I GATHER Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of Australia’s right of centre party, the Australian Liberal Party, is planning to instruct his senators to support the Emissions Trading Scheme when the Australian federal parliament next sits… ostensibly because business wants certainty.
And last Saturday, the only member of that party that has spoken out against the consensus position on anthropogenic global warming, Dennis Jensen, appears to have lost Liberal Party pre-selection for his seat of Tangney in Western Australia. He was the only sitting member to be challenged.
Meanwhile the independent Senator, Steve Fielding, has written to every Australian senator urging them to look at the above graph and ask themselves the key question: What is driving climate change?
Senator Fielding has suggested if they can’t answer that simple question they shouldn’t be voting for the emissions trading scheme.
He has also suggested it’s the biggest economic decision in this country’s history, one which is too important to vote along party lines.
**********
Notes and Links
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/the-real-reason-ill-fight-in-the-senate-on-climate-change
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/19/2629985.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2630335.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer, this graph gives the false impression, that 25 ppm change of CO2 should cause an immediate temperature rise of 0.6°C.
could you please adda second graph, giving a slightly more realistic slope for the CO2 line?
it is easy to do with woodfortrees. for example like this:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/offset:-343/scale:0.01/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995
this is another version. i take 25 ppm as about a 0.2°C equivalent, and i added a trend line. looks perfect to me.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/offset:-327/scale:0.008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/trend
I think you should be a bit ashamed, Jennifer, that you can’t read or interpret a graph correctly. Your temperature data is from HadCRUT; starting in 1995, to the present, a linear fit to the data reveals a trend of about +0.1°C/decade. So, why did you title the graph “But global temperature isn’t rising!”? I do hope you’ll be changing it to something more accurate and less embarrassing.
So why was Dennis jensen deselected?
I notice that an amateur astronomer has just discovered a dark spot on Jupiter. Once again, an dedicated amateur has made a scientific observation way ahead of government funded scientists. The dark spot on Jupiter is an immediate and measureable reduction in radiation reflected from the surface and is a perfect opportunity to verify the solar sunspot effect on climate.
This is a properly scaled chart from 1958.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/plot/esrl-co2/to:1958/scale:0.012/offset:-3.8
Greenhouse theory – +0.89C = 3/ln(2)*ln(387/315)
Actual temp increase – +0.4C
—————————
Which makes the properly scaled chart from 1995 this one.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/scale:0.012/offset:-3.8
Sod et al,
I have reproduced what I understand to be the graph that Senator Fielding has sent to all the Senators – title and all.
Jen, is Fielding’s graph from the satellite record? It appears to be. But his critics seem to like quoting from the surface record which implies that recent years have been very warm in comparison with the 150 years of surface thermometer records.
You might like to check out Joseph D’Aleo’s recent piece on this issue on Icecap website. It shows that the near-record temperatures of the recent surface record are in conflict with the cooler temperatures of the satellite record:
“Wednesday, July 15, 2009
NOAA’S and GISS’s Hot Streaks Continue – Despite Satellite Sensed Cooling
By Joseph D’Aleo CCM, AMS Fellow.
NOAA has as expected announced that June 2009 for the globe was the second warmest June in 130 years, falling just short of 2005. NASA GISS which starts with NCDC GHCN and then adds their own special touches had this June the second warmest on record just behind 1998.
In SHARP contrast, NASA UAH MSU satellite assessment had June virtually normal (+0.001C or 15th coldest in 31 years) and RSS (+0.075C or 14th coldest in 31 years)”
There is considerably more in a similar vein about this issue in this piece.
Caveat: the satellite record has some limitations of its own. It only goes back 30 years, compared with about 150 for the surface record. And the satellite data evidently has to be spliced together from several satellites: see Steve McIntyre piece “RSS vs UAH (etc.)” on Climate Audit July 18. Still, the satellite data makes one wonder whether the surface data is contaminated by the urban heat island effect. If so, Fielding would be justified in using the satellite data, as he appears to have done.
“I have reproduced what I understand to be the graph that Senator Fielding has sent to all the Senators – title and all.”
True – but I think that what some people are proposing is that Fielding has sent an erroneous graph, if you agree that this is the case then why reproduce it without a caveat explaining that is contain errors?
If you don’t agree that it is in error perhaps you can provide advice as to what valid statistical analysis method was used to produce the pair of axis?
Dropping a graph in like that is pure bunk. We’ve been over this about 100 times have we not.
It’s pure propaganda and failure of duty of care to add more information.
Surely we know by now that the climate system has an interdecadal pattern. Hands up who didn’t know.
If we remove the land based temperatures (bye bye UHI) and look at the two long term ocean data sets http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008411.shtml and more recent improvements we see 3 major patterns since 1850 – a long run centennial signal, a PDO-ENSO type effect, and an AMO like effect.
In any case let’s look at North America trends minus the crap stations and looking at other data
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#play/all/uploads-all/0/dcxVwEfq4bM
What Anthony doesn’t tell ya !
I think we know it’s warmed since the 1800s. And that the warming continues. Anything else is pure denial of the worst order. And we do NOT expect warming to be monotonic or runaway or any other lying denialist try-ons.
Bill; in lieu of David Stockwell’s new paper, submitted to the prestigious Journal of Forecasting, and which finds a statistical justification for a break in the temperature history at 1998 this may be a better comparison with CO2;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/scale:0.012/offset:-3.8/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
luke, I expect rubbish from sod and PB but for you to claim Fielding’s graph is false when Wong came out with her cracker-a-jack graphs for OHC and sea levels is a bit rich.
I certainly will not be voting for the liberals if turnbull remains in charge and they support this ETS , which, irrespective of your beliefs in AGW, will achieve nothing but harm for the Australian economy, for no gain. Does anybody seriously believe an ETS will bring about a change in temperatures??!!
You guys had best be a bit cautious about adjusting graphic scales because we all know how anomaly graphs can deliver totally irrelevant crap. Graph the past 150 years global temperature series on a scale that incorporates the annual minimim temperature in Antarctica and the annual maximum in the Simpson Desert (the full range of relevant records) and we get much ado about nothing at all.
Graph the change for any location over the past 150 years on a scale that incorporates the annual maximum and the annual minimum and, again, we get much ado about nothing at all.
Anomaly graphs have no place in the policy process because they are only “partial and fragmentary statements of fact”, ie, they misrepresent the truth.
Coho – did not say it was false. I am saying it is a distortive cherry pick. I am simply saying that an analysis of two almost independent sea temperature data sets give the same inescapable conclusion. The world has warmed over the last 150 years with periodic pauses. Interdecadal phenomena explain the other variations.
And why except if you were hiding something would you not publish climate science in a climate journal. obviously you’re determined to keep it a secret. Probably too hard for you to get into GRL – wouldn’t pass the stats reviewer I’m afraid? As for prestigious – only to the editors? Ha !
Motty – err nope. Incorrect massively. Small differences in SSTs in the order spoken about change the world’s atmospheric circulation and rainfall, and on land change growing seasons and more slowly ecological zones, . Any appeal to teensy weensification is simply silly and irrelevant. Anomaly graphs are exactly the statistical measure needed unless you’re hiding something.
Toby – an Aussie alone ETS change in temperatures – err nope ! Zilch. May even increase. But that is irrelevant to whether the climate science is correct or not. One should not confound the two.
I thought I was providing additional useful information by including the graph and comment from Senator Fielding.
But I start the piece and title the piece with what I consider the new information including that: “I GATHER Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of Australia’s right of centre party, the Australian Liberal Party, is planning to instruct his senators to support the Emissions Trading Scheme when the Australian federal parliament next sits… ostensibly because business wants certainty.”
Is there any disagreement on this? Big and breaking news?
Toby, I’m with you there.
Is Turnbull just as big a twit as kRudd, or is he a coward, following what he thinks is the public opinion? What ever it is, his party has no chance of getting my vote with him playing puppy dog to krudd.
Unfortunately it is becoming more obvious, as time goes by, that he is just not too bright, not up to the job, at all.
At the most challenging time since WW11, it is unfortunate that the US, UK, & Oz all have their weakest leadership, in living memory, & even worse, have no obvious alternative offering.
