there has been no anomalous rainfall in the MDB or South-Eastern Australia; there has been anomalous rain in WA; what we have are people complaining about normal climate patterns; nothing wrong with that; it’s the O’Hannaran syndrome; what is reprehensible is saying the harshness dished up by mother-bitch-nature is humanity’s fault via AGW; now go back to the BoM website and follow the guides starting here;
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/timeseries.cgi?variable=rranom®ion=mdb&season=0112
That is utterly pathetic Cohenite. If you are throwing this up as an analysis. Far out dude. This is what the MDB looks like mate.
http://environment.gov.au/water/publications/mdb/pubs/mdb-map.pdf
No why do you think the Murray inflows are record low if the rainfall has been fine eh? Mate you have zero idea. I really am shocked. Seriously.
Let me spell it out – you’re a dope.
SAID HANRAHAN
by John O’Brien
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church, ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about,
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock, and crops, and drought,
As it had done for years.
“It’s looking crook,” said Daniel Croke;
“Bedad, it’s cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad.”
“It’s dry, all right,” said young O’Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran
“It’s keepin’ dry, no doubt.”
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.”
“The crops are done; ye’ll have your work
To save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o’-Bourke
They’re singin’ out for rain.
“They’re singin’ out for rain,” he said,
“And all the tanks are dry.”
The congregation scratched its head,
And gazed around the sky.
“There won’t be grass, in any case,
Enough to feed an ass;
There’s not a blade on Casey’s place
As I came down to Mass.”
“If rain don’t come this month,” said Dan,
And cleared his throat to speak –
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“If rain don’t come this week.”
A heavy silence seemed to steal
On all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed a piece of bark.
“We want an inch of rain, we do,”
O’Neil observed at last;
But Croke “maintained” we wanted two
To put the danger past.
“If we don’t get three inches, man,
Or four to break this drought,
We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.”
In God’s good time down came the rain;
And all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane
It drummed a homely tune.
And through the night it pattered still,
And lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill
Kept talking to themselves.
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.
It pelted, pelted all day long,
A-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song
Way out to Back-o’-Bourke.
And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“If this rain doesn’t stop.”
And stop it did, in God’s good time;
And spring came in to fold
A mantle o’er the hills sublime
Of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet,
With harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
Nid-nodding o’er the fence.
And, oh, the smiles on every face,
As happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey’s place
Went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel
Discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed his piece of bark.
“There’ll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.”
Hanrahan was an optimist
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/statements/scs14.pdf Try figures 1,2, 3
http://www.greenhouse2007.com/downloads/keynotes/071002_Mummery.pdf slides 5 & 6
http://www.greenhouse2007.com/downloads/keynotes/071004_Cai.pdf Slides 3,4,5,6,7,8 – especially slide 4
http://www.mdbc.gov.au/__data/page/1366/Drought_Update_Issue_13_-_May_2008.pdf Oh look – it’s still a problem !!
Wakey wakey …
Then go and find out why …
David W. J. Thompson and Susan Solomon (3 May 2002) Interpretation of Recent Southern Hemisphere Climate Chang, Science 296 (5569), 895. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1069270]
Shindell, D. T., and G. A. Schmidt (2004), Southern Hemisphere climate response to ozone changes and greenhouse gas increases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/2004GL020724.
Cai, W. (2006), Antarctic ozone depletion causes an intensification of the Southern Ocean super-gyre circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03712, doi:10.1029/2005GL024911.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2006), SAM and regional rainfall in IPCC AR4 models: Can anthropogenic forcing account for southwest Western Australian winter rainfall reduction?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L24708, doi:10.1029/2006GL028037.
Cai, W., T. Cowan, M. Dix, L. Rotstayn, J. Ribbe, G. Shi, and S. Wijffels (2007), Anthropogenic aerosol forcing and the structure of temperature trends in the southern Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14611, doi:10.1029/2007GL030380.
Power, S. B., and I. N. Smith (2007), Weakening of the Walker Circulation and apparent dominance of El Niño both reach record levels, but has ENSO really changed?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L18702, doi:10.1029/2007GL030854.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2008), Evidence of impacts from rising temperature on inflows to the Murray-Darling Basin, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L07701, doi:10.1029/2008GL033390.