The fact is Fielding was right; 1998 was a watershed for indicating the that AGW is baloney; the government has responded with gibberish and been let off the hook by a disgracefully compliant msm; as for business; the BCA has been a sell-out and most companies have been pusillanimous and willing recipients of Karoly’s infamous letter advisng all coal and fossil fuel companies have to close down and offering to assist for a hefty fee; Karoly has been quite recently no doubt off somewhere salivatating over his $1 million plus government grant for research into AGW. Basically corporate Australia has had its collective head somewhere dark and stupid for the duration of the AGW debate and are persisting in their ignorance or shame as this indicates;
http://www.ipa.org.au/news/1672/blame-ets-on-business/category/4
With Jensen gone, Barnaby is the only one left and he is firmly in the cross feathers of the psycho-chickens; for real backbone these guys are the only ones around;
http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/
The grotesque momentum of the AGW political movement is very close to a critical mass.
The politicians smell vast monies off of it, and huge power to redistribute favors.
Business is tossing in the towel, in too many cases.
Only when people like Pickens face the stark reality of AGW fraud do they blink, but since most profiteers are only risking other people’s money, few actually care.
But it still may fail in a way that will limit the damage the mania can do.
In the long run AGW will fail because it is junk.
But in the short term, a lot of harm can be done.
It’s time Wong’s reply to Fielding was more closely scrutinised, especially this part;
“Ocean heat content
Most of warming since 1960 (about 85 percent) has happened in the oceans. Thus, in terms of a single indicator of global warming, change in ocean heat content is the most appropriate.
The change in ocean heat content since 1960 is shown in the figure below. Note the significant warming trend since 1998.
An analysis of a 42-year record of change in ocean heat content (from 1962 to 2003) shows that over half of the total increase during that period occurred in the last 10 years of the period (1993-2003). That is, the rate of change of ocean heat content has risen sharply over the past 15 years. So, not only is the heat content of the oceans increasing, it is increasing faster”
This is unmitigated junk; from a minister of the crown it is culpable; Wong’s assertions about OHC are contradicted by NOAA;
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
confirmed by Loehle;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/loehle_ocean_heat_content.png
And this is without considering what is obviously an artifact in the data between 2002 and 2003 which shows a rise in OHC over one year which is greater than the combined rise over the rest of the data; if this outlier between 2002 and 2003 is removed from the graph what is left is an oscillation consistent with PDO and related SST fluctuation.
Wong’s sea level alarmism is of course contradicted by Jason-1 data. Senator Wong should step aside until these major errors in crucial information presented to the public are resolved.
Luke, even if the western world enters an ETS, it will achieve nothing. I suspect you know this as well? Unless we find a new alternative energy source, or use nuclear, it is not possible to reduce emissions.
We are being sold a political and social mine field. Y
Hunter I agree at some stage if its wrong AGW will run out of legs…but how much damage will be done in the mean time to our economies?…and the environment! just look at the damage being done in china
One thing is clear, so much argument over which statistical analysis to use to demonstrate AGW means one thing – the alleged warming is not observed.
If it were, and thus unambiguous, statistical manipulation of the data would be quite unncessary.
Pure junk science.
sorry i was not ready to send the above post… my final paragraph should have contained comments on the damage being done in china to their environment as they create all of our “green” fixes ie mercury light bulbs, wind turbines, white goods that are built to be thrown out and not repaired, printers that cost less than the replacement ink cartridges etc
Luke you say that an ETS and the science are seperate. I agree, that is why I stated irresepective of your views on AGW an ETS is a waste of time.
But it is very concerning that we are being so blatantly lied to and it is an even bigger worry that the only oppostion to this stupid idea is coming from Fielding, someone I could never consider normally voting for.
Where is the difference and where is the strength to make the labour party actually work in all of our interests and be accountable for their follies?
During the howard costello years, labour had very little to offer and were pretty much the laughing stock of any real critical thinkers. Today that honour goes to the liberals and the labour party which still looks pretty poor to me, is an infinitely better option than the current liberal party.
Hasbeen, its very sad isnt it that rudd almost looks good compared to turnbull…its equally sad that the same thing is happening in other western democracies. maybe it is time for a new political system and a paradigm shift. As an inherent fan of free markets and capitalism, it hurts me to say that!
“luke, I expect rubbish from sod and PB but for you to claim Fielding’s graph is false when Wong came out with her cracker-a-jack graphs for OHC and sea levels is a bit rich.”
Fieldings graph is cherry picking of the most infantile kind.
I think Turnbull probably wants to rid the party of dangerous malcontents of the Jensen type. His views on many subjects are extreme and marginal. He is a member of the fringe ‘Lavoisier Group’ and refused to attend parliament during the Prime Minister’s and Leader of The Opposition’s apology to the Stolen Generations. I seem to recall something about fundi Christian leanings but I could be wrong. Interesting to note that he was preceded in the seat by the moderate Daryl Williams, probably more the sort of stock that Mal is looking for. Who is the new candidate going to be?
The only mistake Fielding made was selecting 1995 as the starting point when in fact the break point in the temperature data was in 1998 as this shows on page 7;
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
C;learly from 1998 onwards temperature has been declining, despite CO2 going up;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-327/scale:0.008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend
Luke writes…”I think we know it’s warmed since the 1800s. And that the warming continues. Anything else is pure denial of the worst order. And we do NOT expect warming to be monotonic or runaway or any other lying denialist try-ons.”
Begging the question, if we do not exect “runaway” warming why the panic ?
Haven’t we been told ad nauseum by alarmists Hansen, Gore, Lovelock etc etc that we only have months to act before thermageddon engulfs us ?
It’s no wonder you guys are so angry. Jen points out to you that your natural politcal allies are gradually moving away from you (witness Jensen’s deep sixing) and you argue about a graph that no one except Sen. Fielding cares about. Talk about Quixotic. BTW I’d take bets that the good Sen. won’t hold his seat next time round.
Turnbull believes the consensus – we all know that.
The issue of the ETS Legislation passing or not is not actually about the ETS but about the politics of a Double Dissolution. Turnbull has recognised that no matter what your view on the ETS or GW/AGW/CC, the Coalition will be wiped out if an election were called now or in the near future. He desperately wants to avoid that. That is also why he passed the Alcopops Tax. He cannot afford to give them a trigger. Politics is the art of compromise. Thse compromises are being made to attempt to avoid political oblivion for the Coalition.
On the matter of Jensen’s preselection – Tagney is a blue ribbon Liberal seat. It is always going to have up and comers having a crack at it. Jensen isn’t gone until the fat lady (Liberal Party Council) sings. Watch this space.
pb
“I seem to recall something about fundi Christian leanings but I could be wrong.”
This is a the perfect smear!
If you are not sure don’t say anything!
The fact you did say it, means you are throwing mud and hope it sticks!
Despicable!
pb
“And is being a fundi Christian so bad you regard it as a smear”
I d do not regard it as such, but you obviously did, otherwise why mention it?
Marcus,
Well quite often fundi Christians hold views based on the stories related in their bible. Now some of these stories conflict with modern thinking, indeed some may not even be true, they may have been contructed for their pedacological value rather than as a verbatim record of events.
Nonetheless, some fundi Christians believe that their god speaks to them through their bible and that god continues to speak to them today and advise and direct their actions (witness the recent murder of a doctor in the US).
I don’t know if Dr. Jensen is of this ilk but in answer to you question, I think people who believe that their actions, even if dangerous to others, are justified solely on the contents of the bible or their abilty to perceive the will of their divine are at odds with the mainstream and are borderline insane.
It worries me that anyone of this type could hold a position of power.
Thus the comment is not a smear but a rational repsonse to a possible threat to the general commonweal of the community.
pb.
“borderline insane”
“the comment is not a smear but a rational repsonse (sic) to a possible threat to the general commonweal of the community”
Strange way to defend the charge of smearing!
And you DID think being a “fundi” christian is a despicable thing!
(you even have a derogatory word for it, must have a bee in your bonnet about Christians then? as all things bad were ever done by Christians only?)
I don’t know the man but have heard him a few times, and he came across all right to me, not at all religious, certainly not like the true AGW believers anyway.
Just make sure you don’t lump me in with religious groups, I happen to agnostic.
But I start the piece and title the piece with what I consider the new information including that: “I GATHER Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of Australia’s right of centre party, the Australian Liberal Party, is planning to instruct his senators to support the Emissions Trading Scheme when the Australian federal parliament next sits… ostensibly because business wants certainty.”
Is there any disagreement on this? Big and breaking news?
well, from the articles i looked at, the final decision seems to be still very unclear. it would of course be good, if they didn t get confused by the horrible Fielding graph.
the graph is important, because fielding claims that it convinced him, and because fielding is using it to convince others. but the graph is false, on many different levels. (caption, short term trend, different scaling of the two lines..)
Which makes the properly scaled chart from 1995 this one.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/scale:0.012/offset:-3.8
your claim is, that those 25 ppm of CO2 should cause instant warming of 0.35°C? i think that is a stretch!
Bill; in lieu of David Stockwell’s new paper, submitted to the prestigious Journal of Forecasting
Forecasting again? prestigious journal? like E&E, where Stockwell does normaly publish? for example when he does reply to pieces in “Science”?
http://landshape.org/enm/recent-climate-observations-disagreement-with-projections/
even if you manage to find a “breakpoint” in 1998, that isn t a reason to do climate research with 10 years of data.
“I happen to agnostic.”
should read of course “I happen to be agnostic.”
Sod
I prefer this graph
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/offset:-300/scale:0.01/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995
I prefer this graph;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
Although apparently Hansen, after he got out of jail, has demonstrated a new temperature wiggle graph as part of his street theatre solidarity with the young folk; here is a clip of him at work presenting the new temperature graph;
http://www.petplace.com/dog-videos.aspx?p=90
There has been an increase in chatter among the bed wetters revolving around the number 450, as in 450 ppm. I guess the word was passed to the flock that the number 350 had come and gone some decades ago without ecopalypse. About the only effect of the 350 ppm was the chief bed wetter had his sheets hung out in the air for public ridicule.
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal – I’ve never heard of that one before. You ever hear of it before? Sounds like one of those boutique shops, if you pay enough money they’ll print your paper no matter how full of crap you are.
How full of crap do you have to be to get rejected three times by a vanity printer? Ask the number one climate scientist in the world.
Thank Gaia for ArVix , right Jimmy?
And three cheers for peer review – heh heh heh.
Finally got a couple fair and impartial referees.
There was one thing that resulted from the co2 enrichment of the air beyond dispute. Primary plant production increased, the Earth became 6.2 % more bountiful. That was the change from 1980, so it’s the direct result of 35~40 ppm. What happens at the newly prescribed Obama target of 450 ppm? Can we extrapolate how much more verdant and fruitful our brave new world will be?
A computer generated image of that future, contrasted against the recent past, might be a useful visual aid for Senators Fielding and Jensen, especially if they are considering being the inaugural flag bearers for the Skeptic Party of Australia.
Here’s a kickoff point.
Now fancy that James! more co2 is good for us…now if only you could inform the EPA of this fact, they might recognise the stupidity of rewriting science and making co2 a pollutant!
““I happen to agnostic.”
should read of course “I happen to be agnostic.””
That’s OK Marcus, my capacity to resist pedantry is obviously greater than yours. Anyway I see that cherry picking is the default position for you guys when faced with a rational argument. I suppose that helps to avoid actually addressing any of the points I made. I still consider it odd when people claim to be guided by unseen forces, don’t you? Anyway being an agnstic (sic) you obviously have trouble making up your own mind so perhaps a bit of divine guidance is what you need.
Jennifer, as I have remarked before ,I speak to a lot of people who live on the land.
You are quite well known and admired and the idea of you having a go at politics is a good one.
However, in the meantime the National Party could do well to look to the views of its grassroots and stand alone . At the moment no-one but Sen Fielding actually represents them and the Nationals would be totally amazed at their recovery in the polls. The ramifications of the carbon religion are not even vaguely appreciated in “supermarketland”, out here they are terrifying.
Ian Thomson makes an interesting comment. If you are suggesting Ian that farmers are inclined to consider the interests of others as having equal value to there own I suggest you visit some. As exemplified by last nights “4 Corners” farmers only become conservationists when their own interests are threatened, I didn’t see a big movement by the farmer’s party to defend old growth forests for instance.
Most farmers are conservative agrarian socialists who shoot their welfare grasping hands out faster that a .22 bullet. It’s total bollocks to talk about the farmers as environmentalists, the Nationals are the heart and soul of the anti-environment movement. From what I’ve read on this site most of the farmer fanboys and girls have a somewhat romanticised view of this highly mechanised, heavily polluting, resource squandering industry.
This is the POV the liberals should have.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/17/european-look-at-cap-and-trade/
AGW is a religous concept and the antithesis of scientific analysis;
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2009/2630879.htm#transcript
And PB, as usual, reveals himself to be a bit of a supercilious goose; here is a take on Australian farming practice;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgqn56_TKKA&feature=channel_page
Parts 2 and 3 of the series are good value as well.
PatrickB,
Enjoy breakfast to-morrow Mate.
We ” highly mechanised, heavily polluting, resource squandering”, farmers are ceasing production.
Please, keep posting FOOL to prove your stupidity.
Pikey
“And PB, as usual, reveals himself to be a bit of a supercilious goose;”
It’s the company I keep. And really, you city boys need to go and have a chat with a cocky. If you’re lucky he’ll pick you up in the light aircraft, if not the ’09 Statesman. Then he’ll take you round the property in the Steiger, you know those things can pull a massive ripper. Takes out every living thing down to a metre, beautiful to watch.
Oh yes, it’s all conservation out in the wheat belt.
Honestly you guys seem to think the land and livestock are handled with kid gloves, well that’s not my experience and I suggest it’s not yours as none of you would know a hogget from a two tooth. Pathetic these city farmers.
“Enjoy breakfast to-morrow Mate.”
Why Ron, are you making it?
“Please, keep posting FOOL to prove your stupidity.”
I think that we’re all here for that reason, you a bit slow Ronny?
Interesting YouTube link, I didn’t watch it as soon as I realised it was Leon “Cato” Ashby. Heard him on Counterpoop talking to Duffers and the other guy. Seems he advocates the use of indentured labour, you know tenant farmers, payment in kind that sort of thing. I know it’s a bit of an old idea but there’s nothing wrong with maintaining tradition. pip , pip tallyho! Oh and when are we going to see the return of the hunt, you know the version where we go after poor people, some of the blighters can run!
Oh dear, PB has raised the red flag already; you gotta love that watermelon syndrome ; next time I see Leon I’ll address him as squire Ashby.
So……. why was Jensen deselected?
Red’s better than white Coho! And what this? Squire!! Such insolence, you’ll name him Lord boy or find yourself in the stocks!
“So……. why was Jensen deselected?”
As I said in one of the few rational comments, Mal is attempting to bring some sanity to the party and give them a fighting chance. But this is the Liberal party, they don’t do opposition.
Dr. Jensen was probably deselected because of local concerns with his electorate.
That said, his deleselection is a tragedy for the Liberal party – though I doubt whether
some in the leadership of that party are aware of consequences of this action.
Dr. Jensen gets my praise and gratitude because he is the only politician and scientist who has the guts to challenge the fiasco that has become known as AGW.
History will vindicate Dr. Jensen but he has paid a high price for standing up for the truth.
History will vindicate Dr. Jensen but he has paid a high price for standing up for the truth.
history will NOT vindicate him.
http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=284
i wonder how the Fielding theory of “no warming” will handle the current high temeparture.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadsst-highest-values-since-1998/
HadSST: Highest values since 1998
satellite data is also showing seriously high temperature..
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/channel-5-showing-warming-too/
I snowed in Buenos Aires the other day… First time in 89 years…. That’s some mighty strange warming we have.
As to Dennis Jensen. It is a sad loss. I’d say it was more a local electorate issue. But the Liberal party is the poorer for it….. Perhaps he should run as an independent…
Err.. that should read ‘ It snowed in Buenos Aires…. ” It has been a while since I used my super powers to control the weather;-)
J. Hansford – the other day? It was two years ago. Talk about clutching at straws.
SOD said: “…i wonder how the Fielding theory of “no warming” will handle the current high temeparture(sic)….” I think the current highs are the stake in the heart of the ACO2 theory, unless of course you can find an explanation of how ACO2 can react to the El Nino/ENSO in just a few days.