Cai, W., and T. Cowan (2008), Dynamics of late autumn rainfall reduction over southeastern Australia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L09708, doi:10.1029/2008GL033727.
Trimbal et al. (2008) Final report for Project 1.1.2 for the South East Australian Climate Initiative – Final report for Project 1.1.2 “Compare documented climate changes with those attributable to specific causes” http://www.mdbc.gov.au/subs/seaci/Final_report_for_Project_1.1.2.pdf
Rainfall increases in northern Australia http://www.science.org.au/events/australiajapan/rotstayn.pdf
Rotstayn, L. D., et al. (2007), Have Australian rainfall and cloudiness increased due to the remote effects of Asian anthropogenic aerosols?, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D09202, doi:10.1029/2006JD007712.
Here’s a few paragraphs from the Financial Post.
An arm and a leg by Peter Foster.
Let’s say that a bunch of tribal chiefs, having realized that they are in danger of being exposed as useless parasites, consult with their witch doctors and announce that the Gods are angry. These vengeful Gods are demanding that every tribesman (except chiefs and witch doctors)must have either an arm or a leg amputated.
Being eager to be seen as good chiefs, they agree to consult with the tribesmen. Not about the anger of the Gods, of course. That’s settled. Instead, debate is to be allowed on the relative merits and defects of being one-armed vs. one-legged. Should individuals be allowed to choose which limb to lose? How much of a limb should be sufficient for divine appeasement? Below the knee? Above the elbow? Some bright spin/witch doctor might even suggest that this mass amputation would represent a marvellous opportunity to stimulate economic growth via the development of a prosthetic limb industry. Once the benefits of this new industry were taken into account, the Gods’ anger might prove a net benefit, a golden opportunity.
But then suppose some emperor’s-new-clothes kind of individual comes along and says, “Hang on, what proof do we have the Gods are angry? And where are these Gods anyway?” You might be sure that if they couldn’t rip his heart out straight away, the powers that be would engage in much agitated jumping and hooting. “Infidel,” they would scream. There would be dark whispers that this person must be in league with, or in the pay of, the Devil, X’on. How dare he doubt the shamans, among whom there is consensus.
Just substitute “catastrophic climate change” for “angry gods,” carbon taxes vs. cap-and-trade for amputating arms vs. amputating legs, and “Denier” for “Infidel,” and you pretty much have the substance of the present climate change policy debate.
http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=496cb7cf-8c84-4df6-9264-4bd3be1ea064
You can read the rest here.
Malcolm Hill, I believe Lord Monckton claims that Gore can’t talk about AIT in England because of his fund. To talk about AIT would be peddling a false prospectus.
=================================
“Here’s a few paragraphs from the Financial Post.
An arm and a leg by Peter Foster.”
Fortunately, that’s why we have a scientific process, which ensures that all claims are backed by evidence.
SJT
So where is the evidence for global warming?
Yeah, I’m a dope, I can’t spell Hanrahan;
Hanrahan had a certain inflexibility about him, but I won’t go the ad hominem route and extrapolate to others; I read your first link to the Special Climate Statement 14; in the MDB, the 6 years ending in Oct 2007 were the EQUAL driest 6 year period on record, being the same as the 1939-45 period. Do you live on another planet? It was this dry and hot nearly 70 years ago; was that too the fault of AGW? Or, as per your recital, is this just a whinge about how we should be more supportive of our rural producers; or at least those not in the NW?
Good paper, oh Creepy One.
“For large parts of southern and eastern Australia, dry conditions have now persisted since October
1996, a total of eleven years. For some areas, the accumulated total rainfall deficit over this period
now exceeds a full year’s normal rain.
For the agriculturally important Murray-Darling Basin, however, October 2007 marks the sixth
anniversary of lower than average rainfall totals, with the November 2001 to October 2007 period
being its equal driest such six-year period on record.
This extreme dry period for the Murray-Darling Basin has also been accompanied by high
temperatures, exacerbating the low rainfall. Both daytime maximum and daily mean temperatures
for the six years from November 2001 to October 2007 have surpassed the previous records by a
considerable margin.”
Spells it all out pretty clearly, unless, of course, they are in on the conspiracy too. Which of course they are. For the money. And because they hate those farmers. And they like Mao.
Kowtowing to El Creepo SJT?
We know you allege skills in computing, but English comphrehension?