Of course Team-AGW will come up with something even more lame than the CC causes cooling excuse. The fact it is warming suddenly, does not readily support a man made cause. Think it through.
“I have reproduced what I understand to be the graph that Senator Fielding has sent to all the Senators – title and all.”
So, Jennifer, I take from that that you simply assumed the title was correct, you didn’t check the data for yourself to see if you were being taken for a ride or not, and you were not even aware that 13 years is not a meaningful period in climate terms. As I said in my original post, you should be ashamed that you can’t read or interpret a simple graph correctly.
Toby
The EPA round files that sort of information. I suppose I could picket out in front of their building…
“CO2 is plant food”
“Real science doesn’t need to silence their critics”
“Free Dr. Carlin. Let him out of the dungeon. Let him speak.”
some of the different signs I could carry.
Speaking of straws///
http://www.dglobe.com/event/article/id/25221/group/home/
International Falls sets new record low | Worthington Daily Globe
INTERNATIONAL FALLS – The temperature in “nation’s icebox” dropped to 37 degrees Sunday, enough to set the ninth record low of 2009. The previous record for July 19 was 43 degrees, set
in 1958.
Embarrass was the cold spot in the region Sunday with a low of 33. Besides International Falls, Crane Lake, Orr, Bigfork, Hibbing, and Eveleth also dropped to 37.
The National Weather Service said International Falls has had an average temperature of 57 degrees so far this month. The coldest July on record, in its entirety, was July 1992 with an average of 59.4 degrees.
About that current high temp from GISS and HadSST , Roger Pielke shows a couple animations, one of the Northern hemisphere, the other of the South, which are quite interesting.
He says,
Here’s the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml
Isn’t it winter in the south? How come the big hot spot in the southern ocean in the middle of winter?
Reminds me of that huge red hot Siberian winter from last year.
You remember – the one that GISS faked.
I mean what possible motive could climate changers have for concocting a hot spot in the most remote, uninhabited, and unlikely place on Earth? I mean besides that it isn’t likely to be checked by a neutral observer.
I think the current highs are the stake in the heart of the ACO2 theory, unless of course you can find an explanation of how ACO2 can react to the El Nino/ENSO in just a few days.
i happen to disagree. if this el Nino produces a serious warm spike over a long enough time, it will be the death-stake for these false short term “no warming since xxx” claims from the denialist side.
the el nino is obviously NOT caused by CO2. but the extra temperature is added to the extremely high base temperature of this decade, that you guys prefer to ignore.
a couple of new records will not change the trend in any significant way. but it will make things more difficult for charlatans like Fielding. (he claims “no warming” for the graph above, because the start point is higher than the end point. absurd methodology.)
The National Weather Service said International Falls has had an average temperature of 57 degrees so far this month. The coldest July on record, in its entirety, was July 1992 with an average of 59.4 degrees.
weather. climate. will you learn the difference one day?
Isn’t it winter in the south? How come the big hot spot in the southern ocean in the middle of winter?
Reminds me of that huge red hot Siberian winter from last year.
You remember – the one that GISS faked.
GISS did NOT fake anything. a minor error, that got corrected. the red spots in the south shows a warm anomaly, not warm temperature. if you figure out the difference, a lot of things that you did not understand so far will make sense……
James
I rather like the sign No nuclear= No problem. ( although they do of course use some nuclear in the states)
Somehow I don t really think you picketing outside the EPA would do any good. Actually its getting to the point that only 30-40 years more cooling will wake them up….
The libs have probably dumped Jensen because unlike the rest of the party he doesn’t believe the laws of physics can be changed by Act of parliament.
I’m sure Penny Wong et al believe they can and Peter Garrett’s mental image of a nuclear power station is a conveyor belt full of uranium running into a furnace.
Like Anna Bligh and Peter Beatty’s vision of clean coal. “They wash it don’t they?”
sod, you’re comments are unusually messy even for you; you say El Nino is obviously not caused by CO2; so you disagree with Meehl’s paper which luke has been championing? It’s true Fielding’s graph from 1995 is not consistent with his claims that CO2 and temp are trending differently but the 1998 situation does support his claim and this is noted in David Stockwell’s new ‘break’ paper. SST are linked to ENSO but again the indices are giving us contradictory information;
http://i480.photobucket.com/albums/rr165/magellansc24/HadSSTvsUAHocean.jpg
In any event the June HadSST are not exceptional with the 1998, 2003 and 2005 being higher;
http://i30.tinypic.com/2h7qpw6.png
Mayeau the moron – Here’s the Southern Hemisphere.
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml – it’s a height anomaly i.e. pressure – not temperature ! Wot a numb nuts.
Coho – Stockwell’s unpublished draft – is just statistical chicanery – offers no climate insights at all. (Not to mention a total lack of critical peer review)
Here’s a thought, maybe you guys can get Wilson Tuckey to stand in two seats. The man must make you fairly bar up with his powerful ejaculations on climate change and the ETS. I wish I was like you guys and had heros of the intellectual calibre of Ironbar, look at the fantastic job he’s doing to get your lot back into govt. Have a happy day!
““Free Dr. Carlin. Let him out of the dungeon. Let him speak.””
All he did was cut and paste a few web sites. He had nothing to say himself.
CO2 is plant food? What an infantile assertion. CO2 has chemical properties that take part in many different reactions. It is more than just ‘plant food’.
Grow up.
No don’t talk idiocy SJT. CO2 is in fact plant food. Its good for plants. Plants love it. And its somewhat troubling that in the longer scheme of things CO2 levels seem to be on the decline.
Without humans perhaps CO2 levels would continue to drop and bugger the planet up.
SOD said: “i happen to disagree. if this el Nino produces a serious warm spike over a long enough time, it will be the death-stake for these false short term “no warming since xxx” claims from the denialist side.
the el nino is obviously NOT caused by CO2. but the extra temperature is added to the extremely high base temperature of this decade, that you guys prefer to ignore….”
Of course you disagree, but obviously agree that the warming we see is “…NOT caused by CO2.” Which was my point. Read a little more closely, please. So what natural cause(s) is there for the recent June warming???
Luke and SJT, you too/two may join us in the discussion.
“No don’t talk idiocy SJT. CO2 is in fact plant food. Its good for plants. Plants love it. ”
Stupid.
I just said, it’s chemical properties mean it takes part in more reactions than just the ones that involve plants.
And as others have explained already, the growth of plants is not limited by just the amount of CO2 in the air. Adding more CO2 is not going to mean they don’t need water, a suitable temperature range and nutrients that need to be optimal as well.
Look CO2 is plant food. Get used to it. Yes its other things on top of that. But its plant food and it being plant food is a perfectly good way of describing the issue. Adding more CO2 means that the plants NEED LESS WATER. Extra CO2 EXPANDS the range of temperatures in which most plants can thrive.
Which shows how much you know.
I don’t quite know what point you were making. I mean if I have enough food it doesn’t mean I don’t need drink and air as well. Thats a bit of a trivial point that I’d be making if I made that point. Likewise you pointing out other things that CO2 is about in plants doesn’t detract from its plant food status.
It is akin to plant food. And a bit akin to plant air as well. But plant food is a pretty good description and you were wrong to gainsay the point.
Sjt said – …as others have explained already, the growth of plants is not limited by just the amount of CO2 in the air. Adding more CO2 is not going to mean they don’t need water, a suitable temperature range and nutrients that need to be optimal as well.
Glad you mentioned it ‘3PO. The rainfall total for 1997-1998 was 32.25 inches Along with the healthiest snow-pack within living history, we Californians were blessed with plenty of sunshine and bumper crops for our farmers.
So how did the “hottest” year in the history treat you Aussies? Did alright by us.
Sod said, “GISS did NOT fake anything. a minor error, that got corrected. the red spots in the south shows a warm anomaly, not warm temperature. if you figure out the difference, a lot of things that you did not understand so far will make sense……”
a major error that was never fully corrected and the flaky underhanded grudging way in which they made the pretense of correction would have never happened without Watts pointing out the chicanery and then spending some weeks pressing the point.
I understand fine dude. Better then you anyway.
“So how did the “hottest” year in the history treat you Aussies? Did alright by us.”
Drought.
PatrickB,
When I wrote about farmers I was 140kms north of Hay NSW. off the Cobb Hwy. Do not know if you have ever been out here , but this area is definitely not heavily mechanised mate . As for conservation, my home is in an irrigation area and I could show you,( from my window ,) stands of remnant trees which were illegally preserved by the landholders ,by paying Government ring barkers not to ring them.
I think you would even call them ‘old growth’.
sod said; July 21st, 2009 at 3:24 am
“this is another version. i take 25 ppm as about a 0.2°C equivalent, and i added a trend line. looks perfect to me.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1995/offset:-327/scale:0.008/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/trend”
Great stuff sod. But I have two queries, (1) why did you show only the trend line for Temps, and not for CO2 @ Mauna Loa? – perish the thought that the trend for the latter is above yours, suggesting weakening temp response to CO2? (2) why don’t you use regression analysis to produce a regression coefficient for Temps on CO2? The equation I get (data from 1959 to 2008) is
dTemp = -.20561 + .151778(dCO2). (t= 4.79, SE 0.03, F = 22.95, p-value 1.70001E-05)
The adj R2 is .3134, confirming Senator Fielding’s view that increases in CO2 are not the only determining factor, in fact it accounts for less than 33% of observed changes in temperature; the Durbin-Watson is well above 2, so no obvious auto correlation (as there is if you take absolute values for Temps and CO2).
Using this result confirms yours (if you had shown both trend lines) that temps are a declining function of rising CO2.
Hey James – how are you Californian denialist scummies coping the year 3 or drought going to year 4.
hahahahahahahahaha
woken up yet?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16516-drought-warning-as-the-tropics-expand.html
http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/archive/
Ian T.,
Patrick B wouldn’t know if his arse was punched, bored or et out with white ants.
He [like Luke] just can’t stand the thought of any self employed farmer getting help from govt or that private enterprise creates the country’s wealth.
Hey luke and sod and PB and the other flurries, how about a game of noughts and crosses;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
I love these graphs.
“So how did the “hottest” year in the history treat you Aussies? Did alright by us.”
SJT’s sage reply: “Drought.”
Read what the Australian Bureau of Met said about 1998 in its summary:
“Warmer land temperatures in 1998 were partly due to significantly above average ocean temperatures around Australia. Ocean temperatures rose during the demise of El Niño early in the year and the subsequent transition to weak La Niña conditions late in the year. Increased cloud cover also contributed to milder overnight temperatures and generally wetter than normal conditions through most of the country.”
So we did OK too, James.
Tim’s low p and R2 values for sod’s graph are also a measure of the post-1998 vitiation of the pseudo pre-1998 correlation; the thing about CO2 and temp correlation is that over th 20thC sometimes there are ocassional correlations because CO2 has been monotonically rising for this period but temp has been varying according to natural factors particularly PDO; during those periods when temp is naturally rising we get a false correlation between CO2 and temp which is why the break test devised by David Stockwell is highly appropriate for distinguishing statistically valid and false correlations with temp;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650
Hi James Mayeau,
Just delete comments from SJT as he sprouts anything that supports his crazy cause.
Whatever that is?
For the record;
During the last 12 months nearly two thisds of Australia have had above average rainfall, with many areas experiencing record and near record annual rain.
All rivers on our east coast have been in flood this year. Many several times.
Lake Eyre in central Australia which is mostly dry, still has water flowing into it from the north and is on track to fill to the highest level in 200 years.
Tasmania has been in flood for over a month and most of Victoria is average or above average rainfall.
S.W. Western Australia is also in great shape with above average winter rainfall.
Parts of central NSW and the Riverina (my home area and hi to Ian Thompson from ” Gods country”) still need drought breaking rain.
In general Australia is looking great and on track for record food and fibre production this year.
Pikey.
“During the last 12 months nearly two thisds of Australia have had above average rainfall, with many areas experiencing record and near record annual rain.
All rivers on our east coast have been in flood this year. Many several times.”
All meaningless cherry picking. We need above average rain for several years just to get back to the average. Victoria is still suffering from a long term lack of water, as are many irrigators.
Yeah! Shame on you Pikey! Cherry picking 2/3rds of Australia when most of the time you would be flat out getting half.
SJT you galah, what country did you say you lived in?
“Yeah! Shame on you Pikey! Cherry picking 2/3rds of Australia when most of the time you would be flat out getting half.”
He mentioned about 1/10th of it. Do you have any idea how big Australia is?
Careful Ron, surely you know anything above or below average is evidence of climate change!
“He mentioned about 1/10th of it. Do you have any idea how big Australia is?”
Check this map on rainfall deficiency. At a rough guess I would say that represents more than 90% of the continent that is non-deficient.
But perhaps you meant that only 10% was in drought?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/drought.shtml#map1
SJT,
Your comments on climate in Australia are as unreasoned as some of the tripe that is coming out of Penny Wong’s office.
Get out of your ivory tower and just go for a drive across this great country (yes, I do know how big it is) and take in some basic observation, talk to some locals, appreciate the environment and your comprehension of our wonderful land may improve.
In the interim please spare us your uninformed comment.
Pikey.
Hey James – how are you Californian denialist scummies coping the year 3 or drought going to year 4.
We had a wet spring. Higher then normal rainfall in April and May threw a monkey wrench in Arnold’s February declaration of drought emergency.
Dude’s a little quick to shoot – the steroids does that to a fellow.
If you look at the news reports on
http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/archive/
you’ll see the narative change. Let me highlight.
Of course the facts changing doesn’t bother the New Scientists narative.
They’re convinced the tropics are expanding and that is making California semi arid .
Funny but I have an Atlas from 1968 that tells me California is a semi arid climate.
Seems like New Scientists are a bit behind the times.
I know where they went wrong. Sacramento’s average rainfall when averaged over the entire record which dates from the 1890’s comes to 18 inches.
When it’s warmer due to the PDO and El Nino we get a lot of rain. The eighties and nineties were warm so we got more then normal rainfall. In the year 2001 the PDO shifted so now were getting less rain.
Lately the NCDC and to a greater extent the media, driven by the push to support the global warming movement, have tossed the old average based on the full record and adopted a truncated 30 year average which they gradually moved forward until lighting on 1971-2000 which gives the highest annual average possible, 19.89 inches. And there the record is stuck.
Now our normal rain totals are measured against the highest thirty year period and if they don’t measure up – we get gov websites calling that a drought.
It’s a gimmick.
Hey luke and sod and PB and the other flurries, how about a game of noughts and crosses;
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend
I love these graphs.
trend lines without data. is this showing all your understanding of data handling?
real data will make your claims look even more foolish.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/hadsst-highest-values-since-1998/
We had a wet spring. Higher then normal rainfall in April and May threw a monkey wrench in Arnold’s February declaration of drought emergency.
Dude’s a little quick to shoot – the steroids does that to a fellow.
If you look at the news reports on
http://www.water.ca.gov/drought/archive/
you’ll see the narative change. Let me highlight.
the US drought monitor must have missed your “change”. why not educate them?
http://drought.unl.edu/dm/archive.html
I fully agree with the writer who said the graph showed a too short a period of time. There is a graph making the rounds where the rises in temp and CO2 from 1840 to 2000 go up like rockets because the y-axis is scrunched. A better graph would be that of the Vostok Ice Cores which shows that temperature rises 800 years before CO2 rises (presumably due to oceanic outgassing. As for recent warmth. I live in North America, in NewEngland. July is normally our warmest month of the year (with the heat breaking the first or second week of September. Normaly I would sleep without bedclothes or blankets. I’ve used a blanket about 15 nights this July. We could use Australia’s winter heat.
I also checked the US drought monitor mentioned by the previous poster. It shows a drought in Kentucky and Tennessee for January and Feb of this past year. I guess it really was very dry–an ice storm had blanketed the area, bad enough to cut through power lines, isolate people in unheated houses for two weeks (the national guards in both states were mobilized to clear downed power lines and line workers were called in from as far away as Canada) etc.
As to CA, drought in southern california is normal; that’s why the state is trying to grab all the water from the Colorado river. Watch the movie “Chinatown” for details of local CA politics.