Your quote above is pure Humphrey Appleby prose.
Neither for, nor against.
Only the undiscerning rabble, er sorry, cognescinti could elucidate the subleties.
No no no.
Figure 3 in BoM report shows how long this water drought has been building – how Murray headwaters have lowest on record areas. And many individual years as well.
We’re now at 12 years and still going.
There some worst on record stuff in it especially in Murray headwaters. Temperatures are higher and Murray Darling inflows are now lowest on record by a country mile. Read the other references mate.
Cohenite you have a narrow perspective that stops you looking around. There is much more to runoff than rainfall. Stream flow = rainfall – evaporation – antecedent conditions.
Slide 4 in Cai pdf puts the 1934 period third at not even second. The Federation drought was 2nd worst for inflow. Now there is another year to this sequence.
Further you have not read the accompanying science nor digested it.
Finally the issue is simply this – does the science tell us that there is a likely significant anthropogenic influence (that’s contribution – not ALL) to Australian rainfall declines.
If it does we need to take it into account with planning. (Says nothing about carbon taxes or whatever else in mitigation). And the mechanisms behind the MDB drought, eastern Australian rainfall decline, and SW WA rainfall decline are all mechanistically inter-related. So if was worse in the dim past – say the 1700s or MWP it can get even worse !
I would be surprised if you took the time to digest what I’ve tabled you at least be very suspicious.
“If it does we need to take it into account with planning.”
Says it all, really.
Anyway Cohenite
Here’s a free kick for you to make amends.
Hurst phenomenon ?
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.48.1.3.43481
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/849
http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/537/
“Finally the issue is simply this – does the science tell us that there is a likely significant anthropogenic influence (that’s contribution – not ALL) to Australian rainfall declines.”
That’s the issue? This is the new ‘science’??
It’s no longer AGW — it’s now ‘Anthropogenic Local Warming Confined to MDB and SW-WA’.
‘ALWC2MDB&SWWA’? From a marketing perspective, this acronym is a disaster.
You fruit-loops get funnier by the day.
How did you interpolate to “Anthropogenic Local Warming Confined to MDB and SW-WA”. So you would expect AGW not to have local effects. It might work by NOT having local effects? That the whole world should experience a uniform change. I guess that’s what you’re implying.
Wow – are you on smack as well as being a moron?
I don’t adhere to the AGW religion, so I don’t have any expectations of it.
Sorry … love to sit here and trade ad hominems with you, but I have a big day tomorrow. Have to get on the road early to pay enough taxes to keep the whackos who dream this stuff up in a job.
In the meantime, I’ll leave you in your loose orbit around the planet Reality.
Free kicks? Good o; had a feeling climate was stochastic; now I’ve got a term, Hurst; and from good old Koutsoyainnis. Here’s an ambiguous kick for you; seems to have a bit of the Ruddiman about it; only Haberle takes it back 2 million years; that’s a lot of retrospective guilt.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/ausdrought.html
Psst! [Hey, guys! Now’s our chance!] We’ll start a rumor they’d been calling in sick and looked depressed, had had abysmal Halo scores, had been playing with sharp objects…
“That the whole world should experience a uniform change. I guess that’s what you’re implying.”
Well – here’s yet another example of why anyone with a brain has difficulty in accepting any of this AGW fruit-loop nonsense.
The frauds & liars over at RealClimate are very specific about this global vs. local issue, and use this as their argument to discredit the MWP in support of their Hockey Stick fraud:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=33&langswitch_lang=sp
And then you come dribbling into the picture and rant about how global warming doesn’t really have to be global after all.
So – who do we believe? The frauds & liars, or the dribblers?
AGW ‘science’ is like something out of Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word, it means exactly what I say it means”.
“Malcolm Hill, I believe Lord Monckton claims that Gore can’t talk about AIT in England because of his fund. To talk about AIT would be peddling a false prospectus.”
KIM, thanks for that little gem.
I cant see how it would not also be the case in the USA and Australia either.
Whats the betting that some of Gores acoloytes are in on the same deal, if not immediately, then on a promise for an allocation when they leave their influential public sector posts.
…and to think that the more obsessed warmanistas would get their knickers in twist over Exxon.
Its a laugh a minute.
“I would be surprised if you took the time to digest what I’ve tabled you at least be very suspicious.”
Like pearls before swine.