And the reason why the Central Valley is dessicating–well that’s normal too. It only used to be the sources of most of our veges and fruits because its sundrenched landscape was irrigated, but the EPA decided the irrigation threatened a fish, so now they have 30% unemployment and the price of fresh produce will skyrocket.
As usual sod your comments are unreliable and misleading although anyone who reads the lucia post will see that the SST spike is not straightforward, but I have already commented on this above and it needs to be remembered that PDO phases feature occasional strong reversions; but as to SST and this most recent level being the highest that is not quite right;
http://i30.tinypic.com/2h7qpw6.png
It must have been dreadful for our aboriginals, living in drought, here in Qld, for up to 40,000 years.
Like the Califorinan pollies, [& many others], we have a new qualifier for drought. Any Queenslanders would have been giving thanks, when the lovely Ms Bleigh turned up on TV, [wot again] telling us the dams were at 70%, so THE DROUGHT WAS OVER.
This was not the first time I had got a sniff that such twisting of the language was in the wings. Luke let slip a foretaste, when he gave us some bull about it being the run off that counted for a drought, not the rain.
So now we know. Even if the poor buggers were clinging to a log, getting washes out to sea, they were still in a drought. A drought can only be over, [Anna style] when the dams get up near full.
Just as well. It would be a pity if someone were to blame the pollies lack of infrastructure building, rather than god, for a shortage of water in the cities taps.
I see no reply as yet from Sod on my comment on his post of July 21 at 3.24 pm. – I asked (July 22) why he did not show both trend lines for his CO2 and temperature curves and why he did not do basic regressions on his data. I have reverted to his data and clearly sod has had all his fat fingers in the cooky jar not once but again and again. As Cohenite has just sagely put it: “As usual sod your comments are unreliable and misleading”. Here is proof positive that he is wholly untrustworthy:
1. Using his “scaling” of the data for CO2 at Mauna Loa has the effect of raising its log-linear growth rate by a factor of more than ten. Well done!
2. Plotting the year on year changes in Sod’s unmassaged CO2 data http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ against his Hadley temperature anomalies we find there is indeed a negative trend in the latter (1995-2008), as noted by Senator Fielding.
3. This is confirmed by the negative regression coefficient on monthly changes in Sod’s anomaly T against his unadjusted monthly changes in CO2.
There are lies, damned lies, and the statistics of climate change believers.
Jen Said: “But I start the piece and title the piece with what I consider the new information including that: “I GATHER Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of Australia’s right of centre party, the Australian Liberal Party, is planning to instruct his senators to support the Emissions Trading Scheme…”
Could it be that Malcolm will profit from Carbon Credit Trading?
http://agmates.ning.com/group/climatscepticsparty/forum/topics/will-malcolm-turnbull-profit
Hasbeen – 40,000 years would not be drought. Drought is not aridity in climate. Droughts are the exception not the norm – unless of course your climate has changed – hahahahaha – see southern Australia.
Also there is a separate phenomenon of hydrological drought vis a vis meteorological drought. So go bite ya bum.
http://www.irimet.net/irimo/drought/4.pdf
Hey Luke,
Are you serious, or are you back on the yippy weed?
Pray inform an old Bushey from back of Barellan what is meant by:
” hydrological drought vis a vis meterological drought.”
This is getting crazier by the posting.
Pikey.
Hey Ron,
Luke wasn’t serious, he missed “hydrometeorological drought.”
Such carelessness should find him struck off from the bloggers list!
Ron, he’s talking about how full the reservoirs are;/ or in some cases how full the subterrainian aquafer is. – over half full in Sacramento’s case.
It doesn’t matter much. With the El Nino brewing we’ll be topped off come next winter anyhow.
Lordy me we discuss some trivia.
Meteorological drought is an unusual lack of rainfall compared to the long term median. Something like a year or more of decile one or percentile 5. It’s not being in an arid environment.
Meteorological drought often causes hydrological drought (lack of river inflows) and agricultural drought (lack of soil water). If it goes long enough you’ll get regional socio-economic drought.
But hydrological drought often lags simple meteorological drought, may not happen at all, or sometimes you can have OK pastures – green pick – but still little river water.
So yes spanglers you “can” have hydrological drought without a general drought.
Why ? coz hydrological system lags, antecedent conditions i.e. dry as a bone catchments take a long while to wet up.
And in northern Australia sometimes a large late wet season rain will cause massive grass growth but the ecosystem runs out of nitrogen – and as cattle feed there is said to be a “protein drought” (among a sea of grass). e.g. http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nt/stories/s704888.htm But I just added this this annoy Pike-machine coz he’s just so tedious in his bushey role.
Still no response from sod – but I see he has found the time to be busy at Deltoid. He and Luke are birds of a feather, always economical with the truth.
Luke,
What the horizontal dancing in the world does all that tripe have to do with anything?
NEVER have I heard a greater load of bureaucratic jargon designed only to obfuscate and mislead. Then to avoid what are very simple responses to practical problems.
Mate, when it don’t rain, the grass don’t grow.
If the grass don’t grow de stock dem die.
When dat happenin, den the river don’t flow.
When de river don’t flow, we all go no water.
Well bugger dat!
Luke you nut. Stop trying to be a 5 minute expert in areas where you have no knowledge or experience, by reading media headlines.
Stick to something about which you have some knowledge, because you are lookig sillier by the day.
Pikey.
Well Luke, if you can have all those different droughts, I’ll take a few too.
How about A bull dust drought from;
1/ The greenies;
2/ The academics;
3/ The bureaucrats; & I guess it would be too much to hope for:
4/ The bl@@dy pollies.
Well stupids – these are all the arguments that bludging farmers like yourselves have made up to get billions in drought aid over the years. BILLIONS over decades.
Of course guys like who love to capitalise gains and socialise losses – the great so-called “conservative” wing of Aussie politics who have never had it so good with subsidies and schemes.
But we know what your game is – you’d like no definitions – so of course you can have your hand in the till every year or so. We know you have one finger on the scales when you weigh your produce.
Then tell us that the drought is normal. And you have it sussed.
The great whinging bludging rural aristocracy. You wouldn’t even have it if daddy hadn’t given it to you on a plate.
About now – you’ll claim you’ve never had any handouts and don’t know of anyone who has. Pardon me while we go and have a big barf in the corner.
So goosesteppers – you’ve made the game rules – how would you like to define drought?
Come on – put up…
And I had to see it to believe it:
“If the grass don’t grow de stock dem die.”
So here is MR sustainability himself advocating the old “no destocking” principle. That great antediluvian principle of landscape management guaranteed to turn your rangeland into the Middle East. Pikey – just another old flogger.
So here we have the example of the scummiest form of drought – the self-induced “management drought”. The “bad managers’ drought system” to which you obviously subscribe.
Luke, I knew there was some reason why I had stopped reading your posts.
The last 2 brilliant efforts of yours, the first I have read for some time, reminded me what a small nasty twit you can be.
Try to lift your game mate, you aren’t making the grade right now.
As usual sod your comments are unreliable and misleading although anyone who reads the lucia post will see that the SST spike is not straightforward, but I have already commented on this above and it needs to be remembered that PDO phases feature occasional strong reversions; but as to SST and this most recent level being the highest that is not quite right;
i do not think that i made the claim that it is the hottest. and el Nino is just starting to have an effect.
Great stuff sod. But I have two queries, (1) why did you show only the trend line for Temps, and not for CO2 @ Mauna Loa? – perish the thought that the trend for the latter is above yours, suggesting weakening temp response to CO2?
i linked to woodfortrees. feel free to add what ever you want. the obvious truth is, that the display in the Fielding graph is massively misleading. not a single “sceptic” here has so far demonstrated the slightest scepticism towards that utterly false graph!
(2) why don’t you use regression analysis to produce a regression coefficient for Temps on CO2? The equation I get (data from 1959 to 2008) is
dTemp = -.20561 + .151778(dCO2). (t= 4.79, SE 0.03, F = 22.95, p-value 1.70001E-05)
The adj R2 is .3134, confirming Senator Fielding’s view that increases in CO2 are not the only determining factor, in fact it accounts for less than 33% of observed changes in temperature; the Durbin-Watson is well above 2, so no obvious auto correlation (as there is if you take absolute values for Temps and CO2).
you are showing your usual lack of reading capacity. what Fielding says in the caption of that graph is: “CO2 is rising… but global temperature is n t rising!”
and that is simply false.
if you think that a short term increase in CO2 is not the only determining factor, then be my guest! that is what we all think.
OK sod, notwithstanding Tim’s correct analysis I’ll say that Senator Fielding’s graph should have commenced in 1998; 1998 is definitely the beginning of the new climate phase where there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature at all; not anything, no masking as per Keenlyside, no Easterling, no delay in effect from AGW as per Meehl, no AGW at all; why don’t you apply your great statistical insight into critiquing this;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650
feel free to call on your Deltoid chums; if you can drag them away from persecuting this poor Ray fellow.
The great whinging bludging rural aristocracy. You wouldn’t even have it if daddy hadn’t given it to you on a plate.
Wait a minute, Luke.
Your government lets you own property? to be handed down to the next generation?
Glory, hallelujah. Can you use the property as you like, sell it, build improvements, clear it for the plow?
Man that must be great. Wish they’d do that here.
Here the government eraces your father, and your father’s father, confiscating their property as soon as they are dead, and transfering it to their banking stooges. And while you are living they tell you exactly when to get off. Here. and the obverse .
OK sod, notwithstanding Tim’s correct analysis I’ll say that Senator Fielding’s graph should have commenced in 1998; 1998 is definitely the beginning of the new climate phase where there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature at all; not anything, no masking as per Keenlyside, no Easterling, no delay in effect from AGW as per Meehl, no AGW at all; why don’t you apply your great statistical insight into critiquing this;
http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650
neither is there any correlation between CO2 and the temperature i experienced yesterday.
the general rule is, not to use a statistical tool that you don t understand. finding a flat step on some stairs for example, will not contradict the fact that it is going UP.
starting a trend in 1997 or 1998 is not a good idea. a simple method to test this, is by changing the start year up or down. both 1996 and 1999 will give a real upward trend. your result is seriously influenced by the choice of starting date.
no “chow-test” can absolve you from using a useful period while looking at climate.
Oh wow! Just when you thought no-one could get more stupid than the “global warming stopped in 1998” crowd, along comes someone who thinks that the physical properties of CO2 actually changed in 1998! Good work, cohenite!
And Sod as I keep reminding Coho – the chow paper approach has all the usual sceptic trademarks – avoid the mainstream climate journals (at all costs) and any review of current practitioners in matters decadal.
Hasbeen,
It is that 40,000 years of ” negative warming ” which I find a worry.
Reading of naked maidens plowing fields and frogs being married off in India to make it rain.
Seeing just where in Australia it is very dry , right here in the flattest place on earth
( The Riverina ) -Flat because it all got covered up in that 40,000 yrs of non-drought dryness when the rain did not come to break the non-droughty dry.
I note that one of the Japanese advisory panel on IPCC also had the thought.
A little reading here from 1974 ,could be today’s news. Remembering that we are going into a “non-warming” phase until 2020.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
SJT, Lake Eyre Basin is 1/5 of mainland OZ, and I am looking at a mate’s pics of floods in TAS.
Better stick to the 1/10 you know about .
Well Luke,
You will be pleased to know that I will not be posting for a week or so. Off to the Snowy for some skiing and poetry reciting.
So while I am away here is a little homework for you.
He who knows all about farm management.
Farmer Luke DeKnowall owns 6,000 acres west of Barellan.
He uses best present practice to plant 2,000 acres of winter crop each year.
He runs 2,000 merino ewes he mates to Border Leister rams for lambing in April, May.
He is very conservately stocked.
It is 16 inch rainfall with records for the last 150 years.
These show that while rainfall is highly variable there is no obvious pattern.
It is winter effective rainfall, but rains occur most months.
There is no climate agency that can give him any reliable predictions outside of 7 days. Even El Nino and La nina predictions at this stage are highly inaccurate.
He has conserved 150 tonnes of clover hay in the previous good year and has 150 tonnes of oats stored in silos.
These are the known facts. Now here is the exercise.
Farmer Luke DeKnowall has just sold the lambs from last years drop to restockers at the Wagga sale as normal. Wethers to fatteners and 1st.X ewes to fat lamb breeders.
It is April and there has been no Autumn rain to start the clover and winter grasses.
Luke is feeding the ewes oats ever other day.
It is now May.
1: Should Luke begin planting his crops dry on the expectation of rain?
It is now June and Luke is feeding his now lambing ewes with both oats and hay.
2: Should Luke try sell lambing ewes?
3: Should Luke now plant winter crop dry?
Now July and there has been a few showers but not sufficient to start the season. Getting late for planting.
Sheep being hand fed every day and ewes losing some body weight.
Lambing finished and all lambs marked and innoculated.
Drought now declared across S.E. Aus.
4: Time for final decision on planting. What should Luke do?
5: Should Luke try to sell ewes and lambs into a now non existent market?
There is plenty of feed in SW WA but transport costs far exceed stock value.
Below average rainfall continues through Spring and into early Summer.
Luke knows that any rain now will be largely useless as far as feed for his sheep is concerned.
He is resigned to no crop income for this year.
Feeding is a demanding daily chore, water is running low in some of his dams and his hay and oats will only last until May or June.
6: Should Luke mate his ewes again?
7: Should Luke now try to sell or keep feeding until a likey Autumn break in the weather?
By May Luke will have exhausted his available cash, but will need to somehow pay for more stockfeed and for the winter crop inputs.
8: Should Luke hang in there?
After all his records tell him that on average he should receive an average autumn and winter rainfall
The unfinished part of this story is that by May the creeks and dams could be overflowing, or it may not have rained at all.
9: Just what should Luke decide for his stock?
10: and for his families future, before he knows what the future holds?
Luke, for months you have claimed that farmers should be able to use some non-existent forcasting to make business decissions, better than they now do.
Please tell us just what utopian crystal ball you have to answer the questions posed above, that is better than what farmers now do.
Pikey
Bit touchy eh Pikey – obviously been having your fair share of drought aid. And can’t be too hard a life eh – off for skiing and POETRY reciting. Woo hoo.
But anyway – what’s your soil types, how much feed have you on the ground now, how flogged is your block, how much vegetated and with what. And how much cash on-hand have you in the bank and what’s your off-farm income.
Cop out Luke.
Just showing your ignorance.
Pikey.
Luke,
Have managed a few more minutes, so will play along with the game for a bit.
The land is undulating red soil plains, typical of the western riverina wheatbelt.
Prior to settlement it carried scattered black cypress and some grey box.
Originally, mostly open grassland.
By the 1930s & 40s it was very eroded and over cropped. A result of rabbit infestation and then farming practices.
By the late 40s skeleton weed infested most of the cropping land to the point that farming was uneconomical.
In the mid 1950s the whole area was contour banked on a layout by the NSW Soil Conservation Service. This included fenced and grassed waterways for run-off.
The land was then planted to sub clover and topdressed with Super phosphate every second year for some time.
As part of this improvement, tree windbreaks were also established.
As soil nutrients and structure improved the skeleton weed gradually disappeared and cropping recommenced.
Since then cropping has been on a rotational basis with a clover dominate ley period of about 3 to 4 years, between cropping.
Both soil structure and nutrient levels have continued to improve.
In general the farm has been managed to best present practice.
With the advent of more effective herbicides and planting machinery able to seed direct into stubble, crop residues have been retained now for 3 years.
The farmer has no off farm income and operates on a bank overdraft of $240,000 he enters this exercise with the overdraft drawn to -$150,000.
Pikey.
Pikey,
Only $150,000 You must’ve got the plane and the 09 Statesman cheap. Or aren’t you an average cocky ? Please do not let the rural sector down and pick up old mate in a ute, he was looking forward to the plane ride. Poor old Pat may even be popped in one of those non air conditioned utes, favoured by some big Agri-companies,for employees in hot places.
Ian,
Luke thinks I still drive a sulky with a horse.
Pikey.
Pikey – obviously you’re a good operator, I’d be curious to know how your soil pH is going – do you ever use lime – and what windbreaks are for. – wind erosion, protection for sheep, or evaporation reduction.
I only asked your bank account to rev you up – didn’t really want to know.
But do you use Farm Management Deposits – in the good times and when forced to destock did you use farm management deposits FMDs – interest earned with no tax paid until money is brought into circulation.
I would ask how many times you’ve been here before and objectively what worked.
You could sell and be glad to sell – or agist and make money from someone else’s misfortune.
You should set some sell-down or move dates and stick to it.
You should be getting all long lead forecast information from all sources – http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au , BoM, NOAA, IRI http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=580&mode=2
You would have a copy of this software http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/rainman/ and have your own 150 years of data worked up in it.
You’d know what the seasonal rainfall probabilities are for various forecast methods. And you would know whether any forecasts you’d consider had “skill” and/or statistical significance in your location at the current time.
You would have a couple of whiteboards and spreadsheet with some what-ifs and partial hedging decisions on sell and agisting. You would be tracking the drought in with a reaction plan.
You would also be prepared to be wrong – all forecasts are probabilistic not deterministic 8 out of 10 means 2 times in 10 won’t go with you.
And this might even be the first time you try it.
Longer term you would be asking yourself at what point you think the climate has changed (either naturally or anthropogenic). Is the business still viable.
But do you want to be spoon fed? I thought you cockies wanted to be autonomous….
Clearly I’m little practical help to you – but I can offer you some decision tools. You’d know your block better than anyone (well you should do).
Luke is such a nice guy. Show us how you would do better than Pike using Apsim for his area – and publish your results.
Poor little Timmy the data fiddler. This is fiddler the diddler Timmy who would tell Pikey that any yield improvement on his property was due to CO2 – wasn’t Pikey management, agrochemicals or improved agronomy. And Pikey should know that in the event of a drought – you just add CO2 – no need for water. hahahahahahaha
OK Timmy – you’re on – we’ll need 10 years for a valid seasons sample and you’ll have to convince Pikey to convert his property into a research trial. But given you are Timmy the CO2 diddler who’ll engage in any shell game to prove a point, you would realise that Apsim is used with farmers – not against them. But you’d want to use GRASSGRO for that part of the world for sheep. But you wouldn’t know that would you. http://www.csiro.au/resources/grassgro.html or perhaps Ausfarm if you have a mixed enterprise.
And thanks for bringing up DSS if you want to get all sophstamuckated as you will get more skill running a crop or pasture model with a rainfall forecast than rainfall alone. But again smarties use these tools to explore options rather than opt out of the decision making process completely. And Timmy the developers have spent hundreds of hours with producers cooperatively not antagonistically. Not something a loophole like you would understand. Pikey may have even been in a trial or two – who knows.
Luke as expected you have avoided every question.
You are so full of Bulldust it is you who needs a lime injection.
Maybe epsom salts would be better.
Your response is an insult to any present day farmer.
Do not have time for detail, but how about you spend the next week giving us your considered responses to the questions I proposed.
Must be off, will look again in a week.
Pikey
Pikey I could easily pose same question to you about an irrigated cotton property or a northern Australian beef operation. And you’d be floundering. I’m not claiming to be an expert in your particular operation in some shitty part of mid-NSW. Why should I be? And indeed you posed the exact questions poorly.
All I could derive given we now IN JULY was a sell or feed decision on animals.
You’ve more or less said the cropping opportunity is over.
I gave you an answer of sell now or set some sell down dates, and asked you about agistment (no response). You also haven’t told us what genetics you have invested if any and any special reasons for retention?
You complained about climate forecasts – you got the best advice you could get. And how you could formally test you own rainfall records.
Unfortunately most forecasts in your part of the world currently seem close to climatology (no strong probabilities of one way or the other – despite an El Nino brewing out there in the background.
There are NO “highly accurate” seasonal forecasts – they’re 6-7 out of 10 things at best. 7.5-8 is probably the best you can ever eventually get due to chaos. If you don’t like those number blame God not BoM.
Given your disingenuous reaction then can I assume you just wing it. No records. No track record. No admission of past errors. So we can probably assume you’re inefficient as anything and it’s now just a tax dodging hobby that Daddy left you. Am I correct?
And you’re just floating around on semi-retired holiday most of the time. So stressful.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25837214-11949,00.html
“Consistent rain throughout most of NSW has had little impact, with almost two thirds of the state still in drought.”
Back to the Liberals and the ETS, here is my offering at Harry Clark’s still “awaiting moderation” after close to 10 hours – could it be that Harry has joined Quiggin, Brook, Lambert, Hansen and Paul Krugman in adding me to the climate Ayatollahs’ fatwa list?
26th July to Harry Clark:
“Harry: I would be glad if you would explain to me why it makes sense for the world to reduce anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 by the amounts proposed by the G8, by 80 per cent of 2000 levels for developed countries, and 60 per cent globally. The Government sees the ETS as the first step to Australia meeting the G8’s proposed targets for adoption at Copenhagen in December. That means global emissions should by 2050 and forever after be no more than 3.3 GtC, which is 40 per cent of baseline emissions in 2000, which were 8.16 billion tonnes of carbon (GtC).
If the Copenhagen target is achieved, it means that global anthropogenic CO2 emissions will by 2050 be less than the current annual uplift of emissions by the global biota (mostly oceanic and land plants) which was 5.3 GtC in July 2006-June 2007 (www.globalcarbonproject.org, funny that Raupach & Le Quere do not put up post-June 2007 data, surely not because it demolishes Raupach & Canadell’s claims of “weakening” if not “saturated” biota sinks, perish the thought!) This annual uplift of CO2 by plant life manifests itself in the annual increase in global forestry, fish and food crop production reported by the FAO (as well as in the still on-going growth of corals in the GBR), and it has accounted for no less than 57 per cent of total emissions between 1958 and 2008.
None of the IPCC’s scientists, including its Australian contributors like Pep Canadell and Mike Raupach at CSIRO and Will Steffen at ANU, has explained why the world should reduce emissions to 40 per cent of the 2000 level when uplifts average 57 per cent of ongoing post-2000 emissions. Steffen presides over the ANU’s Climate Change Institute, which is having an Open Day (27 July). Like a Madrassa with its singular and undebatable view of the world, this Institute steadfastly refuses either to admit that the uplifts are growing (from 2.3 GtC in 1959-60 to about 6 GtC now) or to inform us what the impact of reducing emissions to below the uplift rate will be on world food supply, and neither features in the Open Day’s Lecture Programme. There are other scientists, but it would not be good for their health to name them, especially not those at the ANU, who are aware that the “partial” atmospheric pressure of CO2 plays a crucial role in plant growth, and that cutting emissions will reduce that pressure with intolerable consequences for global food production and living standards.
Again, Harry, please explain (1) why it will be a Good Thing to reduce emissions to below the current average uptake rate of 57% of emissions, and (2) why you and the even more credulous Quiggins and Steffens of this globe cannot see that biotic uptakes already virtually achieve the G8 target of 60% cut in gross emissions?
Ah, I forgot, the latent racism of most of not all white Australians, Americans and Europeans. It would not take that much (compared to CCS and the like) to raise African cereal yields to North American norms, and that would be enough to bring uplifts to more than 60% of emissions. But they are blacks, why should we lift a finger to raise their standard of living, while imposing G8 targets on them will have the much more satisfying consequence of plunging them deeper into poverty and low life expectancy (as desired by John Holdren no less), by raising their energy costs and reducing their harvests (although ANU’s Steffen says yields have nothing to do with CO2).
Once again Harry, please explain why you and the economics profession have never grasped – and are not prepared to consider papers showing this – that ALL the IPCC, Stern, Garnaut et al projections of increases in atmospheric CO2 in this century are based on the Wigley-Enting-Canadell assumptions that the global biota is or very soon will be totally saturated with CO2, so not a single extra tomato or rose in your garden Harry will ever grow, let alone new trees on your favourite golf courses.
Harry, seriously, please explain the serial dishonesty/stupidity of all “scientific” advisers who propose emission reduction targets to below the natural uptake level. Surely it cannot be that they realise people like Rudd, Obama, Brown et al. are utterly credulous of all bullshit emanating from them when all they can do is salivate about the next round of research grants and tickets to Bonn/Potsdam/Copenhagen?”
Cooling? I don’t think so
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2598/3988433158_284648e4eb_o.png